Thursday, October 17, 2013

No, libertarians are NOT liberals, nor were meant to be....

I keep saying it over and over again in slightly different ways, in hopes of sometime getting the point across — not only are libertarians not a subtype of liberal, but libertarianism and liberalism are seriously at odds. All principles of liberalism, as near as I can tell, are opposed to libertarianism. Liberals are not now and never will be our allies. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that both liberals and libertarians feel that people should be free to do self-destructive things. A libertarian, however, doesn't want them to do such things, while a liberal cheers them on.  You get the difference? Liberals are delighted when someone decides to be a promiscuous homosexual, or a single mother, or a drug addict, or a panhandler. A genuine libertarian deplores all these choices, while defending the right to make such choices, and live with the consquences. Liberals not only want them to do such things, but are on hand to subsidize the behavior, and protect them from the consequences to show how important a benevolent government is.  On the other hand, Liberals really don't want people to be free to do non-self-destructive things, like make a lot of money, own a gun, be a Christian, home-school kids, etc. Those things are considered exploitative or something.

Right now libertarianism, at least on its public face, is tainted by liberal libertarianoids, who either don't get or don't want to get that distinction I made above. And another liberal dogma is, of course, "diversity," which is simply code for the squeezing out of Western civilization, Christianity, and the White race. And many naive libertarians are on board with it. Murray Rothbard wasn't, and a lot of stuffy old guys like me aren't either.  This from American Renaissance:

Libertarians and Race Realism

Gilbert Cavanaugh, American Renaissance, October 11, 2013

Who are our potential allies?
For those of us who enjoy a touch of libertarianism, the news of Jared Taylor’s recent appearance at Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society was well received. It also begs the valuable question, “Which libertarians are friendly to race realism, and which are not?” As it stands, what Mr. Taylor wrote over a decade ago in his review of Prof. Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed is still (unfortunately) for the most part true: “Libertarians, to the extent they have any influence on American policy, have been bitter opponents of immigration control. From the Cato Institute, to the Libertarian Party, to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, their generally laudable opposition to government control leads them to view border control as just one more intolerable act of government tyranny.” However, both then and now, Prof. Hoppe and a small band of allies within the libertarian movement have fought that trend; and they deserve notice for their principled and courageous stance.
Prof. Hoppe (sometimes referred to as “HHH”) and his Property and Freedom Society is a good place to start. Founded in 2005, it was forged in large part out of Prof. Hoppe’s dislike for the mainstream and politically correct libertarian group, the Mont Pelerin Society, of which he had been a member. Both the PFS’s tone and speakers lists have been influenced from the beginning with touches of race-realism and anti-establishmentarianism gleaned from Prof. Hoppe’s participation in the John Randolph Club. The latter group, paleo-libertarian in pedigree, featured many speakers familiar to AmRen readers, such as Taki Theodoracopulos, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, and during the early years, even Michael Levin and Jared Taylor. Unfortunately the Randolph Club has been more or less dormant for many years now, after several of its main participants died, and the remnants began fighting among themselves. OccasionalAmRen contributor James Lubinskas’ The End of Paleoconservatism examines that group’s fall in greater detail.
The talks given at Prof. Hoppe’s gatherings can be found easily on YouTube (although this year’s are not available yet), and feature not only Richard Spencer and Peter Brimelow, as Mr. Taylor mentioned, but other prominent race realists as well, such as John Derbyshire and Paul Gottfried. Prof. Hoppe also wrote an interesting reflection on the origins and nature of his society, which can be found on VDARE—frankly, any libertarian willing to post on VDARE is a libertarian worth listening to. Additionally, much of Prof. Hoppe’s writings on immigration and discrimination can be found online. Especially noteworthy for AmRen readers are, “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration” and “Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem.
Lew Rockwell is another libertarian figure worth knowing about, but is something of an enigma. In 1982 he founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which quickly became a conservative and radical counterweight to the increasingly liberal and mainstream Cato Institute. Murray Rothbard, considered a kind of libertarian god to many, would soon join him after being purged from the Cato Institute, which he had helped found. The Mises Institute, while more libertarian than anything else, has time and again shown itself to be unconcerned with the taboos that even many other libertarians fear. It has published sharp critiques of such liberal totems as feminism and multiculturalism.
Mr. Rockwell would also go on to propose a “paleo libertarian alliance” in 1990 that would make the case for libertarians to avoid the company of certain “liberated” groups that had begun making common cause with the movement, such as habitual drug users, nudists, and the like. Instead, Mr. Rockwell argued that libertarians should establish closer ties with the rising paleo-conservative movement. That same year Mr. Rockwell took his own advice and started the paleo-libertarian Rothbard-Rockwell Report, which ran into the late ’90s and featured a plethora of AmRen contributors such as Michael Levin, Paul Gottfried, and Robert Weissberg, as well as the then less well known Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

During this period, a very harmonious relationship existed between race realists, paleos, and libertarians. Murray Rothbard endorsed Pat Buchanan for president in 1992, the Mises Institute was unafraid of inviting both Sam Francis and Joe Sobran to its conferences, and rumor has it that Mr. Rockwell was even ghost writing newsletters for one Ron Paul, which referenced Jared Taylor in a positive light. The newsletters were controversial due to their unconventional views on Martin Luther King and racial orthodoxy. It was out of this paleo-libertarian atmosphere that was created in 1999. (There's a lot more, with more photos.  Go HERE to read it.)


  1. "Libertarian nationalist" is an oxymoron.

    I'm "Question Diversity" on AR.

    I also know you'll want to argue that point.

  2. Do Libertarians who oppose government border controls also oppose government enforcement of property rights? If not, why not?

    1. I'm sure their argument would be that people have property rights but the nation — a collective — doesn't. Completely unrealistic, but there you are.