I enjoyed the book, although I did not agree with all of it.
There are part of the book that seem unnecessarily mean, like this:
Modern day feminism is an ugly beast (not unlike most feminists) that has served as the primary vehicle for the destruction of the Nuclear Family.
Did that jab add anything to the book? There are also passages where people with differing values to the author (and Hoppe) are dismissed as not being true libertarians
Real libertarians—in contrast to left-libertarian fakes—must study and take account of real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy of social change, and even the most cursory study in this regard—indeed, little more than common sense—yields results completely opposite from those proposed by libertarian fakes. (Hoppe)
One refreshing part of the libertarian community is that it attracts people with very different terminal values and meta-ethics: libertarianism is powerful exactly because it allows each person to chose for themselves. A socially-conservative Christian and a socially-progressive utilitarian atheist can both agree that it is the optimal way for humans to live, despite having different values.
The author puts it nicely
In an anarcho-capitalist society, anyone can live in any way they see fit so long as they refrain from committing aggression as previously defined. If they would like to voluntarily pool their property with others to form mutualist enclaves, conservative covenants, or socialist communes, then such is their prerogative. The greatest variety of lifestyles are permitted under an overarching anarcho-capitalist legal system.
Of course this is an alt-right book as well as a libertarian one, so I should not be surprised that the author is trying to promote their own values (different to mine in some places).
I did like the discussion on immigration and free borders, and the author’s proposed changes (I believe something similar is discussed in Posner and Weyl’s Radical Markets (the Visas Between Individuals Program) although I am not sure if the details differ.
Foreword (by Hoppe)
Rothbardian libertarianism (austro-libertarianism). Anti-LVT. Land goes to the first appropriator of the resource. Author sums up the theory with: Absent a perfect harmony of interests, clashes regarding scarce resources can only be avoided through private property. Pure theory not enough if we care about bringing about a libertarian society: We need empirical study. Hoppe then puts “alternative lifestyles” in scare quotes, and says left-libertarians promote affirmative action. Who? Which ones? Also: free immigration and openness, sure. Then says that all great libertarian thinkers are western men, Christian, English speaking, therefore immigration of non westerners will erode our freedoms. I understand the point he is trying to make, about a tradition of individualism, (being very generous). He also seems to suggest that IQ is higher in these societies, which excludes, I presume, East-Jewish and Asian populations. Suggests that SJW, anti-discrimination cements the place of the state, by removing right of discrimination from private groups etc., therefore must be fought against.
What Anarcho-Capitalism is (by the author now)
Property is a normative concept, it allows conflicts over the use of scarce resources to be resolved. Only homesteading rights (ie. first person gets the land) can avoid conflict ‘from the beginning of mankind onward’ because any other way would involve it being taken from some previous owner (conflict). Ancap is not utopian, it will not eliminate hardship or crime, it is simply the best system, not a perfect one.
Overall standard libertarian ancap view of the state. Fine.
The libertarian case against open borders
The essay looks at ‘second best’ solutions for immigration are, excluding the ‘best case’ of ancap (which eliminates the problem by eliminating the state). Basic idea is that tax payers are the owners of state property, and immigration is then trespassing on that land, and is unjustly imposed on citizens with no choice on their side. Their solution is that each land owner citizen can invite immigrants and must cary liability insurance, since they are responsible for their actions. Immigrants get no welfare or use of public anything, only the private property supplied by the inviter. They can become a citizen by buying land! (how much?）This corresponds to a citizen agreeing to a foreigner staying permanently, it also makes sure he has skin in the game in this new country.
The above was very interesting to me, as someone who is drawn to (but not convinced of) free immigration and LVT, which are the opposite of the above thinking. One difficulty I had with the arguments is the case of children and other non tax-payers in the country. If an immigrant coming to the country can be considered a trespasser, then surely a baby is in the same situation? The ability for a citizen to invite, even permanent, an immigrant, could be considered the same as a parent deciding to give birth. This may resolve the issue. All in all, an interesting idea that I would like to think about further.
For a libertarian alt-right (l561)
(the largest part of the book) Alt-right as a cultural movement, libertarianism as a political/economic one, both should combine and work together. The source and importance of the nuclear family (Alt-right likes family, traditional western values, white race, personal responsibility, low time preference) Importance of common culture for prosperous civilization, importance of nationalism, ability to discriminate. Genetic basis for the white race (especially men) as the origin of liberal thought, most libertarians are white men – this is probably the most controversial part of the book, along with the section on immigration (and the cover for some reason). The issue of the state weakening peoples self-responsibility by supporting them when they make a mistake (overly large family for example) – externalizing others mistakes onto the tax payer, while also incentivising them to make more mistakes. Libertarianism does not require ‘rugged individualism’, people can still form groups and help each other.
There are part of the book that seem unnecessarily mean, like the jab at feminists. There are many passages where people with differing values to the author (and Hoppe) are dismissed as not being true libertarians. The section and the back about the contreversy over the cover (I did not know about this before reading it) was especially depressing. Libertarianism as I have encountered it is usually open to debate, charitable in argument, welcoming of differing values and new ideas. Clearly, nowhere is free of drama and the usual tribe dynamics can be found in all communities.
The theory provides a simple, argumentatively irrefutable (without running into contradictions) answer to one of the most important questions in the entire field of the social sciences: How can human beings, “real persons,” having to act in a “real world” characterized by the scarcity of all sorts of physical things, interact with each other, conceivably from the beginning of mankind until the end of human history, peacefully, i.e., without physically clashing with one another in a contest or fight concerning the control of one and the same given thing? Put briefly, the answer is this: Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, clashes regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group of individuals. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and I ever clashing.
Loc:16 The right to exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if the right to exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but, contrary to the very purpose of norms, made unavoidable and permanent. > Rothbard was anti-LVT I recall
When we look at the real world we cannot but notice that it is distinctly different from a libertarian social order. And yet the libertarian theory in itself does not entail an answer as to why this is so—except to conclude that people apparently are not intelligent or willing enough to recognize and embrace its truth—and consequently, how to actually achieve the ultimate libertarian end of a Stateless society from some distinctly un-libertarian starting point. Nor does the theory imply much if anything concerning the question of how to maintain a libertarian social order once achieved and make it sustainable. To answer these questions pure theory is insufficient and must be complemented by empirical study. One must turn from pure theory to human history, psychology and sociology.
The acceptance of this belief in the empirical equality and hence, the interchangeability, substitutability and replace-ability of all people and all groups of people, has led many libertarians—the now so-called “left”-libertarians—to endorse and promote the very same agenda pursued presently, more or less vigorously, by the ruling elites all across the Western World (are they all secretly libertarians?): of multi-culturalism, unrestricted “free” immigration, “non-discrimination,” “affirmative action” and “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative lifestyles.”
Real libertarians—in contrast to left-libertarian fakes—must study and take account of real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy of social change, and even the most cursory study in this regard—indeed, little more than common sense—yields results completely opposite from those proposed by libertarian fakes. > I get the exact opposite impression of left-libertarians. They are trying for real, gradual change.
Viewed from a global macro-perspective, it should be obvious also (especially to a libertarian), that all great libertarian thinkers which successively and gradually built up the system of libertarian law and order have been “Western Men”, i.e., men born and raised in countries of Western and Central Europe or their various overseas dependencies and settlements and intellectually and culturally united by a common lingua franca (once Latin and now English) and the trans-national Catholic Church or, more lately and vaguely, a common Christianity. That it is in these Western societies, where libertarian principles have found the most widespread public acceptance and explicit recognition as “natural human rights.” That, notwithstanding their blatant shortcomings and failings, it is Western societies, then, that still resemble, comparatively speaking, a libertarian social order most closely. And finally (unsurprisingly insofar as the widespread recognition and explicit acceptance of the NAP by the members of a society are signs of a comparatively high(er) intelligence and impulse control) that it is these societies, then, that also are the technologically and economically most advanced.
These observations alone should be sufficient to reveal any libertarian advocate of “free,” unrestricted and non-discriminatory immigration of non-Westerners into the countries of the West as a fool. Every such immigrant—not to speak of mass-immigration—poses the risk of further diminishing and undermining the already limited freedom and private property protection presently enjoyed in the West.
It is, however, important to note that private ownership of a good does not necessarily entail it is owned only by a single individual. Two or more people may be partial/joint private owners of a scarce good (as is the case with corporations, co-ops, partnerships… etc.). To privately own something simply means having an exclusive right to utilize, occupy, or employ it, whereas there exist non-owners who have no such right. A “right” simply refers to that which one may justifiably employ force to defend or seek retribution for its violation. > Private cities with LVT is fine, like a mall
With regard to the purpose of conflict avoidance, however, the institution of private property is definitely not just a convention, because no alternative to it exists. Only private (exclusive) property makes it possible that all otherwise unavoidable conflicts can be avoided. And only the principle of property acquisition through acts of original appropriation, performed by specific individuals at a specific time and location, makes it possible to avoid conflict from the beginning of mankind onward, because only the first appropriation of some previously unappropriated good can be conflict-free—simply, because— per definitionem—no one else had any previous dealings with the good.3 > Hoppe
Recall, threats to initiate uninvited physical interference with the persons or property of others is considered aggression. Simply stated: taxation is theft. Thus, the State cannot make any attempts to protect the property of its citizenry without first violating it on a mass scale. Therein lies the State’s most glaring contradiction. > If they were funded privately then would no longer be state by earlier definition
Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer, or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: “I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what specific things I will regard as your to-be-protected property, nor will I tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you —but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service.”
Another issue involved with taxation is that it manifests the economic calculation problem. Since the State’s revenue comes from theft, as opposed to voluntary patronage, it cannot determine the most economic ways to employ its “services”, ways which would otherwise be indicated by profits and losses. The State is invariably in a position where it must make arbitrary, therefore uneconomic, decisions regarding what products/services to offer, where to offer them, how to produce them, how much to produce, what materials to produce them with, etc. More disturbing still is the fact that, had such resources not been wasted on Statist objectives, they could have otherwise been allocated towards productive market ends.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, anyone can live in any way they see fit so long as they refrain from committing aggression as previously defined. If they would like to voluntarily pool their property with others to form mutualist enclaves, conservative covenants, or socialist communes, then such is their prerogative. The greatest variety of lifestyles are permitted under an overarching anarcho-capitalist legal system. > Thousand nations bloom etc
Anarcho-capitalism is not a utopian philosophy. No claim that crime or hardship will be eliminated is being made. Rather, what is being asserted is that an anarcho-capitalist legal system is superior to all others for the ends of peace, cooperation, and prosperity. That in this truly free market environment, the self-interests of individuals are harmoniously aligned with the welfare of greater society.
For a rational proof of the private property ethic, NAP, and self -ownership see Chapter 1 of A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society.
The heated disagreements concern what immigration policies most closely align with libertarian principles of justice given a Statist paradigm. Of course, no such policies will attain the purity of justice that would result from the absolute privatization of all public goods/services coupled with the elimination of the State. However, the purpose of this essay is to make a case for what the “next best” (a.k.a next most libertarian) solution is.
Ironically, the completely unrestricted “open State borders” position is a one size fits all statist solution that would be unjustly imposed upon all domestic tax-paying/property-owning citizens. > Or when giving birth?
It recognizes that domestic tax-payers/property-owners (and other victims of aggression by the State in question) are the legitimate joint private owners of all developed or improved upon State “public-property” and, as such, any uninvited foreign invader must necessarily be guilty of trespass (i.e. a property violation). Further, it takes the question of whether a particular foreigner should be welcome out of the hands of the State and places it into the hands of its respective individual property owning domestic citizens. This is a far more decentralized solution than the unconditional “open State borders” one.
If one had to identify the root of discord between libertarians on this topic, it would be their differing views on whether “public” property should be seen as unowned, or the private, albeit diffused, property of domestic net tax payers (and other net victims of the given State’s aggression).
by first generating the requisite funds via taxes. Thus, such “improved upon public property” belongs to the net tax payers who funded its development. It is they who can demonstrate a superior objective link between themselves and the goods in question with respect to foreigners whom the State in question has had no aggressive interaction.
Now, if the government excludes a person while there exists a domestic resident who wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion; and if the government admits a person while there exists no domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration.
the inviting party can dispose only of his own private property. Hence, the admission implies negatively—similarly to the scenario of conditional free immigration—that the immigrant is excluded from all publicly funded welfare. Positively, it implies that the receiving party assumes legal responsibility for the actions of his invitee for the duration of his stay. The invitor is held liable to the full extent of his property for any crimes the invitee commits against the person or property of any third party (as parents are held accountable for the crimes of their offspring as long as they are members of the parental household). This obligation, which implies practically speaking that invitors will have to carry liability insurance for all of their guests, ends once the invitee has left the country, or once another domestic property owner has assumed liability for the person in question (by admitting him onto his property). The invitation may be private (personal) or commercial, temporally limited or unlimited, concerning only housing (accommodation, residency) or housing and employment (but there cannot be a valid contract involving only employment and no housing). In any case, however, as a contractual relationship, every invitation may be revoked or terminated by the invitor; and upon termination, the invitee—whether tourist, visiting businessman, or resident alien—will be required to leave the country (unless another resident citizen enters an invitation contract with him).11
becoming a citizen means acquiring the right to stay in a country permanently, and a permanent invitation cannot be secured other than by purchasing residential property from a citizen resident. Only by selling real estate to a foreigner does a citizen indicate that he agrees to a guest’s permanent stay (and only if the immigrant has purchased and paid for real estate and residential housing in the host country will he assume a permanent interest in his new country’s well-being and prosperity).12
The third best option, then, is to impose border restrictions that one may predict, with relative certainty, are in accordance with how the vast majority of shares to State “public” property (a.k.a joint private property) would be voted if such a vote were allowed to occur. This would, at the very least, entail barring violent criminals from entry. Moreover, because the State’s victims are in fact the private, albeit diffused, property owners of what is mislabeled “public property”, one may conclude that it would be in accordance with their will to bar those openly hostile towards the institution of private property itself (e.g. socialists) from immigrating.
At the very least, one must recognize, in principle, that the billions who have not been victimized by a particular State have zero claim to its illegitimate property, whereas those who have been aggressed upon by said State do have a valid claim.
Thus, so long as the State and its illegitimate property are not privatized out of existence (the ideal solution), then the next best approximation of libertarian justice is to manage said property in a manner that is in accordance with the will of its victims (a.k.a the legitimate joint private owners thereof). To say otherwise only adds injury upon injury to the current set of a given State’s identifiable victims.
However, a policy of “joint owners may invite whoever they want to our joint private property, but must first acquire liability insurance for their invitees in order to assure restitution can be made to those who may have their persons or property violated by this foreign visitor” is likely far more agreeable to the private joint owners of so called “public” property, and is one that is far more decentralized as it gives each joint owner a large measure of individual discretion over its access.
12. Hoppe, “The Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0 13. Block, Walter E. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Mises Institute,30 July 2014, mises.org/library/immigration-reply-hoppe WELFARE USAGE. Households with one or more children.8
The focus of the Alt-Right has almost exclusively been a cultural one. They have correctly diagnosed the cultural ailments of society, yet many seem confused as to which political or economic principles are most conducive to setting Western civilization back on course to be the beacon of prosperity and progress it once was.
many libertarians have focused exclusively on sound political and economic principles, whilst neglecting or dismissing the role traditional Western values play in enabling their practical implementation in the real world. They seem to be under the delusion that, for instance, the cultural values of the average Afghan are no less conducive to one’s willingness to subscribe to libertarian and capitalist principles than the average American’s…etc. Such neglect has hamstrung the ability of many libertarians to move from the realm of theory to application. Tragically, in their naive and misguided attempt to prove their principles to be universally acceptable, they have compromised on the fundamentals to achieve a broader multicultural appreciation. Of course, when the ideological core is compromised, the philosophy itself loses its value as being sound, rational, and practical.
Many alt-righters are unaware of the concerted effort to pervert and “thicken” libertarianism, typically with the intent to make it more palatable to the Left. Some, like the self-described left-libertarians,
it has been correctly noted that the Alt-Right is far more united by what it is against than what it is for. It is against, and indeed it hates with a passion, the elites in control of the State, the MSM and academia. Why? Because they all promote social degeneracy and pathology. Thus, they promote, and the Alt-Right vigorously opposes, egalitarianism, affirmative action (aka “non-discrimination”), multiculturalism, and “free” mass immigration as a means of bringing multiculturalism about.
‘Millennial Woes’ (Colin Robertson) has thus aptly summarized the Alt-Right: ‘Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.1
should be added that the Alt-Right promotes Western Civilization and, by extension, the traditional Western values and institutions which undergird it. These include, but are not limited to (though some alt-righters may disagree): political individualism, rationalism, personal responsibility, low-time preference, capitalism, ingenuity, and the nuclear family. > Low - willing to wait. Low discounting of fuure value
One’s time preference refers to how much he values present consumption over future consumption. Someone with a relatively high time preference generally prefers to consume now as opposed to later, even if forgoing immediate consumption would result in a greater number and/or quality of future goods.
The technological invention, then, that solved the problem of a steadily emerging and re-emerging ‘excess’ of population and the attendant fall of average living standards was a revolutionary change in the entire mode of production. It involved the change from a parasitic lifestyle to a genuinely productive life. Instead of merely appropriating and consuming what nature had provided, consumer goods were now actively produced and nature was augmented and improved upon. This revolutionary change in the human mode of production is generally referred to as the ‘Neolithic Revolution’: the transition from food production by hunting and gathering to food production by the raising of plants and animals… The new technology represented a fundamental cognitive achievement and was reflected and expressed in two interrelated institutional innovations, which from then on until today have become the dominant feature of human life: the appropriation and employment of ground land as private property, and the establishment of the family and the family household.4 > Dewey
the most natural and obvious check (on population) seemed to be to make every man provide for his own children; that this would operate in some respect as a measure and guide in the increase of population, as it might be expected that no man would bring beings into the world, for whom he could not find the means of support; that where this notwithstanding was the case, it seemed necessary, for the example of others, that the disgrace and inconvenience attending such a conduct should fall upon the individual, who had thus inconsiderately plunged himself and innocent children in misery and want.—The > Malthus. Gov support weakens this effect of course
the extended family system has been responsible for crippling the creative and productive individual as well as repressing economic development. Thus, West African development has been impeded by the extended family concept that, if one man prospers, he is duty bound to share this bounty with a host of relatives, thus draining off the reward for his productivity and crippling his incentive to succeed, while encouraging the relatives to live idly on the family dole. > Rothbard
Assume a new next-door neighbor. This neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a ‘bad’ neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he turns his house into a ‘Freudenhaus,’ a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc.. Your life is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave. (So much for the libertarians who, in addition to their ‘live and let live’ ideal also hail the motto ‘respect no authority!’) > Private compound. Move away. Also loudness is an agression surely
The lesson? The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory—a tranquil, convivial social order—requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a ‘strong man’ and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order. > Not certain that is true
Loc:695 Nationalism, on the other hand, simply involves placing a premium on the interests of a particular nation defined as such. Once elucidated, it becomes clear that nationalism is quite natural and harmless. In the contemporary Western world, it is not only tolerated but encouraged for non-whites or people of non-Western descent to embrace a strong sense of nationalism. > Harmless??
the same such celebration when conducted by White people of European descent is scorned and severely ridiculed as “racist”, “supremacist”, “fascist”, “xenophobic” and a slew of other meaningless yet stigmatized leftist epithets. > No it isnt. Absurd. 4th july?
The question now becomes how to form and sustain a stateless nation? One solution is to form contractual covenant communities. When one purchases property in such a community, he does not acquire full ownership. His ownership, instead, is limited to the extent of the community’s covenant conditions. Such conditions may include prohibitions on certain types of public behavior such as lewdness, drug use, drinking, the promotion of aberrant sexual behavior… etc. They may also entail certain requirements relating to the upkeep of one’s lawn etc. Thus, if one violates these conditions, then legal action may be taken against him without violating his private property rights, or the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP). > Yep
has been hypothesized that European libertarian and individualistic cultures and institutions are the result of four socio-biological qualities: IQ, time-preference, testosterone, and psychopathy. It so happens that ethnic Europeans fall between the East Asians (China, Korea and Japan) at the higher end of the spectrum, and the Bushmen and Aboriginal Australians at the other (but far closer to the East Asians) on all these factors. For example, the average East Asian IQ is 110, for Europeans it is 100 and Bushmen average at just over 60. Having a relatively low time-preference and high IQ with moderate levels of testosterone and psychopathy has culminated in a general spirit which was described by Spengler as ‘Faustian’ in its restlessness.12
In America, an incredible 94% of libertarians are White (it is important to note that, unlike most other surveys that rely upon mere self-identification, participants were asked a series of policy questions to verify their libertarian bona fides) and 68% are male.14 Anyone who dismisses this as mere coincidence is either a liar or a useless idiot for the Left.
most if not all technical inventions, machines, tools and gadgets in current use everywhere and anywhere, on which our current living standards and comforts largely and decisively depend, originated with them [White people]. All other people, by and large, only imitated what they had invented and constructed first. All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the inventors’ products for free. > Not certain this is true, especially in the ancient world?
“Racism” is an obscure and elusive concept being made ever more broad and ambiguous by the Left. For the sake of clarity, all the different meanings and senses of the term, based on how it is generally applied, will be provided in the following: 1. Believing the races are different. [Reasonable] 2. Believing a distinct and prevailing culture tends to be associated with each race. (Of course, the same may be applied towards religion, geography, etc.) [Reasonable] 3. Believing certain cultures tend to yield greater material prosperity, scientific progress, and lower crime. That, by the transitive property, certain races as a whole tend to excel in these areas with respect to others. [Reasonable] 4. Believing culture has an impact on IQ, thus certain races have a higher/lower average IQ than others owing, in part, to cultural differences. [Reasonable] 5. Believing biology has an impact on one’s propensity to adopt certain cultural norms, and has a likewise impact on IQ. Believing the biological differences between races aren’t limited to mere skin color or physical body shape/structure, but that they tend to also include variations in mental capacity, testosterone levels, and the like. [Reasonable] 6. Having a professional or personal preference for the company of a particular race or races of people over others, other things being equal. [Reasonable] 7. (Subjectively) valuing a particular race of people over all others, other things being equal. [Reasonable] 8. Believing every member of a particular race shares the same set of cultural, political, moral, or religious beliefs. [Unreasonable and absurd] 9. Preferring the company or valuing every member of one race, over every member of another [Unreasonable] 10. Believing every member of one race is mentally/physically superior to every member of another [Unreasonable and absurd] It should be unequivocally stated that only meanings 1-7 apply to the clear majority of the Alt-Right. Likewise, the vast majority of the Alt-Right recognize that meanings 8-10 are absurd and/or unreasonable, contrary to Leftist propaganda. > sure
Modern day feminism is an ugly beast (not unlike most feminists) that has served as the primary vehicle for the destruction of the Nuclear Family. > Unecessry
High time preferences place a tremendous burden on the productive in a statist society, as poor behaviors such as criminality, drug addiction, alcoholism, voluntary unemployment, violence and other costs from their consequent effects are externalized onto the taxpayer. Our great redistributionist social-democratic welfare States help create the aforementioned poor behaviors and drive up the time preferences of all members of society.
Yet many libertarians and fake libertarians are plain ignorant of human psychology and sociology or even devoid of any common sense. They blindly accept, against all empirical evidence, an egalitarian, blank-slate view of human nature, of all people and all societies and cultures being essentially equal and interchangeable. > (Hoppe) Straw man? Left-libs talk about this a lot. Directional libertarianism.
As Hans-Hermann Hoppe once said in an interview, ‘a free trade agreement only requires two sentences: Whatever you want to ship out, you can ship out, and whatever you want to import, you can import.’ This is far from being the case with modern-day trade agreements, which are sometimes thousands of pages long, filled with many provisions like the ones mentioned above that have absolutely nothing to do with free trade, and everything to do with the centralization of political power into the hands of supranational governing committees… > Hah, but it makes sense that everyone drives on the left, or uses the same size box, or same rail gauge..
…is libertarianism individualistic? And if so, in what sense? It is certainly individualistic in that it affirms the individual right to justly acquire private property and exercise exclusive control over it. If one adheres to the Austro-libertarian tradition, one also recognizes the praxeological truths that only individuals can act or think and that any sort of ‘group’ action must be understood in terms of individual actions. One might also add, based on this, that only individuals can bear moral responsibility. These axioms, when taken together, form what is referred to as ‘methodological individualism.’ This is the libertarian individualism of Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe.
They will use slogans like ‘no man is an island’ as if it were an actual argument against libertarian philosophy, believing that libertarianism is about ‘self-sufficiency’ and living off the grid. Now, to be sure, there are some self-described libertarians who advocate for this kind of lifestyle, but does the definition of libertarianism as explained above imply that such a lifestyle is inherently libertarian? Not at all. Neither private property norms nor the non-aggression principle require that one live a ‘self-sufficient’ life in isolation from the rest of society, but only that any transactions that one engages in with other people are voluntary.