The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Hans-Hermann Hoppe Archive
Libertarianism, the Alt-Right and AntiFa
A Libertarian Strategy For Social Change
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Speech delivered at the 12th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey, on September 17, 2017

We know the fate of the term “liberal” and “liberalism.” It has been affixed to so many different people and different positions that it has lost all its meaning and become an empty, non-descript label. The same fate now increasingly also threatens the term “libertarian” and “libertarianism,” which was invented to regain some of the conceptual precision lost with the demise of the former labels.

However, the history of modern libertarianism is still quite young. It began in Murray Rothbard’s living room and found its first quasi-canonical expression in his For A New Liberty. The Libertarian Manifesto, published in 1973.

And so I am still hopeful and not yet willing to give up on libertarianism as defined and explained by Rothbard with unrivaled conceptual clarity and precision, notwithstanding the meanwhile countless attempts of so-called libertarians to muddy the water and misappropriate the good name of libertarianism for something entirely different.

The theoretical, irrefutable core of the libertarian doctrine is simple and straightforward and I have explained it already repeatedly at this place. If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts, or more precisely physical clashes, would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always conflicts concerning scarce things.

I want to do A with a given thing and you want to do B with the same thing. Because of such conflicts—and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other—we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts 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 me clashing.

But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not?

  • First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly.
  • Second: as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body), 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 exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.

Before this audience, I do not need to go into greater detail except to add this: If you want to live in peace with other people and avoid all physical clashes and, if such clashes do occur, seek to resolve them peacefully, then you must be an anarchist or more precisely a private property anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or a proponent of a private law society.

And by implication, then, and again without much further ado: Someone, anyone, is not a libertarian or merely a fake libertarian who affirms and advocates one or more of the following:

  • the necessity of a State, any State, of “public” (State) property and of taxes in order to live in peace;
  • the existence and justifiability of any so-called “human rights” or “civil rights” other than private property rights, such as “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” “minority rights,” the “right” not to be discriminated against, the “right” to free and unrestricted immigration, the “right” to a guaranteed minimum income or to free health care, or the “right” to be free of unpleasant speech and thought.

The proponents of any of this may call themselves whatever they want, and as libertarians we may well cooperate with them, insofar as such a cooperation offers the promise of bringing us closer to our ultimate goal, but they are not libertarians or only fake libertarians.

Now, “a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.” While Rothbard and I, following in his footsteps, never went astray from these theoretically-derived core beliefs, not just non-libertarians but in particular also fake libertarians, i.e., people claiming (falsely) to be libertarians, and even many possibly honest yet dim-witted libertarians have selected and vilified us as their favorite bêtes noires and incarnates of evil.

Rothbard, the spiritus rector of modern libertarianism, has been branded by this so-called “anti-fascist” crowd as a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, an authoritarian, an elitist, a xenophobe, a fascist and, to top it all off, a self-hating Jewish Nazi. And I have inherited all of these honorary titles, plus a few more (except for the Jewish stuff).

So what funny thing has happened here?

Trying to develop an answer to this question brings me to the topic of this speech: the relationship between libertarianism and the Alternative Right or “Alt-Right,” which has gained national and international notoriety after Hillary Clinton, during the last presidential election campaign, identified it as one of the inspirational sources behind the “basket of deplorables” rooting for Trump (and whose leadership, to its credit, after Trump’s election victory, quickly broke with Trump when he turned out to be just another presidential warmonger).

The Alt-Right movement is essentially the successor of the paleo-conservative movement that came to prominence in the early 1990s, with columnist and best-selling author Patrick Buchanan as its best-known representative. It went somewhat dormant by the late 1990s, and it has recently, in light of the steadily growing damage done to America and its reputation by the successive Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama administrations, reemerged more vigorous than before under the new label of the Alt-Right.

Many of the leading lights associated with the Alt-Right have appeared here at our meetings in the course of the years . Paul Gottfried, who first coined the term, Peter Brimelow, Richard Lynn, Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer and Richard Spencer. As well , Sean Gabb’s name and mine are regularly mentioned in connection with the Alt-Right, and my work has been linked also with the closely related neo-reactionary movement inspired by Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) and his now defunct blog Unqualified Reservations. In sum, these personal relations and associations have earned me several honorable mentions by America’s most famous smear-and-defamation league, the SPLC (aka Soviet Poverty Lie Center).

Now: How about the relationship between libertarianism and the Alt-Right and my reasons for inviting leading representatives of the Alt-Right to meetings with libertarians?

Libertarians are united by the irrefutable theoretical core beliefs mentioned at the outset. They are clear about the goal that they want to achieve. But the libertarian doctrine does not imply much if anything concerning these questions:

  • First, how to maintain a libertarian order once achieved;
  • Second, how to attain a libertarian order from a non-libertarian starting point, which requires a) that one must correctly describe this starting point and b) correctly identify the obstacles posed in the way of one’s libertarian ends by this very starting point.

To answer these questions, in addition to theory, you also need some knowledge of human psychology and sociology or at least a modicum of common sense.

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.

While much of contemporary libertarianism can be characterized, then, as theory and theorists without psychology and sociology, much or even most of the Alt-Right can be described, in contrast, as psychology and sociology without theory.

Alt-Righters are not united by a commonly held theory, and there exists nothing even faintly resembling a canonical text defining its meaning. Rather, the Alt-Right is essentially united in its description of the contemporary world, and in particular the US and the so-called Western World, and the identification and diagnosis of its social pathologies.

In fact, 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 (akanon-discrimination”), multiculturalism, and “free” mass immigration as a means of bringing multiculturalism about.

As well, the Alt-Right loathes everything smacking of Cultural Marxism o r Gramsciism and all “Political Correctness” and, strategically wise, it shrugs off, without any apology whatsoever, all accusations of being racist, sexist, elitist, supremacist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc., etc.

And the Alt-Right also laughs off as hopelessly naïve the programmatic motto of so-called libertarians such as the Students for Liberty (which I have termed the “Stupids for Liberty” and my young German friend Andre Lichtschlag as “Liberallala-Libertarians”) of “Peace, Love, and Liberty,” appropriately translated into German by Lichtschlag as “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen.”

In stark contrast to this, Alt-Righters insist that life is also about strife, hate, struggle and fight, not just between individuals but also among various groups of people acting in concert. “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.”

Absent any unifying theory, however, there is far less agreement among the Alt-Right about the goal that it ultimately wants to achieve.

Many of its leading lights have distinctly libertarian leanings, most notably those that have come here (which, of course, was the reason for having invited them here), even if they are not 100%-ers and would not identify themselves as such. All Alt-Righters that have appeared here, for instance, have been familiar with Rothbard and his work, all the while the most recent presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party had never even heard of Rothbard’s name. And all of them, to the best of my knowledge, were outspoken supporters of Ron Paul during his primary campaign for the Republican Party’s nomination as presidential candidate, all the while many self-proclaimed libertarians attacked and tried to vilify Ron Paul for his supposedly (you already know what’s coming by now) “racist” views.

However, several of the Alt-Right’s leaders and many of its rank and file followers have also endorsed views incompatible with libertarianism. As Buchanan before and Trump now, they are adamant about complementing a policy of restrictive, highly selective and discriminating immigration (which is entirely compatible with libertarianism and its desideratum of freedom of association and opposition to forced integration) with a strident policy of restricted trade, economic protectionism and protective tariffs—which is antithetical to libertarianism and inimical to human prosperity.

(Let me hasten to add here that, despite my misgivings about his “economics,” I still consider Pat Buchanan a great man.)

Others strayed even further afield, such as Richard Spencer, who first popularized the term Alt-Right. In the meantime, owing to several recent publicity stunts, which have gained him some degree of notoriety in the US, Spencer has laid claim to the rank of the maximum leader of a supposedly mighty unified movement (an endeavor, by the way, that has been ridiculed by Taki Theodoracopulos, a veteran champion of the paleo-conservative-turned-Alt-Right movement and Spencer’s former employer).

When Spencer appeared here, several years ago, he still exhibited strong libertarian leanings. Unfortunately, however, this has changed and Spencer now denounces, without any qualification whatsoever, all libertarians and everything libertarian and has gone so far as to even put up with socialism, as long as it is socialism of and for only white people. What horrifying disappointment!

Given the lack of any theoretical foundation, this split of the Alt-Right movement into rival factions can hardly be considered a surprise.

Yet this fact should not mislead one to dismiss it, because the Alt-Right has brought out many insights that are of central importance in approaching an answer to the two previously mentioned questions unanswered by libertarian theory: of how to maintain a libertarian social order; and how to get to such an order from the current, decidedly un-libertarian status quo.

The Alt-Right did not discover these insights. They had been established long before and indeed, in large parts they are no more than common sense. But in recent times such insights have been buried under mountains of egalitarian, Leftist propaganda and the Alt-Right must be credited for having brought them back to light.

To illustrate the importance of such insights, let me take the first unanswered question first.

Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of “live and let live” should hold.

Yet surely, while this “live and let live” sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this “live and let live” is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.

A simple example suffices to make the point. 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!”)

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.

And moreover: Just as a libertarian order must always be on guard against “bad” (even if non-aggressive) neighbors by means of social ostracism, i.e., by a common “you are not welcome here” culture, so, and indeed even more vigilantly so, must it be guarded against neighbors who openly advocate communism, socialism, syndicalism or democracy in any shape or form. They, in thereby posing an open threat to all private property and property owners, must not only be shunned, but they must, to use a by now somewhat famous Hoppe-meme, be “physically removed,” if need be by violence, and forced to leave for other pastures.

Not to do so inevitably leads to—well, communism, socialism, syndicalism or democracy and hence, the very opposite of a libertarian social order.

With these “Rightist” or as I would say, plain commonsensical insights in mind I turn now to the more challenging question of how to move from here, the status quo, to there.

And for this it might be instructive to first briefly consider the answer given by the liberallala, the peace-love-and-liberty, the Friede-Freude-Eierkuchen or the capitalism-is-love libertarians. It reveals the same fundamental egalitarianism, if in a slightly different form, as that exhibited also by the live-and-let-live libertarians.

These, as I have just tried to show, define what we may call the “bad neighbor problem”—and what is merely a short-hand for the general problem posed by the co-existence of distinctly different, alien, mutually disturbing, annoying, strange or hostile cultures—simply out of existence. And indeed, if you assume, against all empirical evidence, that all people, everywhere, are essentially the same, then, by definition, no such thing as a “bad neighbor problem” exists.

The same egalitarian, or as the liberallala-libertarians themselves prefer call it, “humanitarian” spirit also comes to bear in their answer to the question of a libertarian strategy. In a nutshell, their advice is this: be nice and talk to everyone—and then, in the long run, the better libertarian arguments will win out.

To illustrate, take my former-friend-turned-foe Jeffrey Tucker’s five “Don’ts When Talking Liberty.” They are “1) don’t be belligerent; 2) don’t presume hatred of liberty; 3) don’t presume different goals; 4) don’t presume ignorance; 5) don’t regard anyone as an enemy.”

Now, quite apart from the fact that Tucker does not seem to follow his own advice in his belligerent condemnation of the entire Alt-Right as liberty-hating fascists, I find his exhortations truly astounding. They may be good advice vis-à-vis people just sprung up from nowhere, without any traceable history whatsoever, but vis-à-vis real people with a recorded history they strike me as hopelessly naïve, unrealistic, and outright counterproductive in the pursuit of libertarian ends.

For I (and I assume everyone else here) know of and have met many people in my life who are ignorant, who do have different, un-libertarian goals, and who do hate liberty as understood by libertarians—and why in the world should I not regard such people as fools or enemies? And why should I not hate and not be belligerent vis-a-vis my enemies?

As a libertarian strategy, then, Tucker’s advice must be considered simply a bad joke. But surely it is good advice if one seeks entry into the State as some sort of “libertarian” advisor, and this may well explain the enthusiasm with which Tucker’s “humanitarian” libertarianism has been embraced by the entire liberallala-libertarian crowd.

Outside egalitarian phantasy lands, however, in the real world, libertarians must above all be realistic and recognize from the outset, as the Alt-Right does, the inequality not just of individuals but also of different cultures as an ineradicable datum of the human existence.

We must further recognize that there exist plenty of enemies of liberty as defined by libertarianism and that they, not we, are in charge of worldly affairs; that in many parts of the contemporary world their control of the populace is so complete that the ideas of liberty and of a libertarian social order are practically unheard of or considered unthinkable (except as some idle intellectual play or mental gymnastics by a few “exotic” individuals); and that it is essentially only in the West, in the countries of Western and Central Europe and the lands settled by its people, that the idea of liberty is so deeply rooted that these enemies still can be openly challenged.

And confining our strategic considerations here only to the West, then, we can identify, pretty much as the Alt-Right has effectively done, these actors and agencies as our principal enemies.

They are, first and foremost,

  • the ruling elites in control of the State apparatus and in particular the “Deep State” or the so-called “Cathedral” of the military, the secret services, the central banks and the supreme courts.

As well, they include the leaders of the military-industrial complex, i.e., of nominally private firms that owe their very existence to the State as the exclusive or dominant buyer of their products, and they also include the leaders of the big commercial banks, which owe their privilege of creating money and credit out of thin air to the existence of the central bank and its role as a “lender of last resort.”

They together, then, State, Big-Business and Big-Banking, form an extremely powerful even if tiny “mutual admiration society,” jointly ripping off the huge mass of tax-payers and living it up big time at their expense.

The second, much larger group of enemies:

  • the intellectuals, educators and “educrats,” from the highest levels of academia down to the level of elementary schools and kindergartens. Funded almost exclusively, whether directly or indirectly, by the State, they, in their overwhelming majority, have become the soft tools and willing executioners in the hands of the ruling elite and its designs for absolute power and total control.

And thirdly:

  • the journalists of the MSM, as the docile products of the system of “public education,” and the craven recipients and popularizers of government “information.”

Equally important in the development of a libertarian strategy then is the immediately following next question: who are the victims?

The standard libertarian answer to this is: the tax-payers as opposed to the tax-consumers. Yet while this is essentially correct, it is at best only part of the answer, and libertarians could learn something in this respect from the Alt-Right: because apart from the narrowly economic aspect there is also a wider cultural aspect that must be taken into account in identifying the victims.

In order to expand and increase its power, the ruling elites have been conducting for many decades what Pat Buchanan has identified as a systematic “culture war,” aimed at a trans-valuation of all values and the destruction of all natural, or if you will “organic” social bonds and institutions such as families, communities, ethnic groups and genealogically related nations, so as to create an increasingly atomized populace, whose only shared characteristic and unifying bond is its common existential dependency on the State.

The first step in this direction, taken already half a century or even longer ago, was the introduction of “public welfare” and “social security.” Thereby, the underclass and the elderly were turned into State-dependents and the value and importance of family and community was correspondingly diminished and weakened.

More recently, further-reaching steps in this direction have proliferated. A new “victimology” has been proclaimed and promoted. Women, and in particular single mothers, Blacks, Browns, Latinos, homosexuals, lesbians, bi- and transsexuals have been awarded “victim” status and accorded legal privileges through non-discrimination o r affirmative action decrees.

As well, most recently such privileges have been expanded also to foreign-national immigrants, whether legal or illegal, insofar as they fall into one of the just mentioned categories or are members of non-Christian religions such as Islam, for instance.

The result? Not only has the earlier mentioned “bad neighbor problem” not been avoided or solved, but systematically promoted and intensified instead. Cultural homogeneity has been destroyed, and the freedom of association, and the voluntary physical segregation and separation of different people, communities, cultures and traditions has been replaced by an all-pervasive system of forced social integration.

Moreover, each mentioned “victim” group has thus been pitted against every other, and all of them have been pitted against white, heterosexual, Christian males and in particular those married and with children as the only remaining, legally un-protected group of alleged “victimizers.”

Hence, as the result of the trans-valuation of all values promoted by the ruling elites, the world has been turned upside down. The institution of a family household with father, mother and their children that has formed the basis of Western civilization, as the freest, most industrious, ingenious and all-around accomplished civilization known to mankind, i.e., the very institution and people that has done most good in human history, has been officially stigmatized and vilified as the source of all social ills and made the most heavily disadvantaged, even persecuted group by the enemy elites’ relentless policy of divide et impera.

Accordingly, given the present constellation of affairs, then, any promising libertarian strategy must, very much as the Alt-Right has recognized, first and foremost be tailored and addressed to this group of the most severely victimized people.

White married Christian couples with children, in particular if they belong also to the class of tax-payers (rather than tax-consumers), and everyone most closely resembling or aspiring to this standard form of social order and organization can be realistically expected to be the most receptive audience of the libertarian message (whereas the least support should be expected to come from the legally most “protected” groups such as, for instance, single Black Muslim mothers on welfare).

Given this constellation of perpetrator-enemies vs. victims in the contemporary West, then, I can now come to the final task of trying to outline a realistic libertarian strategy for change.

The specifics of which will have to be prefaced by two general considerations.

For one,

  • given that the class of intellectuals from the tops of academia to the opinion-molding journalists in the MSM are funded by and firmly tied into the ruling system, i.e., that they are a part of the problem, they also should not be expected to play a major if any role in the problem’s solution.

Accordingly, the so-called Hayekian strategy for social change, that envisions the spread of correct libertarian ideas starting at the top, with the leading philosophers, and then trickling down from there to journalists and finally to the great unwashed masses, must be considered fundamentally unrealistic.

Instead, any realistic libertarian strategy for change must be a populist strategy. That is, libertarians must short-circuit the dominant intellectual elites and address the masses directly to arouse their indignation and contempt for the ruling elites.

And secondly,

  • While the main addressees of a populist libertarian message must be indeed the just mentioned groups of dispossessed and disenfranchised native whites, I believe it to be a serious strategic error to make “whiteness” the exclusive criterion on which to base one’s strategic decisions, as some strands of the Alt-Right have suggested to do.

After all, it is above all white men that make up the ruling elite and that have foisted the current mess upon us.

True enough, the various protected “minorities” mentioned before take full advantage of the legal privileges they have been accorded and they have become increasingly emboldened to ask for ever more “protection,” but none of them and all of them together did not and do not possess the intellectual prowess that would have made this outcome possible, if it were not for the instrumental help that they received and are receiving from white men.

Now, taking our cues from the Buchanan-, the Paul- and the Trump-movement, on to the specifics of a populist strategy for libertarian change, in no specific order except for the very first one, which has currently assumed the greatest urgency in the public mind.

One : Stop mass immigration. The waves of immigrants currently flooding the Western world have burdened it with hordes of welfare parasites, brought in terrorists, increased crime, led to the proliferation of no-go areas and resulted in countless “bad neighbors” who, based on their alien upbringing, culture and traditions, lack any understanding and appreciation of liberty and are bound to become mindless future supporters of welfare-statism.

No one is against immigration and immigrants per se. But immigration must be by invitation only. All immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.

To ensure this, they or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden. As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.

Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or “good neighborliness”)—with the empirically predictable result of mostly, but by no means exclusively, western-white immigrant-candidates.

And any known communist or socialist, of any color, denomination or country of origin, must be barred from permanent settlement—unless, that is, the community where the potential immigrant wants to settle officially sanctions the looting of its residents’ property by new, foreign arrivals, which is not very likely to say the least, even within already-existing “commie” communes.

(Brief message to all Open-Border and liberallala libertarians, who will surely label this, you guessed it, “fascist”: In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will. And “public property” has borders as well. It is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.

(And while it is true that the State is a criminal organization and that to entrust it with the task of border control will inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic residents and foreigners, it is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.)

Two: Stop attacking, killing and bombing people in foreign countries. A main cause, even if by no means the only one, for the current invasion of Western countries by hordes of alien immigrants, are the wars initiated and conducted in the Middle East and elsewhere by the US ruling elites and their subordinate Western puppet-elites. As well, the by now seemingly ‘normal’ and ubiquitous terrorist attacks in the name of Islam across the Western world are in large measure the “blow-back” of these wars and the ensuing chaos throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.

There should be no hesitation to call these Western rulers what they are: murderers or accessories to mass murder. We must demand, and cry out loud instead for a foreign policy of strict non-interventionism. Withdraw from all international and supranational organizations such as the UN, NATO and the EU that integrate one country into the domestic affairs of another. Stop all government-to-government aid and prohibit all weapon sales to foreign States.

Let it be America First!, England First!, Germany First!, Italy First!, and so on, i.e., each country trading with one another and no one interfering in anyone else’s domestic affairs.

Three: Defund the ruling elites and its intellectual bodyguards. Expose and widely publicize the lavish salaries, perks, pensions, side-deals, bribes and hush monies received by the ruling elites: by the higher-ups in government and governmental bureaucracies, of supreme courts, central banks, secret services and spy agencies, by politicians, parliamentarians, party leaders, political advisors and consultants, by crony-capitalists, “public educrats,” university presidents, provosts and academic “stars.” Drive home the point that all their shining glory and luxury is funded by money extorted from tax-payers, and consequently urge that any and all taxes be slashed: income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, etc., etc..

Four: End the Fed and all central banks. The second source of funding for the ruling elites, besides the money extorted from the public in the form of taxes, comes from the central banks. Central banks are allowed to create paper money out of thin air. This reduces the purchasing power of money and destroys the savings of average people. It does not and cannot make society as a whole richer, but it redistributes income and wealth within society. The earliest receivers of the newly created money, i.e., the ruling elites, are thereby made richer and the later and latest receivers, i.e., the average citizen, are made poorer.

The central bank’s manipulation of interest rates is the cause of boom-bust cycles. The central bank permits the accumulation of ever greater “public debt” that is shifted as a burden onto unknown future taxpayers or is simply inflated away. And as the facilitator of public debt, the central banks are also the facilitators of wars.

This monstrosity must end and be replaced by a system of free, competitive banking built on the foundation of a genuine commodity money such as gold or silver.

Five: Abolish all “Affirmative Action” and “non-discrimination” laws and regulations. All such edicts are blatant violations of the principle of the equality before the law that, at least in the West, is intuitively sensed and recognized as a fundamental principle of justice.

As private property owners, people must be free to associate or disassociate with others: to include or exclude, to integrate or segregate, to join or separate, to unify and incorporate or to disunite, exit and secede.

Close all university departments for Black-, Latino-, Women-, Gender-, Queer-Studies, etc., etc., as incompatible with science and dismiss its faculties as intellectual imposters or scoundrels. As well, demand that all Affirmative Action commissars, Diversity and Human Resources officers, from universities on down to schools and kindergartens, be thrown out onto the street and be forced to learn some useful trade.

Six: Crush the “Anti-Fascist” Mob. The trans-valuation of all values throughout the West, the invention of ever more “victim groups,” the spread of “Affirmative Action” programs and the relentless promotion of Political Correctness, has led to the rise of an “Anti-Fascist” mob. Tacitly supported and indirectly funded by the ruling elites, this self-described mob of “Social Justice Warriors” has taken upon itself the task of escalating the fight against “white privilege” through deliberate acts of terror directed against anyone and anything deemed “racist,” “right-wing,” “fascist,” “reactionary,” “incorrigible” or “unreconstructed.”

Such “enemies of progress” are physically assaulted by the “anti-fascist” mob, their cars are burnt down, their properties vandalized, and their employers threatened to dismiss them and ruin their careers—all the while the police are ordered by the powers that be to “stand down” and not to investigate the crimes committed or prosecute and punish the criminals.

In view of this outrage, public anger must be aroused and there must be clamoring, far and wide, for the police to be unleashed and this mob be beaten into submission.

(Query for liberallala-libertarians and the Stupids for Liberty, who are sure to object to this demand on the ground that the police asked to crush the “anti-fascist” mob are State-police: Do you also object, on the same grounds, that the police arrest murderers or rapists? Aren’t these legitimate tasks performed also in any libertarian order by private police?

(And if the police are not to do anything about this mob, isn’t it o.k. then that the target of its attacks, the “racist Right,” should take the task upon itself of giving the “social justice warriors” a bloody nose?)

Seven: Crush the street criminals and gangs. In dispensing with the principle of the equality before the law and awarding all sorts of group privileges (except to the one group of married white Christian men and their families) the ruling elites have also dispensed with the principle of equal punishment for equal crime. Some State-favored groups are handed more lenient punishment for the same crime than others, and some especially favored groups are simply let run wild and go practically unpunished at all, thus actually and effectively promoting crime.

As well, no-go areas have been permitted to develop where any effort at law-enforcement has essentially ceased to exist and where violent thugs and street gangs have taken over. In view of this, public furor must be provoked and it be unmistakably demanded that the police crack-down quick and hard on any robber, mugger, rapist and murderer, and ruthlessly clear all current no-go areas of violent gang-rule.

Needless to say that this policy should be colorblind, but if it happens to be, as it in fact does, that most street criminals or gang members are young Black or Latino males or, in Europe, young immigrant males from Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans or Eastern Europe, then so be it and such human specimen then should be the ones that most prominently get their noses bloodied.

And needless to say also that in order to defend against crime, whether ordinary street crime or acts of terrorism, all prohibitions against the ownership of guns by upstanding citizens should be abolished.

Eight: Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums. To cement their own position, the Ruling Class has put the underclass on the dole and thus made it a most reliable source of public support.

Allegedly to help people rise and move up from the underclass to become self-supporting actors, the real—and actually intended—effect of the State’s so-called “social policy” is the exact opposite. It has rendered a person’s underclass status more permanent and made the underclass steadily grow (and with this also the number of tax-funded social workers and therapists assigned to “help and assist” it).

For, in accordance with inexorable economic law, every subsidy awarded on account of some alleged need or deficiency produces more, not less, of the problem that it is supposed to alleviate or eliminate.

Thus, the root cause of a person’s underclass status—his low impulse control and high time preference, i.e., his uncontrolled desire for immediate gratification—and the various attendant manifestations of this cause, such as unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, divorce, female headed households, out-of-wedlock births, rotating shack-up male companions, child abuse, negligence and petty crime, is and are not alleviated or eliminated but systematically strengthened and promoted.

Instead of continuing and expanding this increasingly unsightly social disaster, then, it should be abolished and be loudly demanded that one take heed of the biblical exhortation that he who can, but will not work, also shall not eat, and that he who truly cannot work, due to severe mental or physical deficiencies, be taken care of by family, community and voluntary charity.

Nine: Get the State out of education. Most, if not all, social pathologies plaguing the contemporary West have their common root in the institution of “public education.”

When the first steps were taken, more than two centuries ago, in Prussia, to supplement and ultimately replace a formerly completely private system of education with a universal system of compulsory “public education,” the time spent in State-run schools did in most cases not exceed four years. Today, throughout the entire Western world, the time spent in institutions of “public education” is, at a minimum, around ten years, and in many cases, and increasingly so, twenty or even thirty years.

That is, a large or even the largest part of time during the most formative period in a person’s life is spent in State-funded and State-supervised institutions, whose primary purpose from the very beginning it was not to raise an enlightened public, but to train “good soldiers” and “good public servants:” not independent and mature or “mündige Bürger,” but subordinate and servile “Staats-Bürger.”

The result? The indoctrination has worked: the longer the time a person has spent within the system of public education, the more he is committed to Leftist-egalitarian ideas and has swallowed and wholeheartedly internalized the official doctrine and agenda of Political Correctness.

Indeed, in particular among social science teachers and professors, people not counting themselves as part of the Left have practically ceased to exist.

Consequently, it must be demanded that the control of schools and universities be wrest away from the central State and, in a first step, be returned to regional or better still local and locally funded authorities, and ultimately be completely privatized, so as to replace a system of compulsory uniformity and conformity with a system of decentralized education that reflects the natural variation, multiplicity and diversity of human talents and interests.

Ten: Don’t put your trust in politics or political parties. Just as academia and the academic world cannot be expected to play any significant role in a libertarian strategy for social change, so with politics and political parties—after all, it is the ultimate goal of libertarianism to put an end to all politics, and to subject all interpersonal relations and conflicts to private law and civil law procedures.

To be sure, under present, all-pervasively politicized conditions an involvement in politics and party politics cannot be entirely avoided. However, in any such involvement one must be keenly aware of and guard against the corrupting influence of power and the lure of money and perks that comes with it.

And to minimize this risk and temptation, it is advisable to concentrate one’s efforts on the level of regional and local rather than national politics, and there to promote a radical agenda of decentralization: of nullification and peaceful separation, segregation and secession.

Most importantly, however, we must take heed of Ludwig von Mises’ life-motto: Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.

That is, we must speak out whenever and wherever, whether in formal or informal gatherings, against anyone affronting us with by now only all-too-familiar “Politically Correct” drivel and Left-egalitarian balderdash and unmistakably say: “No. Hell no. You must be kidding.”

In the meantime, given the almost complete mind-control exercised by the ruling elites, academia and the MSM, it already requires a good portion of courage to do so.

But if we are not brave enough to do so now and thus set an example for others to follow, matters will become increasingly worse and more dangerous in the future, and we, Western civilization and the Western ideas of freedom and liberty will be wiped out and vanish.

Economist Hans-Herman Hoppe,[Email him] author of Democracy: The God that Failed, holds annual meetings of his Property and Freedom Society in the stunningly beautiful town of Bodrum in south west Turkey.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, Antifa, Libertarianism 
Hide 153 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. FKA Max says: • Website

    Good stuff!

    I don’t agree with everything, but generally good stuff.

    Watched it a few days ago, after it was recommended here on the Unz Review by a “hardcore libertarian”:

    In case the “hardcore libertarian” reads this comment, what do you think about this?

    Libertarianism, which boils down to the non-aggression principle (NAP: The initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property is inherently illegitimate) is derived from the Catholic Scholastics, most notably the School of Salamanca, who based their proto-Austrian economic theory on Natural Rights derived from Scripture and Catholic theology. Thinkers like Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto, and Francisco Suárez originated the modern concepts of libertarianism based on Catholic moral teaching and St. Thomas Aquinas’s theory of natural law, which stipulates the principle, “one should do harm to no man” (Summa Theologea I-II Q. 95), a progression from the Golden Rule, professed in the Bible: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Lk 6:31

    The Mont Pelerin Society was created on 10 April 1947 at a conference organized by Friedrich Hayek. Originally, it was to be named the Acton-Tocqueville Society. After Frank Knight protested against naming the group after two “Roman Catholic aristocrats” and Ludwig von Mises expressed concern that the mistakes made by Acton and Tocqueville would be connected with the society, the decision was made to name it after Mont Pèlerin, the Swiss resort where it convened.

    Dr. Otto von Habsburg on Religion,Politics and Education

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @FKA Max
  2. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    5. The Wealth of Nations: Ideology, Religion, Biology, and Environment

    The Catholic Church is anti-democratic, individualistic and capable of salvation. Slavery became seen as incompatible with Christian views. Christianity upholds social cooperation. Capitalism was born in Italy – a Catholic country. Private property came to be seen as a good. The Protestant religion was the most successful in production because their puritanical work ethic was the harshest. Protestantism both strengthened the state and democracies.

    Mapping one of the world’s largest landowners

    In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court recently ruled that only a portion of a Catholic shrine’s nearly 200 acres were used for worship purposes and therefore were exempt from paying local property tax. The shrine was sent a tax bill for $92,000.
    With more than 1 billion adherents, the Catholic Church is one of the largest, if not the largest, nongovernmental landowners in the world. One estimate puts the church’s holdings close to 177 million acres, or 277,000 square miles. If those properties were grouped together and placed on a list of the world’s countries by land area, it would fall within the top 50, higher than both France and Spain. (Plus, it is unclear whether or not the 177 million acre figure includes land owned by affiliated institutions, such as Catholic schools and hospitals, which number in the hundreds of thousands—if not millions—worldwide.)

    The Wealth of Nations and Religion – Cat[h]olicism and Protestantism

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @Che Guava
  3. Brabantian says: • Website

    A major key point made by Hans-Hermann Hoppe above, rather neglected by the Unz community here, is this:

    After all, it is above all white men that make up the ruling elite and that have foisted the current mess upon us.

    True enough, the various protected ‘minorities’ take full advantage of the legal privileges they have been accorded and they have become increasingly emboldened … but none of them … would have made this outcome possible, if it were not for the instrumental help that they received and are receiving from white men.

    Though it is more helpful to call this problem by its most accurate name: oligarchy. And in a country that has been predominantly white, under a white oligarchy, the core pathology is obscured by an excess focus on dominant native culture versus other cultures. As Hoppe indicates, whatever faults or crimes can be ascribed to minorities / migrants, the dysfunctionality of the system is ultimately the fault of the oligarchs at the top of the social heap, who designed the system as it stands.

    For those who focus on Jewish influence groups – often the preferred ‘mafias’ for an oligarchy, to be sure – it is nonetheless true, as Canadian rebel Jew Henry Makow points out, that Jewish influence agents, media mavens etc, are for the most part not higher than #2 in the pecking order. Even with 40% of USA billionaires being Jewish, the other 60% who are gentile, clearly are allowing Jewish groups to have what influence they do have.

    A Jewish-Israeli writer who emigrated from Russia quipped, that what he found in his new life in Israel, was only the benefit that his oppressors were now other Jews rather than non-Jews. USA whites must face the fact too, their biggest oppressors are oligarch whites who don’t give a shite about their less-well-connected brothers and sisters.

    And the problem overall with ‘libertarianism’, the whole Rothbard – Ron Paul etc spectrum, is seen in the practical matter that a wing of billionaire oligarchs see the libertarians as their hired ‘useful idiots’. In some cases you can see the libertarian pundits being funded by the Koch brothers etc trying to become the owners of federal land that would then be ‘turned over to the free market private sector’ har-har.

    Though the intellectual libertarians have nice theories supporting small business and anti-monopoly etc … in practice the whole free-market, no-social-benefit ideology, tends to support the crony oligarch monopolists very well.

    Whereas the actual truth, as the real-life experience of Europe (in its better days, now fading) has shown, is that an intelligently-run mixed economy, with government restricting the oligarch oligopolists, and really serving its own citizens, is the way to go. The fact that the oligarchs are running the systems down and making them blow up these days, doesn’t change the fact that for a brief few decades in history, Western Continental Europe achieved some aspects of paradise – little crime, almost no one in jail, a pleasant life for just about all, and zero poverty amongst legal residents.

    The ‘alt-right’ has it more correct, ‘libertarianism’ is essentially a kind of clever geeky scam flying in the face of what really works.

  4. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    Just for clarification; I shared the video of Otto von Habsburg, because he was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, and also a devout Catholic, but he supported the “collectivist” European Union:

    What is basically emerging is the European Union Otto von Habsburg envisioned
    He was also a member of the Mont Pelerin Society.

    Rose and Milton Friedman on Mont Pelerin Society

    “In this interview, Milton Friedman, who was awarded the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics, describes the values, objectives, and beginnings of the Mont Pelerin Society. He explains what it was like to create a society dedicated to classical liberalism in a world where the prevailing economic views leaned towards central planning and collectivism. Since it was founded in 1947, this organization has grown and prospered; offering its members from around the world opportunities to exchange and discuss their ideas. Friedman also comments on the significant role Universidad Francisco Marroquín has played in promoting the ideals of free-market economics and the importance of protecting private property. This interview was conducted by Hoover Institution and presented at the Mont Pelerin Society meeting in London in 2002.”

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  5. However, the history of modern libertarianism is still quite young. It began in Murray Rothbard’s living room and found its first quasi-canonical expression in his For A New Liberty. The Libertarian Manifesto, published in 1973.

    With all due respect to Rothbard (which is a great deal), John Hospers’ Libertarianism, published in 1971, laid out the philosophy in detail. (Hospers ran for President in 1972 as the first candidate of the then-fledgling Libertarian Party.)

    • Replies: @RobRich
  6. RobRich says: • Website
    @Rex Little

    Oh, Christ. This again?

    Rothbard, Rand, Nozick, etc. while important had zero effect on the foundations of modern Libertarianism, and deriving Libertarianism from Medieval Catholics who worked within the Libertarianism of the day is ridiculous. Rand was a Libertarian in good standing, though–her attacks were on conservatives (like Hoppe) pretending to be Libertarians..

    The mother Liberal-Libertarian network is the Libertarian International Organization or LIO at work in some form since 1592 and went through a first modernization starting 1904 era , and it alone decides what is or is not Libertarianism (current Libertarianism is called the ‘Gilson Reform’ which began in 1969 with Hospers as point man) . Before that time Libertarians were a council of knights and freeholders associated with the Gilson – Lemos clan and their cities which existed pre-Roman. Every intellectual history of Libertarianism I’ve read is by lazy ignoramuses who don’t do basic research and type themselves as soon as you see they’re unaware of these basic facts.

    I myself was sworn in to the Libertarian Pledge and LIO as a youth in 1949 and knew many sworn in going back to the 1890’s, who in turn talked about people they knew or knew of sworn in as Libertarians in the Gilson Home or Lemos Salons in the 1770’s. I also took the new Michael Gilson LIO pledge in 1969 when under the direction of this precocious teen it began to expand from a group of salons to a network in every country and most districts.

    The NAP is a portion of the Gilson pledge for students. David Nolan, Rothbard, and Gilson have repeatedly stated it is insufficient to derive Libertarianism but good enough for directional work like the US LP does to get some less-is-more and localist improvement. 95+% of LIO libertarians are interested in self-development and spreading democracy and spread across all parties.

    Hoppe to my knowledge is not a member of the LIO or an LIO Fellow (advisor), and his anti-democracy rhetoric and half-baked scholarship are contrary to current Libertarian campaigns (a main one is called OPERATION DEMOCRACY). He’s what libertarians call a ‘squirrel’ or someone taking bits and pieces of Libertarianism he gets sixth-hand and trying to make himself an authority on it. Still, some of his recommendations are OK.

    It takes exactly 3 seconds to find out about this at GOOGLE. See It’s rambling as it’s designed to help activists in the field, but quite self-consistent.

    Robert Richardson, co-founder of LP NH, 1970; co-editor LIO site


  7. FKA Max says: • Website

    Thank you very much for your insightful comment.

    and deriving Libertarianism from Medieval Catholics who worked within the Libertarianism of the day is ridiculous.

    Why do you think people are trying to merge and conflate Libertarianism and Catholicism?

    Do you think the Vatican is trying to co-opt the Libertarian movement/philosophy? Or are these people just simply trying to reconcile and justify their own internal, philosophical conflicts and contradictions? A way to deal with cognitive dissonance, so to speak.

    Pro-Israel Catholics like Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnes, who is a Knight of Columbus, refer to themselves as “Cultural Libertarians”, for example:


    What the Alt Right Isn’t


    1. Not Fighting for the One True Faith
    As Pierre Vial says, “the liberty promised by the American Free Marketers is nothing but the liberty of the fox to roam the henhouse.” This beast is eating our children.[1]

    3. Not Wishing for the State to Disappear

    This interview always struck me as conversion/co-option propaganda:

    The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

    Catholics and Libertarian Economics: A Reply to Samuel Gregg

    The interest in social thought and policy by Catholics is a good thing. What is not good, however, and in fact is very sad, is that so many Catholics ignore or explain away the existing body of papal social doctrine, and instead take up one or another of the existing secular doctrines, such as classical liberalism.
    Catholics need to regain a sense of the importance of being Catholic and of thinking with the Church. Only in this way is there any hope of a revival of Catholic life and a resurgence of that Catholic spirit which aims at nothing less than a conversion of all peoples along with their cultures to Catholic truth.

    Catholicism and Libertarianism

    Bo did favor the libertarian view of politics, and he was intrigued as to why I was there, perhaps hoping that my presence was a sign of “conversion.” I informed him that, as a Thomist, I disagreed with many of the libertarian positions, but was willing to affirm whatever was true in what libertarians held and taught.
    What, then, does Thomism have to do with libertarianism? The recent presidential election and subsequent political battles have revealed a strong tendency among some Catholics to attempt an integration of the tenets of libertarianism and Catholic social teaching. While it is true that there are libertarian positions that are fully in accord with Catholicism, it must be emphasized that the integration is quite complex and, at a certain level, quite difficult, even impossible.

    It seems that Libertarians and Catholics are trying to convert/co-opt one another 😉

  8. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    I just came across a good paper on Twitter:

    Religious Competition and Reallocation:
    The Political Economy of Secularization in the Protestant Reformation Cantoni et al. (2017)

    Our findings indicate that the Reformation played an important causal role in the secularization of the West.

    Freethought and Freedom: The Secularization of Private Property

  9. utu says:

    Jawohl, mein Führer!

    Just need more clarification how are we going about the Endlösung of those who are not libertarians and will we talk care of the fake ones first?

    • Replies: @Wally
  10. renfro says:

    Sorry, thumbs down here.

    I don’t like ‘ideological systems ‘…..which includes Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, etc.etc..
    They are all usually too extreme and have a snowballs chance in hell of lasting in the long term.

    And this….?

    ”The theoretical, irrefutable core of the libertarian doctrine is simple and straightforward and I have explained it already repeatedly at this place. If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts, or more precisely physical clashes, would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always conflicts concerning scarce things.”

    Is laughably simple minded. The history of the world as directed by mankind has always been and will be in the future caused by a little thing called ‘human nature’. And whether humans have plenty or scarcity the nature of humans is a wild card. There will always be conflicts even in homogenous groups.

    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    , @utu
  11. utu says:

    “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” (Democracy: The God that Failed)

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Bill
  12. Not worth reading anything further based on this unsound foundation, proven false by repeated experience:

    “If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts, or more precisely physical clashes, would be impossible.”

  13. jim jones says:

    The Z Man gives a good analysis the Libertarian death-spiral:

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  14. pyrrhus says:

    “The theoretical, irrefutable core of the libertarian doctrine is simple and straightforward and I have explained it already repeatedly at this place. If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts, or more precisely physical clashes, would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always conflicts concerning scarce things.”

    Completely false, as shown by millennia of history. Wars are launched because powerful people in a society stand to benefit by them (whatever the horrors inflicted on common folk), or at least think they will…. They want other peoples’ property, as shown in the British looting of India, or they want control, as shown in the British manipulation of the Indian economy, or they want to profit from war contracts, as shown in the invasion(s) of Iraq,or they simply want power to order around and kill other people.
    Hoppe’s entire edifice is based on a fantasy.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  15. I read
    Murray N. Rothbard, ‘America’s Great Depression’, New York City, 1963, 1983
    The sentence that struck me was something like ‘of course the rich needed to protect their fortunes’.
    Even the old Kennedy at the time told his rich friends that they had two choices: paying more tax, or losing everything in a revolution.

    • Replies: @utu
  16. Wally says: • Website

    Jawohl, mein Führer!
    Just need more clarification how are we going about the Endlösung of those who are not libertarians and will we talk care of the fake ones first

    An uninformed, & false comparison yet again..

    “I owe my permission to submit the Zionist plan for the final solution (” Endlösung”) of the Jewish Question.”

    – ‘Father of Zionism’ Theodor Herzl, letter to the Czar, November 22, 1899.

    There was “mein Führer” with the impossible ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there was “mein Führer” without the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers.


    • Replies: @Anon
  17. Langley says:

    “The theoretical, irrefutable core of the libertarian doctrine is simple and straightforward and I have explained it already repeatedly at this place. If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts, or more precisely physical clashes, would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always conflicts concerning scarce things.”


    Some people just like to hurt or rule others.

  18. Rod1963 says:

    Spot on. The guy wasn’t living in the real world.

    Libertarianism died because it’s irrelevant in today’s world. It’s not about political utopiasfor white nerds and anti-social types it’s now about surviving in a nation where whites are a disliked minority, where speaking the truth in public bring violence and expulsion. How we deal with that is the most important thing.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  19. @RobRich

    I went to see your “LIO” “website.” It seems to be some sort of hoax. There are no comments on anything posted there. Whoever wrote the copy has a very shaky command of English. (Yours is not much better.)

  20. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Crushing the Alt Left/Antifa thugs might seem a bit harsh to some, but what else are sane people supposed to do when the Antifa thugs invade peaceful meetings, screaming all sorts of insults, then go ballistic at the suggestion of dialogue, shouting that “dialogue is violence?”

    Straight out of Communism 101 handbook for dealing with the opposition; just beat them into submission with a gun butt, or use the barrel to silence them forever.

  21. @utu

    “They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”
    Wow, “physically removed” , ah,…. where ?
    Another country ?
    A … secured space ? Sort of like Gaza, an open air prison ?
    And given that all those who feel themselves a chance to be removed will likely get a bit cranky & likely a bit “physical” themselves … you can just see the role of the State (or a State-like actor) expanding….And, no doubt, at some point, those responsible for “removal” will simply get tired of all the fuss & bother & start removing people in a more permanent way….
    And whose going to do the judging ? What of those unfortunate enough to not have a family ? Individual hedonism ? What ? Like watching TV alone ? Eating a lot — alone ? And nature worship ?? So I guess Spring festivals are out, let alone, the celebration of Dionysus…
    And this writer speaks approvingly of “common sense” ….?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  22. @RobRich

    Rand was a libertarian?

    On what planet? Don’t make me dig up the heaps of opprobrium she dumped on libertarianism. If you think Objectivism is remotely similar to libertarianism, I know I have a bridge here I can sell you.

    (Please don’t think this is a defense of libertarian anarchism. I dropped that Utopian belief a while ago.)

  23. Hoppe acknowledges the fatal flaw of libertarianism: human nature, specifically the nature of human social behavior (which is anything but rational.)

    What he still seems to reject is that while the state (a territorial monopoly on ultimate decision-making in his words) may not be necessary, it is inevitable as a consequence of human social behavior. Mises himself suggested that the ultimate value of human action was one of secession, which taken to its logical conclusion reach secession to the level of the individual.

    The problem with this is that absent a world of privately-owned nuclear weapons (a glowing chicken in every pot) and the mutually assured destruction necessary to prevent any propensity for people to gang up on a neighbor, secession-to-the-individual still results in the rule of the organized powerful over the atomized weak.

    All roads lead back to a state.

    The only question then becomes, what kind of state? Subset questions include “who pays?” “how benign or tyrannical?” “how happy are those within it?” and suchlike.

    In his brilliant exposition on the disutility of “proving” ones views with history, Hoppe admits that democracy is an abysmal and predictable failure and notes that in a contest between democracy and monarchy, the latter is more likely to yield a relatively limited state within which more people are apt to be happy.

    We have a state. We will have a state. Today we suffer the totalitarianism of democracy’s full bloom, where there is no aspect of human endeavor that is considered outside the purview of legislators and judges who operate with near-total fiat.

    Progressivists (the Left Cult) seized the levers of the state in order to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth by legislating the elimination of Sin. Giddy with success, Leftists expanded their definitions and altered their cult’s dogma such that a sin-free Utopia is now the goal, a place where anything goes, all human impulses are to be celebrated, where intolerance won’t be tolerated, and where no insanity is unworthy of public accommodation and public patronage.

    The state. The state. The state. Today’s is the Poster Child for the Extraordinary Popular Delusions and Madness of Crowds that are part and parcel of human collective (social) behavior.

    Any attempt to change such things is leftist, because leftism is at heart a belief that attributes of humanity to which the dominant herd Narrative objects can and should be expunged from individuals, which is akin to saying “let’s take the human nature out of people.”

    One definition of insanity is the insistence that an alternate to reality can be created, and then become the basis for all future life. A person who does this too much is diagnosed with schizophrenia. A society that does this too much looks just like ours today.

    The pendulum swung too far to the left. It has begun its return arc. The opposite of Left is Right. What we witness in my view is a resumption of the English Civil War, for in the end, the political Right is monarchical, and given Hoppe’s insights, a benign monarchy looks far preferable to the Empire of Debt and collective insanity of today’s USA, UK, etc..

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  24. Rather amusing. Mr Hoppe sets out what he regards as libertarianism and then proceeds to call for the exact opposite! Logically, therefore, we have to conclude that Mr Hoppe isn’t a libertarian! One of the more amusing examples. He calls for “a foreign policy of strict non-interventionism”. But then he calls from withdrawal from, inter alia, the EU. The US isn’t a member of the EU, nor is it even eligible for membership. Mr Hoppe is an American citizen and is addressing an American audience. That means that he is calling upon Americans to adopt an interventionist foreign policy and force other countries to withdraw from the EU whether they want to or not! I have always regarded the “alt-right” as a US hegemonist propaganda scam and they certainly should not be confused with Donald Trump’s core supporters, with whom they have nothing in common.

  25. Brilliant analysis by Hoppe, as usual.

    • Agree: dc.sunsets, Realist
  26. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Do you imagine that the “bad neighbor” problem is tolerable indefinitely?

    People desire order above all. Without order (or more accurately, in an environment of chaos) life is intolerable. Where I live, black street gang members now engage in car-to-car gun battles a couple times a week. At least one innocent bystander is in a coma from this. Do you really think I discriminate between the feral animals who do this any anyone else in their family, immediate or extended?

    How long do you think people like me will tolerate the risk of being the backstop for their bullets? How discriminating do you think the people of Order will be when the people of Chaos largely share the same attributes?

    When this long, debt-fueled boom ends and people discover that it’s no longer possible to put prosperity on a credit card (national, corporate or personal), tolerance for those who are bubbling cesspits of chaos will evaporate.

    Men with wives, children and grandchildren will conclude that subpopulations whose members threaten their loved ones must go. Babies will be tossed out with the bath water…look to history to see one instance of this after another. Those who even superficially resemble the agents of Chaos will be driven into the sea, if need be, to return society to a more coherent order.

    Take your bleeding heart sanctimony and moral preening somewhere else. The last 50 years were characterized by collective tolerance of the intolerable. When the pendulum swings the other way, what do you think will happen?

    When this boom ends and people’s expectations are smashed, blacks will burn their cities (again.) Unlike during the leftist-dominated 1960’s when appeasement was the rule, I suggest that this time systematic elimination will be chosen for anyone attempting to Escape From New York.

    To your point, expect an end to public consent to being shuffled together like a deck of cards with “bad neighbor” problems. People who cannot mix will no longer mix, and those whose innate behaviors are higher on the Chaos Quotient will be invited to self-segregate. For instance, gay men who insist on recruiting boys into their “club” will stop frequenting the YMCA’s showers or they’ll end up face down in a water-filled ditch. Freedom of non-association is coming. It is The Idea Whose Time Has Come.

  27. @Brabantian

    Interesting comment, Brabantian, but I do not agree with your 2nd-to-last paragraph:

    Whereas the actual truth, as the real-life experience of Europe (in its better days, now fading) has shown, is that an intelligently-run mixed economy, with government restricting the oligarch oligopolists, and really serving its own citizens, is the way to go. The fact that the oligarchs are running the systems down and making them blow up these days, doesn’t change the fact that for a brief few decades in history, Western Continental Europe achieved some aspects of paradise – little crime, almost no one in jail, a pleasant life for just about all, and zero poverty amongst legal residents.

    First of all, during those same years, before the importation of dieversity to all of the Western lands, America was a much better place to live than Europe even. Let me qualify that – I mean, if you were not a bum, or sponge off the system.

    European socialism was living off of borrowed time and US protection (i.e. $$ for defense for the Commie East). This can work for a while, as it did, though I will agree with anyone who says the invited invasions of the last few decades hastened the end. Here’s how Socialism sucks on the whole:

    1) Socialism is great if you are a “go-along-to-get along”, “work-to-live” type, and it’s not that I’m really knocking that. A “live-to-work” entrepreneurial man, however, has one hell of a time though, as he has to drag everyone with him in the form of onerous taxes. These are the people that improve society, not the “work-to-live”guys.

    2) It takes a while for it to come to fruition (per your “brief few decades”), but Socialism, as in the American welfare state of the last 5 decades, enables the irresponsible and stupid to live without struggle and multiply and discourages the responsible and smart from multiplying. Right now, it is not ending well. I think you can see that. “Other People’s Money” runs out after a while.

    3) This is maybe the biggest one – Socialism implies reliance by the population on THE STATE. This works out great for THE STATE. When there comes a time in which the elites of THE STATE want to do something that’s really a BAD thing for the people, though good for those elites – in the short term – as far out as they want to think, well, what do the people have to say about it? Nothing that THE STATE could give a damn about, as the people are beholden. They’d really better fall in line with whatever whacked-out ideas “their government” has come up with.

    And that’s where it stands today, you decide who was wise…. maybe nobody.

  28. This is a very well written article/speech and brings up something Peak Stupidity has meant to write about for a long time “Libertarians have a lot to learn from conservatives.”, but also VICE VERSA. I have a couple of points of dissagreement, however. This comment will be the first. Per Mr. Hoppe’s:

    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 …

    You’ve got the idea with that “direct social contact” bit. It seems like your point was that just regular interactions between people require society to be more authoritative than libertarianism calls for. I maintain that it is all about the SPACE, i.e. how much room people and families have for their own.

    There is such a difference between the American way, mostly of the past now, and the Chinese way, for example. The Chinese have no history in their 5,000 years of being independent rural landowners that make their own way in the world. They LIKE living together, even when they are out in the country. However, the country is so crowded that many must live in teeming cities and they are used to it. They prefer it and look down at people that don’t.

    How could China possibly be a libertarian society? The people have been crowded together so long that they couldn’t even imagine it. They HAVE TO be in each others business, even as respectfully as they are most of the time. Take spitting on the side of the road for instance (yeah, not so respectful, but it’s what they do). If a Chinaman spits on the road, it won’t be 1/2 a minute before another Chinaman (or woman, YES, or woman!) steps in it if he is (or she, YES, or she!) is not paying attention. On the side of the road in the panhandle of Oklahoma, a man could spit 10,000 loogies and it’s not likely a single soul will notice, as the wind and the rain and the dirt will wipe it away. Isn’t there a famous saying by Confucius about 10,000 loogies? Possibly, I’m thinking of a different Confucius.

    Libetartianism works best in uncrowded places. Immigration is a double-whammy. First, as Mr. Hoppe stated, we are bringing in people who know nothing of, and will not support these ideas of freedom. Secondly, more people of ANY kind make libertarianism less likely to ever be the way of life.

    • Replies: @Greg the American
  29. Hey, I just realized that I hadn’t read the entire article/talk yesterday on VDare. As for the ten BOLD points – I agree wholeheartedly with every one of them. Now, this guy is a Libertarian’s Libertarian. I wish I could have been there for the talk – now you’re talking Turkey.


  30. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Interestingly enough, ancient Israel in the time of the Judges, strongly resembles the anarchocapitalist utopia of “Alongside Night” by J Neil Schulman. Judges (called “arbiters” in Schulman’s novel), investigated crimes and settled disputes, but otherwise left people alone. And I don’t recall taxes in either scheme. (Believing Israelites tithed to the Levitical priesthood but that was freewill).

    In fact the Holy Scripture sternly warns (1st Sam.8) about “kings” and the oppression — taxes, forced labor, property seizures, favoritism for high officials… sound familiar? Go read it, it’s quite enlightening.

    That said, Holy Scripture plainly commands those of us who do live in tax-assessing civilizations, to pay the taxes. We made the bed, we gotta lie in it.

    • Replies: @Wally
  31. BozoB says:

    First one to show how to reconcile “Someone, anyone, is not a libertarian or merely a fake libertarian who affirms and advocates one or more of the following: the necessity of a State, any State,” with “immigration must be by invitation only” and “every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested” wins a big prize!

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  32. polistra says:


    Any strategy that does not begin and end with KILL SOROS is not a strategy for solving anything. I do not see KILL SOROS anywhere in your 10000-page blob, so it is not a strategy.

  33. utu says:
    @jilles dykstra

    ‘of course the rich needed to protect their fortunes’

    And this is what libertarianism is for. It has only one axion as the Fuhrer above wrote: private property is sacred. Who does not respect private property will be – OK Fuhrer has not decided whether sent to libertarian Gulag or killed.

  34. log says: • Website

    Self-Ownership Entails Unlimited Abortion and Slavery
    Here are the assumptions which make this argument work.

    Property. Property is any resource that can be possessed and defended by force.

    Private property. Private property is any resource that has been claimed to be possessed by one or more agents and is defended by force. Possessions considered private property are said to be owned by the agent(s).

    Force. Physical attacks or threats thereto.

    Self-ownership. Your body is your private property to dispense with as you see fit and none have a higher right to your body than you do until you sell it. You can, of course, sell it, because if you cannot sell it, then you do not own it; someone else must be preventing you from selling it by force, but that implies they have higher right to your body than you do, which contradicts the concept of self-ownership. The ability to sell a thing is the test of ownership.

    Non-aggression. One may not initiate force against an agent’s private property; alternatively one may defend private property against encroachment with potentially lethal force.

    Rule of First Appropriation. You own something if you are the first to touch it. This rule is held to follow logically from self-ownership.

    Here’s the argument. Please note this follows from the philosophy of scientific naturalism: bodies are never anything more than the sum of their parts.

    1. Sperm, once deposited in the female, is abandoned by the male and is therefore the female’s private property.
    2. Eggs are the female’s private property.
    3. A fertilized egg cell, or zygote, is nothing more than the combination of egg and sperm, and is thus the female’s private property.
    4. A fetus is nothing more than a zygote in combination with nutrients absorbed from the female, which nutrients are the female’s private property, as is the zygote.
    5. Therefore the fetus is at all points during the pregnancy the female’s private property to dispense with at her sole discretion, being nothing more than a combination of the female’s private property.

    This argument may be extended beyond birth to conclude with universal slavery to one’s oldest living female ancestor or assignees. Once bodies are considered private property, they are never anything except private property.

    A variant of this argument provides for unlimited abortion even if the libertarian considers themselves theists by virtue of the fact that the soul / spirit is trespassing upon the fetal body, which of course is the female’s private property. The female has the right to prevent or remedy such trespass via the non-aggression principle.

    Thus self-ownership entails slavery and abortion.

  35. Anonymous [AKA "MIKE D 85"] says:


    ‘Libertarians’ go nowhere because they spend half their time defining people out of ‘true’ libertarianism.’s Corporations Uber Alles form of Libertarianism would declare this author a heretic for suggesting any restriction on immigration (only individuals have rights! states/borders are entirely invalid even while subsidizing newcomers via taxes on my labor/ identitarianism is Thought Crime, maaaaan… etc.

    I have settled on Libertarianish Pragmatic Moderate for myself.

    Ideological purity is for college students and imbeciles.

  36. @Brabantian

    European socialists currently living on borrowed time and benefitting from the dynamism of other’s freedom are hardly a model, yeah “real life experience” of what… one or two generations. These European’s grandpas were genociding each other and slapping their foreheads to the dirty cobblestones for the kings just a couple years ago.

    Theoretical libertarian thinkers like this guy who wrote the article spend their days in mental masturbation trying to pretend liberty can actually be everything to everyone. I don’t know how many angels can dance on the head of the pin myself, so I can agree with Brabantian a bit.

    But what’s crazy about the libertarians is how often their musings are actually right. My favorite right scene right now is how the crooked government spy apparatus is apparently being pointed all around government circles and we’re getting to watch.

    To the point though, the corporate structure that supports the “white oligarchy” is wholly a government construct, as is the banking structure, and the entire regulatory structure of government. Oh, and let’s take a look and where tax dollars are spent, too. Trump doesn’t deserve any credit for draining the swamp, and the Corporate States of America should be feeling pretty good right now.

    On the others hand, if a true libertarian philosophy should catch fire in America, my guess is the “white oligarchy” would be squealing like little bitches, they’d have to start earning their money with talent and drive and serving the fellow Americans, and people with actual talent and drive might have a shot at cutting their underbelly. Remember, libertarians support strong laws against fraud, theft, and so on.

    By the way, I agree with the author, immigration needs to hold, add to his thinking that population growth is a prime infrastructure and environmental pressure, keep America green. Yeah, the white oligarchs don’t want that either, and apparently the left is so brainwashed they can’t figure for their own greeny cause, they are owned by the white oligarchs, which I think is quite funny.

  37. Solid.

    My only contribution here would be that we recognize that the hour is late for the West. Anything resembling a Restoration will have to be conducted on a rump state. The demographics alone make this an inevitability.

    No plan is viable that does not involve some drastic amputation (including but not limited to redrawing of maps).

  38. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Your Herzl “quote” is bogus. See:

    Four times in that volume he uses the term “Lösung der Judenfrage,” i.e., “solution of the Jewish question. He does not use the term “Endlösung” even once.

    You will, of course, continue using this bogus quote, because you’re a proven liar.

    • Replies: @Wally
  39. @Achmed E. Newman

    Achmed has kind of an interesting thought.

    The left and right in America currently battle a legislative war concurrent with the culture war. I think he is mistaken in his point because libertarians, while perhaps at times ascribed a cultural point of view, actually are mostly about advocating their particular view about how government (force) should be used among peaceful people.

    Now, how would the communal Chinese take to the idea of being free. Voluntary association is always being touted by libertarians, right? Just because rugged individualists of the American west like freedom doesn’t mean a communal society can’t also work itself out without coercion. Remember, libertarians like strong laws and government courts to deal with fraud, theft. There are plenty of communal ways of sharing property, business, children, wives, husbands, and there are plenty of non-violent ways of preserving the peace, including manners, shunning, family, arranged marriage, who knows?

    Now a true liberal (do they have those anymore?) would argue about how culture can be a prison too. Maybe. At least worth arguing about.

    That’s the thing about freedom, the culture could go anywhere. I do think the Chinese would probably do just fine with freedom, where will they get the imagination to seek for it. Americans…?

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  40. Wally says:

    Schulman’s book was a novel.
    “Holy Scripture”? There we go, there’s some real facts.

    ‘Female Israeli fights off primative, ultra religious Jews
    The video shows a group of nutters spit and swear at Golan, calling her a ‘shiksa’ and a whore.’

    “Some stories are true that never happened.”
    – Elie Wiesel

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  41. utu says:

    And the problem overall with ‘libertarianism’, the whole Rothbard – Ron Paul etc spectrum, is seen in the practical matter that a wing of billionaire oligarchs see the libertarians as their hired ‘useful idiots’.

    Repeat: ‘useful idiots’, ‘useful idiots’, ‘useful idiots’…

    One correction though, useful idiots do it for free so you do not need to hire them.

  42. Wally says: • Website

    Vaguely citing a 600+ page pdf that has nothing to do with my cited letter by Herzl to the Czar in 1899 indicates that you have once again demonstrated that you are cowardly fraud.
    You will, of course dodge, that point.


    “I owe my permission to submit the Zionist plan for the final solution of the Jewish Question.”
    – ‘Father of [political] Zionism’ Theodor Herzl, letter to the Czar, November 22, 1899.

    • Replies: @Anon
  43. nickels says:

    Didn’t the movie ‘Mosquito Coast’ kind of show how ridiculous the whole libertarian idea is?

  44. MBlanc46 says:

    Yes indeed. A society of abstract, unspecified “property owners” is not a society of human beings associating to achieve common goals. Some organization is required, whatever you want to call it.

  45. MBlanc46 says:

    She beckons them to come at her secure in the knowledge that they won’t touch her.

  46. peterAUS says:

    I sometimes think that libertarians simply don’t want to face the reality.
    Feels as comforting delusion and excuse to do nothing practical.

  47. Tulip says:

    In place of the Non-Aggression Principle, I would substitute Thucydides observation:

    So far as right and wrong are concerned they think that there is no difference
    between the two, that those who still preserve their independence do so because they are
    strong, and that if we fail to attack them it is because we are afraid. So that by conquering you we shall increase not only the size but the security of our empire.
    We rule the sea and you are islanders, and weaker islanders too than the others; it is therefore particularly important that you should not escape.

    “Ought” must follow from “is”, or it remains a thought experiment. Once one spends 10 minutes on the collective security problem, the inevitability, and moreover, the fundamental goodness and justice of the state is hard to ignore. The real world isn’t a committee of well mannered Anglo Saxons.

  48. peterAUS says:

    Very good post, IMHO.

    All roads lead back to a state.

    The only question then becomes, what kind of state?

    Progressivists (the Left Cult) seized the levers of the state in order to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth by legislating the elimination of Sin.

    where intolerance won’t be tolerated

    One definition of insanity is the insistence that an alternate to reality can be created, and then become the basis for all future life. A person who does this too much is diagnosed with schizophrenia. A society that does this too much looks just like ours today.

    Now for this:

    What we witness in my view is a resumption of the English Civil War

    that was a rather bloody affair then.

    Presently, with technology available, could be even bloodier.

    Lucky us.

  49. Bill says:

    Only after the emergence of Libertarian Man can we have Libertopia.

    • LOL: utu
  50. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    There was no letter. There was a memo sent to the Grand Duke for forwarding to the Tsar. That’s my point.

    You don’t read German, so pointing you to page numbers is a waste of time. Just like you are, as indicated by your continued posting of this quote, quotes from van Roden that are not from Nuremberg, and other quotes from books you’ve never seen in languages you can’t read, you fraud.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Uebersetzer
  51. vinteuil says:

    Wealth and power are scarce resources.

  52. I checked and it looks like this is the first time Unz has run Hans Hermann Hoppe. I haven’t finished the article yet but the name caught my eye. Good score for UR. What I have read so far is provocative and yet realistic and poignant, rare form these days. And the first comment it attracts apparently includes video interviews of genuine von Hapsburgs. Can’t wait till I get home and have the time to read the rest and the comments. Welcome to Unz Mr. Hoppe.

    • Agree: Father Coughlin
    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @Realist
    , @dc.sunsets
  53. Wally says: • Website

    Talk about dodging.

    Nailed you again. LOL

    ‘Memo / letter’, who cares?

    IOW, Herzl did say what I quoted and you cannot show otherwise.

    ‘Point out the page number’ …
    If you could, you would.
    You simply cannot because you are lying.

    Van Roden?
    A desperate subject change about something which I already shot down, in spades.

    Your typical weasel words like: ‘you don’t speak German’ is a desperate & typical redneck Zionist response.
    Translations are easy to come by and I do speak a bit.


    “Regardless of their citizenship, Herzl insisted, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people, a Volk.[2] Zionism, wrote Herzl, offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question.”[3]
    – [3] Th. Herzl, “Der Kongress,” Welt, June 4, 1897. Reprinted in: Theodor Herzls zionistische Schriften (Leon Kellner, ed.), erster Teil, Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1920, p. 190 (and p. 139).

    Hurts, don’t it.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  54. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…for a brief few decades in history, Western Continental Europe achieved some aspects of paradise – little crime, almost no one in jail, a pleasant life for just about all, and zero poverty amongst legal residents.”

    So why couldn’t they keep it going for more than a brief few decades?

    Could it be that they were living off the long accumulated social capital of their ancestors while making no provision for their posterity? Could it be that they were the most completely and contemptibly selfish and short-sighted people ever?

  55. @Anon

    I think Joachim Fest defined fascism as organised contempt for the mind. Wally continues the fine tradition…

    • Replies: @Wally
  56. Che Guava says:
    @FKA Max

    You would, I think, have to be counting associated institutions to get the area of Catholic church land so large.

    In the USA, in particular, educational institutions actively work against church teachings (Germany, too).

    The star exemplar is Mary Daley in the USA.

    A ‘professor’, she was spending her life spitting bile and heresy. Her evil career was only ended after she was post-retirement age.

    If you have not heard of her, do a little checking. Reccomended.

    The church in America could have fired her any time for forty or so years before they did. There is a point where one has to believe that too many of them liked her bile. They were surely covering up for her for many years, several decades.

    Sure, intellectual freedom and all. From my reading, mini-Daleys extemd through Catholic education in the USA from K to ‘prof’.

    Also among the ‘religious’, in some orders of nuns in the USA, in particular.

    I am finding points five to seven of the article most resonant.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  57. Svigor says:

    I started to craft a response to this piece, assert my alt-right positions. I paused to ctrl-F for “nationalism,” which is really the key to the alt-right, and got 0 hits. Now I’m clicking the little “x” on the browser tab…

  58. Svigor says:

    Is laughably simple minded. The history of the world as directed by mankind has always been and will be in the future caused by a little thing called ‘human nature’. And whether humans have plenty or scarcity the nature of humans is a wild card. There will always be conflicts even in homogenous groups.

    That was one of the key points I was going to make, in the response I discarded: social systems should comport with human nature, not the other way around. That is the essence of much of where I agree with some of Hoppe’s characterizations of the alt-right. E.g., I don’t think hierarchy is essential. Inevitable would be more like it. I think anti-hierarchy is a bad idea.

    • Agree: renfro
    • Replies: @renfro
    , @dc.sunsets
  59. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    …and what were their accomplishments?

    Who was their Virgil?

    Gunter Grass? Doris Lessing?

    Who was their Mozart?

    Pierre Boulez? Karlheinz Stockhausen?

    Who was their Michelangelo?

    I could go on & on, but why belabor the point? Post-war Europe’s welfare state was a socio-cultural disaster, however comfortable it may have been for a lucky few.

  60. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    IOW, Herzl did say what I quoted and you cannot show otherwise.

    First of all, he who alleges must prove. You allege that Herzl wrote what you “quoted.” Fine. Prove it.

    Of course, you won’t because you can’t. You don’t read German, which is the language Herzl wrote it and the language to which he wrote the Grand Duke. I gave you the source from which this supposed letter comes (as noted, it was a memo to the Grand Duke). All you’d have to do is look for the date in question and find the memo. But you can’t so you deflect, like you always do, and come back with more of your disproved nonsense.

    You’ve never seen the book in question and you know it. You’re a miserable lying coward.

    Remember: It’s not my job to prove something doesn’t exist. It’s the role of the person who asserts to do so. If that person is too lazy, ignorant, or stupid to do so, then that’s not my problem.

    • Replies: @Wally
  61. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    While you’re at it, your citation from Weber is another lie. First of all, it’s not even the same “quotation” that you offered before, which is your admission, I guess, that you were lying all along. But you’re not done yet.

    Here’s the book in question:

    Look at pp. 190 and 139, as Weber cites them. The supposed quotation is not there.

    You lose. Again. Hurts, don’t it?

    • Replies: @Wally
  62. vinteuil says:
    @Greg the American

    I take it you get paid regardless of whether or not your English is comprehensible?

    • Replies: @Greg the American
  63. Wally says: • Website

    Another juvenile non-response from Uebersetzer.

    Joachim Fest at least has acknowledged, and Zionist Uebersetzer ignores, or more than likely, has no clue:

    To the present day the question of knowing when Hitler made the decision for the Final Solution of the Jewish question is in abeyance, and for the simple reason that not a single document on the subject exists.
    – Joachim Fest, Hitler, 1974, p. 631

    But generally, Joachim Fest tows the Zionist line and is utterly demolished for it, see:

    Rauschning’s Phony ‘Conversations With Hitler’: An Update
    Reinhard Heydrich: Conclusion
    The Taboo against Truth
    Holocausts and the Historians
    search Joachim Fest

  64. Wally says: • Website

    Dodging as usual.

    You can take the clueless schmuck out of the shtetl, but you can’t take the shtetl out of the clueless schmuck.

    – IOW, the laughble the 600+ page tome that you cited does not have what you said it has.
    I win again.

    – You could merely direct us to the page if it did. You cannot. LOL

    – I read German good enough. Apparently it is YOU who really does not. Hilarious.

    – More weasel word bluffing from another Zionist pantywaist coward.

    – I have proved it, repeatedly, please read my posts.

    “it is necessary to recognize that the lack of traces involves the inability to directly establish the reality of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.”

    – French historian Jacques Baynac, Le Nouveau Quotidien (Lausanne, Switzerland), Sept. 3, 1996, p. 14.

  65. Wally says: • Website

    Hilarious, you stupidly posted a different book than I cited. Oh my.

    What a moronic bungler you are, very funny though.
    This is pure gold!

    Having trouble sitting down? LOL

    I cited:

    “Regardless of their citizenship, Herzl insisted, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people, a Volk.[2] Zionism, wrote Herzl, offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question.”[3]
    – [3] Th. Herzl, “Der Kongress,” Welt, June 4, 1897. Reprinted in: Theodor Herzls zionistische Schriften (Leon Kellner, ed.), erster Teil, Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1920, p. 190 (and p. 139).

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  66. Jeff Tucker has a lot of former-friends, I believe. So, yes, he doesnt follow his own virtue-signaling advice.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  67. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    No, it does not say what YOU said it did.

    You’re clearly not interested in any kind of honest discussion. You’re here to inspire hatred for Jews and no other reason. Everyone can see it; why you deny it is baffling.

    • Replies: @Wally
  68. JackOH says:
    @Lars Porsena

    “Good score for UR.”

    Agree, Lars. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a bold, forceful theoretician-activist. He’s a bit of an over-reacher, too, who leaves plenty of loose ends for his detractors to chew on. He also has a sly sense of humor about, for want of a better term, “German-ness”. He was treated abominably by his former university (Las Vegas?).

    He was the thinker who helped me understand that libertarianism may be compatible with nationalism when one considers the “frictional costs” of introducing immigrants who have backgrounds vastly different from the rest of the polity. E. g., Virginia planters accepting African slaves in the 1600s. I can only imagine an America in which the Virginians had declined enslaved African help, and tended their own crops. Likewise, I can sort of imagine, I think, African rage at having been transported from slavery under their own African people into slavery under alien White Virginians. Water over the dam, under the bridge.

    We ignore Hoppe at our own peril. It’s good to see him on these pages.

  69. Unfortunately, Herr Hoppe’s take on libertarianism is untenable in real life. His libertarianism will inexorably end up as Somalia or, to a lesser extent, Mexico. If he’s a “real libertarian”, I guess I’ll need to change my moniker. Let me just leave two comments on one of his main points, and then let it go.

    there is no “right” to … free health care

    1. Here is the problem with optional health care. Suppose some young, healthy Limbecile or Alex Jones fan decides he’s not going to pay one nickel for health insurance, because he’s young and healthy and believes health care for everyone is one small step from FEMA internment camps. And dammit, two months later, he’s listening to Rush in the car, kind of worked up, not wearing his seat belt because he considers seat belt laws the first step on a slippery slope to fascism. He doesn’t see the traffic jam up ahead, and, well, he suddenly needs health care. Or maybe he gets a nasty cancer – not his fault at all. Are the EMT’s, ambulance drivers, ER doctors, ICU personnel, rehab nurses going to send him away because he was too stupid and angry to buy insurance? Of course not. He’s going to get the healthcare he needs, paid for by increased premiums for those of us who DID get insurance. No penalty for him at all for being a moron. We all get to pay anyway.

    2. Having healthcare that is not tied to one’s employer would open up a wide range of new opportunities for many. early retirement, job sharing, entrepreneur/small business ventures, part time work, etc. would all become much easier – literally millions of people work at jobs and companies they hate just for plans that are bad, but better than nothing. We are the only rich country that believes we need billionaire CEO’s between us and our doctors. I don’t think we can really consider ourselves free and developed as long as people have to choose between food and medicine.

    So look for me under a new name (maybe) soon.

  70. @renfro

    Which is why those who have strong beliefs are eating your lunch and you dont notice

    • Replies: @renfro
  71. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    That’s the book Weber references. Anyone can click and see it.

    • Replies: @Wally
  72. @Father Coughlin

    Tucker and Lew Rockwell tried to “sanitize” paleolibertarianism after Rothbard’s death by pandering to left-liberals. Not surprisingly, they have shit to show for it.

    • Replies: @Ace of Hearts
  73. Wally says: • Website

    “No, it does not say what YOU said it did.”

    Of course not, as I said, you gave a different citation.
    You are thick as a brick. LOL!!

    Speaking of “honest discussion”, jeeessh, moronic liars like you are easy to slap around. And that’s the truth.

    The rest of your silliness is just that, silly. There is no “everyone”. LOL !!

    “The only workable long-term solution, he said, is for Jews to recognize reality and live, finally, as a “normal” people in a separate state of their own. In a memo to the Tsar of Russia, Herzl wrote that Zionism is the “final solution of the Jewish question.”

    – Memo of Nov. 22, 1899. R. Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (New York: 1960), Vol. 3, p. 888.
    ‘Straight Talk About Zionism: What Jewish Nationalism Means’
    “The Jewish question, he maintained, is not social or religious. “It is a national question. To solve it we must, above all, make it an international political issue …” Regardless of their citizenship, Herzl insisted, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people, a Volk. /2 Zionism, wrote Herzl, offered the world a welcome [b]”final solution of the Jewish question.”
    – Th. Herzl, “Der Kongress,” Welt, June 4, 1897. Reprinted in: Theodor Herzls zionistische Schriften (Leon Kellner, ed.), erster Teil, Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1920, p. 190 (and p. 139).
    ‘Zionism and the Third Reich’

  74. Wally says: • Website

    “That’s the book Weber references. Anyone can click and see it.”

    No it’s not.
    They can click and see A book, but not THE book.

    Quit digging, you’re a typical bumbling Zionist in over your head.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

    – “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  75. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    It’s amazing that you have the nerve to accuse others of lying.

    • Replies: @Wally
  76. @Rod1963

    I agree. Nobody with even modest pro-white sentiments has any business trying to be a “real libertarian.” Maybe a “fake libertarian” (according to Hoppe’s definition), in that some of those policies, like drastically lower taxation, might relatively benefit whites more than non-whites, but these are band-aids rather than long-term solutions. There is a real danger that one’s activist efforts will get diverted from pro-whitism to libertarianism, because libertarian objectives may seem more achievable in the present political climate – although these will not necessarily do anything to benefit whites. Therefore one could all too easily believe he is “winning” when in actual fact he is losing, badly.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  77. utu says:

    Is laughably simple minded.

    The Libertarian Manifesto should have the slogan “Simpletons of the World Unite,” though on the second thought uniting goes against libertarian self professed habit.

    I keep wondering whether this character Hoppe is for real. He is/was a professor at a university? Apparently it was School of Business at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Was his department funded by Meyer Lanky and Bugsy Siegel? I just do not know what to think. Perhaps it is a spoof or he had a bet with somebody that he can write most insane libertarian nonsense and find some takers at unz. com. Or perhaps it is a test Ron Unz is running on the commentariat to weed off the simpletons. Is an article on flat earth coming next to weed off the feebleminded?

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    , @Vinteuil
  78. renfro says:
    @Colleen Pater

    I notice.
    However I am not so stupid or inexperienced or ignorant of history as to think you have the answer to the problem.

  79. renfro says:

    ” social systems should comport with human nature,”


  80. nsa says:

    Half the population is sustained by government checks and assorted free stuff. How do you libertarians propose to wean these useless eaters and their dependents from the government tit? There could be as many as 100 million of them. You think they are just going to stay inside their section 8 hovels and trailers watching trash TV until they shrivel up and die? Bear in mind that even civilized humans without sustenance resort to cannibalism in as little as three weeks. Better load up on lots of canned beans, ammo, silver coins, and ice house if you plan to cut off those guv checks cold turkey.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @dc.sunsets
  81. @Brabantian

    Governments begot corporations which begot billionaire oligarchs. We live in a social world created and run by government.

    It is not what it is because of the absence of government.

  82. Hoppe’s take on the industrial revolution is decidedly anti-liberal in that he rejects institutional explanations:

  83. @silviosilver

    Libertarianism properly understood means freedom of association and opposition to forced integration (including open borders lunacy). Like any ideology it is incomplete but there remains much merit to it. True enough, many libertarians are as bad as if not worse than their liberal counterparts, the insane Bryan Caplan comes to mind. But combined with a healthy regard for human nature it has valuable insights.

  84. Anonymous [AKA "danholan"] says:

    too many “we must” and “we need” for my taste … how about if i just unplug from the current system as far as i can and hope for the big’ol asteroid hit … whoever survives can start over from scratch

  85. @Sane Left Libertarian

    Health care should be cheaper, much cheaper. The waters are too muddy with market manipulation to know what the cost could be. If you cast your lot with single payer or Corporate States of America health care, it will never be cheap enough for your theoretical young man to buy insurance. Too many easy government dollars driving up the cost. So, what if it was cheaper? Could that help your theoretical problem?

    Just my own personal thought, why do all the government programs buy insurance,why can’t they give loans for medical problems like they do for college financing? In such a scenario, the consumer shopping power still exists. Anyway,I know the answer, the swamp holds a lot of sway. Your government healthcare system will make politically powerful people richer, nothing like guaranteed money to please the medical guild.

    One more thing, charity and compassion exist. Your theoretical person may have to rely on others to help him in a libertarian world. He might even have a thought about that when they do. Somehow coercion doesn’t seem the same as community

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  86. Wally says: • Website

    IOW, you’re now in full retreat.

    I only accuse people of lying when they are liars.

    And you are a liar, to the bone, as I just demonstrated repeatedly in this thread and countless others.

    You don’t like it, but too bad, that’s your problem.

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    – Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

  87. @vinteuil

    Sorry, I read the unz after I get into the beer. I enjoy you intellectual types and what you say.

  88. Wally says:

    I recommend you actually read the article.


    Eight: Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums

  89. Jorge Videla [AKA "jorge videla (BGI volunteer)"] says:

    am i the only one who smells that? that austrian smell? nothing in the world smells like that. smells like…stupid. i hate the smell of austrian in the morning.

    it’s sad how those who identify themselves as “libertarian” are un-aware of how they sound.

    how they sound like proud members of NAMBLA.

    austria has give the world:

    1. hitler

    2. godel and mach and boltzmann and the vienna circle of silliness

    3. schwarzenegger

    4. libertarianism

    maybe a few others…

    the austrian oak was the only one worth his salt.


    quit while you’re behind mein herr!

    it’s sad how those who identify as “conservative” or “liberal” are also just saying, “i’m an evil moron.”

    this is what the world will always think of austria…

    1. germany’s incompetent cousin in the great war.


    • Troll: Beefcake the Mighty
  90. Jorge Videla [AKA "jorge videla (BGI volunteer)"] says:

    austria is a tiny little country. germany’s butt boy. sad!

    until…the one and only. the greatest….

  91. Jorge Videla [AKA "jorge videla (BGI volunteer)"] says:

    i almost forgot.

    austria is also known for:

    1. putting david irving in prison

    2. joseph fritzl.

    you have much much less than zero credibility.


    1. shut up

    2. go back to austria

    3. be ashamed…

    be ashamed for eternity.

  92. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    I think I found the explanation for Otto von Habsburg’s, seemingly, contradictory world view, from the WaPo:

    Catholics like the European Union more than Protestants do. This is why.
    In the past, among Catholics, the more religious you were, the stronger you supported the E.U. And that’s been true until very recently when some traditionalist Catholics have begun to rebel against the E.U. because of its liberal social policies.
    So Catholics have always been very comfortable, even if subconsciously, with the notion of supranational governance.

    After the Reformation, Protestants, on the other hand, attempted to carve out areas of religious liberty and caught on to the notion of the nation state.

    Religion and the Struggle for European Union
    Confessional Culture and the Limits of Integration
    Brent F. Nelsen and James L. Guth
    Publication Year: 2015


    • Replies: @FKA Max
  93. Hoppe’s brilliant essay has brought the idiots out of the woodwork. It seems the fiercer the condemnation, the lesser the intelligence.

    • Agree: dc.sunsets
  94. Realist says:
    @Lars Porsena

    I am at least one who suggested that Unz Review present Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s speech to the 12th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom society. But I am a little dismayed that so many are judging Dr Hoppe by their preconceived concept of Libertarianism. It appears many didn’t read the complete speech. His philosophy is in line with many presenters who receive rave reviews on the Unz Review.

  95. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    And to prove conclusively your inability to refute me on fair turf, here you are:

    You are a true specimen of impotent rage.

    • Replies: @Wally
  96. @Lars Porsena

    As far as I’m concerned, Hoppe’s brief overview of his book, Democracy, The God That Failed is truly outstanding (and explains why debates over political economy citing history as “proof” are all heat, no light.)

    A brief excerpt:

    Theory is no substitute for history, of course, yet without a firm grasp of theory, serious errors in the interpretation of historical data are unavoidable. For instance, the outstanding historian Carroll Quigley claims that the invention of fractional-reserve banking has been a major cause of the unprecedented expansion of wealth associated with the Industrial Revolution, while countless historians have associated the economic plight of Soviet-style socialism with the absence of democracy.

    From a theoretical viewpoint, such interpretations must be rejected. An increase in the paper money supply cannot lead to greater prosperity but only to wealth redistribution. The explosion of wealth during the Industrial Revolution took place despite fractional-reserve banking. Similarly, the economic plight of socialism cannot be due to the absence of democracy. Instead, it is caused by the absence of private property in factors of production.

    Hoppe strikes me as a man who knows how the world could be structured if mankind was different, and recognizes that the perfection of a theoretical stateless society is unattainable with humans as we are. Utopia (the usual socialist one, or any libertarian variant) is not an option, and no system made of living beings can be static; there is no teleological endpoint toward which Mankind marches.

    The “end of history” had to be satire.

  97. @Svigor

    The central column of all Leftist constructions is a rejection of Nature, i.e., of a fixed and unchangeable nature of human beings.

    It is thus a belief in magic, the power of incantations (words written on paper and signed by lawmakers and executive officers) to change reality. All of political organization is to promise the impossible, that everyone can become wealthier by engaging in mutual robbery.

  98. @Sane Left Libertarian

    “Left libertarian” (now THAT’S an oxymoron.)

    If a dozen hungry people showed up on your doorstep, would you feed them? About about a dozen times a dozen? If they’re homeless, you’d invite them in?

    Yes, in your first example, the young man would receive little help unless there was an entire SEPARATE, charity system to give him basic assistance (which today is illegal, by the way.) If you hike in the back country and have no insurance for accidents, should you be able to dump literally millions of dollars of costs on your neighbors when you break a leg and need a helicopter airlift after a huge search-and-rescue effort?

    Your entire mindset reeks of a belief in unlimited resources. So what if a man who needs $40,000 per year in anti-retrovirals dumps his enjoyment of being butt-buddies in bathhouses onto his neighbors. CHOICES MATTER. You want to exist in a world where there are no costs to choices.

    Medical care costs too much today because most of its costs are paid for by state organs (Medicare, etc.), regulated for the benefit of providers, and are subsidized by the greatest debt bubble in human history.

    What will things look like when it becomes impossible to borrow? Do you (or anyone else) think it is possible to issue IOU’s to the orbit of Mars, forever???

    No. Someday interest rates will signal that this long period of belief in magic (of debt and future cash flows) is over. I figure 90% of the jobs in all things Medical will evaporate (ditto every other industry where Uncle Sam is the dominant buyer.)

    Medical services are CRUSHING the US economy because of debt-enabled spending, that warped the last 50 years so badly that we can’t even imagine what a market for medical services (or a market for insuring against catastrophic medical costs) would even look like.

    Grow up. All “left” public policies are based on magical thinking. There are no free lunches, and words on paper (fiat legislation) do not create anything but illusions.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  99. @nsa

    Half the population is sustained by government checks and assorted free stuff.


    How do you non-libertarians propose to handle things when interest rates rise and choke off the borrowing that ALL OF THOSE FREEBIES REST UPON?

    I so tire of people too ignorant to realize that the world as it is today is patently unsustainable.

    For 36 years the USA had a bull run in the debt markets. No matter how much debt was issued, declining interest rates during the whole period caused bondholders to clamor for more, so Congress learned it could spend without limit and also CUT TAXES.

    Do you really think these decades were evidence that a Perpetual Motion Machine had been invented?

    Do you understand Say’s Law: “In order to consume, you must first produce.” [because without first producing something of value, there is nothing to consume in the first place!!]

    Do you really think Congress can shower loot on its members’ supporters (big wig campaign contributors and little political faction individuals) and BUY one reelection after another forever?

    Are you among the ignorant who believe that Congress, the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve or all three can actually control a debt market that makes the US stock market look like a bathtub compared to an ocean?

    Interest rates are rising. It’s only a question of TIME when borrowing begins to become impossible. At some point (long before interest rates hit historically normal levels) interest on the National Debt will subsume over 100% of tax revenues.

    Do you think it will continue to be possible to borrow to pay for Granny’s new hip, Ladasha’s Section 8 apartment, Hazel’s LINK card, Raytheon’s newest spy satellite, Lockheed’s latest flying-drone-murder-machine, Israel’s purchase of Midwestern corn, Elizabeth’s subsidized college loan, etc., etc., etc., etc.?

    We are living like a woman who rents a million-dollar mansion, buys a new designer outfit for each day of the week, dines out at the finest restaurants, etc., putting it ALL on Mastercard.

    Come what may, this will end. Have you any suggestions about what to do for a couple hundred million Americans whose entire lives depend on sustaining the unsustainable?

  100. TheOldOne says:

    Libertarianism is for wealthy Jews only; grow the hell up people.

    • LOL: Father Coughlin
  101. Libertarianism is just another Jewish ideology. Two of its three founders is Jewish. I agree with a lot of the points of the program like ending the Fed and Central Banks but Libertarianism is just an ideology based on individualism. Individualism is akin to genocide, soft genocide for it doesn’t recognize that man is a Herd animal, q.v. Aristotle’s observation that man is a social (herd) animal. Libertarianism attacks this. There are many forms of genocide, hard and soft. Libertarianism is just another form of soft genocide.

    • Replies: @Father Coughlin
    , @utu
  102. @Sane Left Libertarian

    To Mr. Sane Left Libertarian:

    No, sir, I don’t think you need to change your name at all. I think it fits perfectly. Your first name is fine, as I think you are one of the sanest I’ve seen on this internet of ours (that’s coming from another one, so Caveat Emptor, or whatever…)

    I think your middle name fits well with your paragraph/point 1 with I don’t agree with, yet your last name fits perfectly with your paragraph/point 2, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

    Yes, as to your point 2, I know many doctors as friends, but I have been on the other side of the waiting/hospital room before too. In all aspects besides just plain old doctor/nurse care of the patients directly, the system is so screwed by government involvment that it can not be unscrewed (like a light bulb corroded into the socket, the whole fixture must be smashed apart). In case you didn’t know, this insurance health-plan-tied-to-employment deal started during WWII. The Feral Gov’t decided that benefits like this would not be taxed by the IRS. (I believe this was to “pay” people without paying them directly to avoid some war-time limits?)

    As to your point 1, see my comment way above (comment #27, my point (2)). Indeed one of the multiple problems with socialism is that it encourages irresponsibility. I understand that you are right that someone WILL get healh care whether he has been responsible or not. True, but it’s not saying he SHOULD get health care in this situation. Your hypothetical Rush* listener would probably NEVER even get on the road, or maybe leave the house if he knew that he may die or owe his extended family for a big portion of his life if he didn’t have insurance. (Hey, for a young man, catastrophic coverage with a $10K deductible is all you really need – things don’t go wrong much). Can’t be done, you say? It IS done, in modern day China. I was there, and participated in free-market health care. (More on this here, here, and here).

    Now, thanks for the intelligent comment, even though I don’t agree with one part. Your point 2 is a great libertarian attitude – get the US and ANY governments the hell out of this and many other businesses!

    * To me, SLL, your example would ring more true to me if your proverbial driver was listening to the OTHER Rush, the Toronto, Ontario based rock band, who, (How ’bout that?) happen to be libertarians themselves! A single-car crash intitiated by a 300W stereo blasting “Red Barchetta” is a much more believable story. Along with banjo bluegrass, how can you NOT go fast while listening to this?:

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  103. @W. Lindsay Wheeler

    That paper looks interesting. Any way that I could access it without having to give some random app “all my contacts”?

    • Replies: @W. Lindsay Wheeler
  104. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    And do this how? Be specific. Name specific methods.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  105. @Father Coughlin

    Email me “wheelerplatsis(at)hotmail(dot)com” and I will send you the PDF. (remove and replace the parenthesis with the appropriate symbols.)

  106. nsa says:

    Hey, Wally.
    How exactly do you propose to “get rid of all the welfare parasites and bums”? Stop them from reproducing on the theory that nits become lice? Nitrite in the H2O? Forced abortion? Or just shoot the creeps on sight during a whitetail like “hunting season”? Most are too botched to do anything useful. They are like seagulls…, shit, and squawk.
    Level playing field……no name calling…..150M useless freeloading eaters USA.

    • Replies: @Wally
  107. @Sane Left Libertarian

    Somalia is a completely irrelevant example.

    The kritarchies in Somalia that functioned without a central government were destabilized by foreign government intervention. The US government was one of them.

    Can’t have a stateless society showing up the worldwide centralized wealth transfer schemes now, can we?

  108. Wally says: • Website

    Duh. Pay attention.

    Read what I referenced, step Eight: Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums

    • Replies: @Anon
  109. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The source from Weber that you cited here:

    and quoted by me below.

    Th. Herzl, “Der Kongress,” Welt, June 4, 1897. Reprinted in: Theodor Herzls zionistische Schriften (Leon Kellner, ed.), erster Teil, Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1920, p. 190 (and p. 139).

    Here’s the text that I linked to, which proved you’re lying:

    And now you from last night, continuing to lie:

    That’s game, set, and match, son.

    You can reply if you like — it doesn’t really matter. You’re a liar, and it’s been conclusively shown.

  110. Wally says:

    I have already refuted you, in spades,, this thread for example.
    You are in over your head.

    You said what you wanted to say and made an ass of yourself.
    It’s all here for everyone to see, and will remain here for everyone to see. LOL !!!

    Now we see you for what you are, a cowardly Zionist mama’s boy throwing a little hissy fit.

    Your CODOH link (thanks for that) featuring another Zionist beat down is a common occurrence at

    Also from CODOH, a list showing a another silly unhinged Zionist boy taken to the woodshed, you may want to read it.


    CODOH routs irrational, anti science Zionist, Andrew Mathis.

    Anyone can simply look at the threads here where Andrew Mathis, aka: Thames Darwin has posted, some examples of the beat down:

    Alleged & laughable “mass graves” according to T. Darwin / Andrew Mathis

    ‘Andrew Mathis on Dachau, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Treblinka’

    Mathis who also posts as ‘Thames Darwin’, gets shot down:
    Anecdotal evidence & “holocaust survivors”

    holocaust’ denial article by Andrew Mathis debunked here’

    ‘Prof. Mc Nally dissects HHP’s Andrew Mathis’ bogus article’

    ‘Holo. Hist. Proj.’s Andrew Mathis on Zyklon scent removal’

    ‘Green, Mathis refuted / cyanide: lice, humans, & more’

    ‘Believer org. spokesman, Andrew Mathis, demolished in debate’

    ‘Holo. Hist. Proj.’s Andrew Mathis attempts damage control’

    ‘Email from Andrew Mathis (The Holocaust History Project)’

    ‘holocaust’ History Project to unveil section on Treblinka’
    Industry’s Andrew Mathis & Roberto Muehlenkamp claim patch of dirt holds remains of 100,000 at Ponar, Lithuania

    • Replies: @Anon
  111. utu says:
    @W. Lindsay Wheeler

    Libertarianism is just another Jewish ideology….Libertarianism is just an ideology based on individualism.

    No other ideology caused as much damage to the psyche of American youth as libertarianism and Ayn Rand. If Ayn Rand was the creation of NKVD or CIA she would be their most successful psyop.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  112. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    How do you do that? Be specific. Stop dicking around, coward. Say what you mean.

  113. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The pinnacle of idiocy at the University of Illinois: exist
    “…algebra and geometry perpetuate “white privilege” because Greek terms give Caucasians unearned credit for the subject,” Ms. Rochelle Gutierrez, math professor the University of Illinois.
    Time for Rochelle (what a white-privileged name!) to switch from the “privileged” English language to some unprivileged lingua in which the words “arithmetic, algebra, mathematic, culture, civilization, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, electricity,” and such do not exist. Was it some whitey-established affirmative-action program that has brought to a classroom this purist who worries that “curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans?” Then do not emphasize the theorems and pi, Ms. Rochelle Gutierrez! Just quit this whitey field of theorems and numbers (and physics and chemistry and biology) and go find yourself among people of non-European civilizations. Nobody makes Ms. Rochelle Gutierrez to suffer the ignominy of objective sciences. It is her own unexplained stubbornness in pursuit of teaching at a university (what a white-privileged word!) and joining the western civilization, which has brought so much suffering to her.

  114. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Trump takes up again the fight against the US establishment,” by Thierry Meyssan
    “Taking the floor, the White House’s former special advisor [Steve Bannon] delivered an attack, assaulting the interests of globalized billionaires. We know that while Bannon is described as alt-right by the mainstream press, he is fighting to tax the income of the super-rich at the rate of 44%.
    Bannon drew up an indictment against the elites both “corrupted and incompetent”, who have taken Hillary Clinton as their muse; people that according to him, have derived a personal interest in the destruction of US jobs and their delocalization to China. He accused them of trying to destroy President Trump, his family and friends. Bannon challenged Senator Bob Corker for mocking the Commander-in-Chief, by claiming that Trump is incapable of running the country without triggering a Third World War and the leader of the Senatorial majority, Mitch McConnell, for organizing this sabotage. He recalled his vision of economic nationalism that would serve the US Republic: fair-handed, taking no account of your race, religion and sexual orientation. He concluded that since the Republic Party had declared war on the US people, he was going to deliver it over to them.

  115. @utu

    I think you’re seriously overstating Rand’s (and libertarianism’s) influence.

    • Replies: @utu
  116. Wally says: • Website

    [If you want your comments published in the future, stop endlessly repeating the same ones or providing huge lists of links to your past arguments with some obscure personal enemy of yours named “Andrew Mathis.” It would also help if your comments occasionally had some remote connection with the article under discussion. If you don’t start behaving yourself, at some point all comments will be trashed for a while to teach you better manners. Since almost none of your comments ever provide anything of value, little would be lost.]

    • Replies: @Wally
  117. Sean says:

    Western ideas of freedom and liberty will be wiped out and vanish.

    They were never there. According to Galen Strawson, John Locke didn’t believe in free will.

  118. Wally says:

    And that why you allowed post 118?

    Balance, my friend, not partiality,

  119. Wally says: • Website

    [Apparently, you decided to disregard the warning, and continued to clutter up this comment-thread with your very long-winded remarks about your personal feud with some unknown fellow named “Andrew Mathis.” Okay. Henceforth, most of your comments will just be trashed, and maybe eventually you’ll learn better commenting-manners. Since you’re just some random Internet nut and virtually all your endless comments have anyway been entirely repetitive and totally worthless, maybe you’ll just choose to go away permanently and start spamming some other website from now on.]

  120. utu says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I think you’re seriously overstating Rand’s (and libertarianism’s) influence.

    You can see it everywhere. Probably in your own predilections and habits of mind. Americans lost faith that rational cooperation can be beneficial. It requires too much hard thinking that involves too many details for their short attention span to hold in their minds. So the libertarian phantasy comes to the rescue and offers a pain free (in terms of no thinking) solution: no government, no regulations and let the hidden hand do its job. All it requires a belief that market forces will create Libertopia and if something is not to your liking you can always blame insufficient liberty for it. And most importantly you let the rich slide. The oligarchs are the ones that Ayn Rand extolled. I hope one day libertarians will be held responsible for the neo-slavery and neo-feudalism that they keep helping (as useful idiots) to bring under the guise of neoliberalism.

  121. @utu

    Standing about in plain sight, eh?

  122. polskijoe says:

    If I was American, id say 7/10 of those were decent points.

    Alt-right has many groupings. I mean Buchanan/Gottfried vs Voxday vs Spencer are different.
    Libertarians themselves have several groupings.

    Paleocons and Libertarians share some views. Gotta work from there.

    Some minor welfare is needed for people who actually need it. People with severe mental or body problems.

    What will happen when robots start doing more work? You will possibly get more people unemployed,
    maybe on streets, or in some cases hopeless individuals. On the other side might help in other ways.

  123. @Wally

    Eight: Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums

    I agree, and we should start with the Pentagon, followed promptly by the Insurance and Pharmaceutical lobbies

  124. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    I just found another fascinating paper:

    Protestant Apocalyptic Narratives and the European Union Nelsen and Guth Delivered at the European Union Studies Association Fourteenth Biennial Conference, 5-7 March 2015, Boston, Massachusetts

    [I]f you stand up and say, for religious reasons, you are against the Common Market, then you are branded as a bigot. You are branded as a traitor. You are branded as an extremist. . .

    European Union or Kingdom of the Antichrist? Protestant apocalyptic narratives and European unity

    With the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, the Union is about to lose 30 million Protestants and 16 million religiously unaffiliated persons, while having gained probably over 50 million new Catholics since the 2004 enlargement[.]

    This is a tremendous shift in the religious/ideological makeup of the European Union.

    Martin Luther, one of the authors of the Protestant Reformation, is referred to as libertarian In the introduction to “Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority.” The term used here is something quite different than the political ideology of individualist libertarianism. The book’s editor, Harro Hopfl, says that libertarian, egalitarian, communal motifs were part of the texture of Luther’s theology.[4]

    All this information seems to strengthen my thesis from last year:

    There are both Jews and (Traditionalist) Catholics, who are indispensable to and key members of the broader Alt Right movement, like Professor Kevin MacDonald for example, who was brought up in a Catholic household I believe ( ), but the true, recent power of the movement is in large part, in my opinion, attributable to its (implicit) embrace of WASP culture and identity.

    Here is an example of what the paper researched and talked about, sounds pretty libertarian to me:

    The Catholic Church Will Use Force!

    If the Roman Catholic Church indeed has confined itself to letting everybody decide what to believe, think and mean, this would not be so serious. But – the problem is that this Church uses all means, especially the control of state power where possible, to further its ends. The Church itself confirms that it will use power if people will not willingly submit.


    • Replies: @FKA Max
  125. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    Swedish Alt Right personality Henrik Palmgren has spoken on this topic as well:

    The Hidden Roots of the European Union – Henrik Palmgren – Pt 4
    This is Henrik Palmgren’s first public presentation on “the Hidden Roots of the European Union” filmed in Bath, UK the 20th of February 2010

  126. Robert Crumb struck a nerve.

    Two 1993 items included in R. Crumb’s America, “When the Niggers Take Over America” and “When the Goddam Jews Take Over America,” both clearly meant to ridicule racist paranoia, have reportedly been appropriated by neo-Nazi skinheads in the United States and Europe, all of whom are presumably too stupid to realize that they’re the intended targets. It would be comforting to report that these items are hilarious and dead-on; in fact they’re plodding, obvious, and unfunny.

  127. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Che Guava

    The church in America could have fired her any time for forty or so years before they did.

    Maybe this is the reason they didn’t fire her earlier?


    Canadian Madeline Weld has taken a serious look at the International Feminist Movement. Her findings are most revealing: “[T]he Vatican, and various allies,…categorize as racism any arguments for limiting population growth and any reasonable objections to unlimited immigration….[F]ar too many people are intimidated into silence by this form of intellectual terrorism.
    Dr. Weld continues: “These feminists are very influential, because I have never seen the population issue addressed in any women’s organization or publication….Yet the women at the…public disinformation…meeting I attended are impeding a solution to the world’s crisis through intimidation and by spreading confusion. What motivates them?…Unfortunately, far too many sensible women are silenced by the intellectual terrorism of the feminist hijackers. To make an analogy with the U.S. civil rights movement, the Martin Luther King types of the women’s movement have been shunted aside by the Louis Farrakhan types, with their own agenda of hate.

    Dr. Weld sounds like a reasonable person to me:

    Madeline Weld on Overpopulation

    Madeline Weld, B.Sc., M.S., Ph.D., has been with PIC since its inception in 1992 and its President since 1995. A biologist at Health Canada, she is a member (former Director) Humanist Association, Canada, and former Director of Planned Parenthood Ottawa.

    Compare that to Mary Daly:

    Humanity Should be 10% Male 90% Female (BC Prof Mary Daly)

    3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.” What do you think about this statement?

    Mary Daly: I think it’s not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  128. @utu

    It should be pointed out that neoliberalism, which indeed has wrought so much pain and suffering, owes far more to Hayek and Friedman (admittedly admired by many libertarians but who have more in common with apolitical, doctrinaire neoclassical economics) than the Austrian School thought of Hoppe and Rothbard (and almost nothing to Rand’s nuttiness).

    • Replies: @utu
  129. Che Guava says:
    @FKA Max

    Very interesting, FKA Max.

    I don’t thinking that ‘Vatican’ is correct, ‘powerful elements in the American Church’ would seeming more logical.

    Had a friend in time overseas, she was already a little crazy, but reading Mary Daly’s mix of hatred, fake history, exaggerated victimhood, and ranting, (I had also read some, but the BS factor was making me stop) was pushing her over the edge into complete insanity.

    My friend of that time is long dead, young, by her own ‘choice’. Daly being the prime cause.

    I am blaming the poisonous Daly, and hating Daly for that as a specific point.

    Thank you for the informative reply.

  130. Mark G. says:

    Name calling and not a single counter-argument. Comments like Utu’s are a waste of time to even read.

  131. utu says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    admittedly admired by many libertarians – That’s all what was expected from libertarians and people exposed to libertarian ideas. Nobody took their nutty phantasies seriously but their work on changing the habits of thought was very useful. Because of this new habits of thought that glorified and reified the hidden hand of market, no regulations, no unions and no government, the grass root resistance to the neoliberalism was very weak.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  132. Vinteuil says:

    “I just do not know what to think.”


  133. Conflict is due to scarce things? Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is the classic libertarian economistic delusion. Different values cause conflict, not scarce things, n there is an infinity of different values, therefore no amount of Great Society programs or socio-economic solutions or affirmative action policies will ever solve or even reduce human conflict. People ultimately are not rational or reasonable n they do not rationally maximize their income in an individualistic manner. On the contrary they are easily swayed to work against their economic interest even when fully cognizant of what they are doing, n often cannot be persuaded or bribed to do otherwise. Econometric models (not to mention foreign policies) fail again n again because Western intellectual elites (especially American) refuse to entertain the possibility that Other People with their Own Values exist in the world.

  134. @utu

    I think you’re going to see what you want to see here.

    • Replies: @utu
  135. @Brabantian

    Agreed. Absolute numbers are not very relevant when deciding Who rules. White married men predominate in Congress, but remain the only legally victimized group in America. Congress is utterly powerless to stop it. Internal group cohesion matters far more than numbers. And in the US, the internal group cohesion of whites in general n white males in particular has been outlawed–the only group to suffer from this legal disability–meaning the freedom to associate with whites only, to hire whites only, to promote whites only, not to mention marrying whites only. Whites are jailed when doing the former, yet every other ethnic group does all of these routinely n legally. That is internal group cohesion. Only whites are forbidden to have it.

  136. utu says:

    Libertarian order according to Hans-Hermann Hoppe

    will have to be physically removed from society too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order

    Everything the left alleges about right-wing libertarianism and its effect on society? It’s true. And awesome.

    “True libertarians cannot emphasize enough […] that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians.”

    Libertarian banning free speech.

    In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property…

    Eliminating dissent in the brave new world

    … One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society.

    All above citations and comments from RationalWiki.

  137. utu says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I think you’re going to see what you want to see here.

    Yes, seeing sometimes requires an effort and some preconceptions. It rarely is purely empirical happening. On the other hand not seeing is closer to the state of nature which is effortless unless it involves an act of willful denial.

  138. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Completely a-historical. Try again.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  139. MarkinLA says:
    @Greg the American

    How can you fix any system where there is no way to determine what something will cost and you can be sued for whatever it is someone puts on a bill? Only for elective surgeries do you stand even a remote chance of determining ahead of time what something will cost. However, if there are complications, you will be expected to pay for them even if they are caused by the medical staff. Your only recourse is to sue for malpractice.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  140. MarkinLA says:

    Medical care costs too much today because most of its costs are paid for by state organs

    So having doctors and nurses on staff at thousands of dollars an hour has nothing to do with it? Having machines on standby that cost millions of dollars has nothing to do with it. Maintaining a clean environment has nothing to do with it? Providing treatments that cost thousands of dollars such as implantable devices or expensive pharmaceuticals has nothing to do with it?

    I know, I know, lets force all those people and corporations to get only what the patient thinks is fair? How does that work in the perfect free market?

    • Agree: utu
  141. MarkinLA says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I read your links and they don’t prove anything about so-called free market medicine. IF, and that is a big if, nobody needed anything other than primary medical care we could have a system where we paid as we went. The problem with the medical system will always be major medical where one guy getting seriously ill has to be covered by 50 people paying premiums.

    It is in the insurance companies interest never to insure anybody even close to that. In the free market they won’t. So what happens to such people? Do they get kicked to the curb at the hospital? What happens to the dependents of such a person?

    I get 3 calls a day for people wanting to sell me garbage medical “insurance” where for 300 dollars a month I get two paid office visits a year and 10,000 dollars each for up to two surgeries a year. So for 3600 dollars a year they are possibly out 20300 dollars if I have two surgeries and I pay the rest. Big deal. What I can’t get is major medical insurance to protect me from going broke.

    What happens to the Chinese when they have cancer? My guess is they go back home and prepare to die. That is your free market system.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @utu
  142. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is one of the world’s leading intellectuals. I am truly honored to have met this man during my years of libertarian activisim.

  143. @MarkinLA

    Mark, with all respect, I don’t think you read all the text on my blog posts. Insurance, REAL insurance, not a “health plan” is an easy enough thing for a real business (NOT a government-controlled money-sucking apparatus) to do.

    Do you understand that for young men especially, it doesn’t take but a hundred or two bucks a month to truly cover these unlikely catastrophic medical events when put into a pool? Insurance people do know the numbers, but these numbers don’t help make the plan work when there are thousands of government rules (state and feral) that muck up the whole thing.

    In China, you will die if you don’t come up with the money. That’s why people save money or pay for insurance. That’s the idea. It’ll make your responsible real fast, won’t it? Secondly, insurance doesn’t cost as much when you don’t have to pay for other people’s problems.

    Big deal. What I can’t get is major medical insurance to protect me from going broke.

    I think to ask this question is to start on the road to understanding how fucked up the American medical industry is due to government. You need to understand how hard government sucks, Mark.

  144. @MarkinLA

    You are right that the system cannot be fixed. That was a feature, not a bug of Obamacare, but this stuff goes way back to the 1960’s anyway, one small welfare-state step at a time. The system has to die on its own, which it probably will, when the ponzi financial system of the US crashes.

  145. @Achmed E. Newman

    Secondly, insurance doesn’t cost as much when you don’t have to pay for other people’s problems.

    Now that might be confusing! By “other people”, I meant those who are not paying for insurance. In America, it is a whole lot of illegal aliens, and indigents (some who get flown in to the hospital via helicpoter for chest pains, yet refuse treatment. Does anyone know here how many 10’s of 1000’s of bucks that costs? My doctor friend who was trying to treat the guy who got 2 ambulance rides and 1 helicopter ride on the taxpayers’ dimes for NOTHING, told him to get out and never come back to that hospital. Then my friend got chewed out by the hospital administration, but ignored them.)

  146. utu says:

    My guess is they go back home and prepare to die.

    That’s libertarian paradise.

  147. MarkinLA says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Do you understand that for young men especially, it doesn’t take but a hundred or two bucks a month to truly cover these unlikely catastrophic medical events when put into a pool?

    Do you understand that it doesn’t make sense for anybody who doesn’t have a new worth of at least 50,000 dollars to buy health insurance? So all those kids won’t buy it even at 100 dollars a month. If something big happens you just file for bankruptcy. What percentage of the US population has enough assets to protect such that they would buy insurance? How many of them have pre-existing conditions such that they can’t get it at any price (well maybe 4,000 dollars a month with a 50,000 deductable).

    That is the problem – not the favorite punching bag of the libertarians, the government boogeyman.

    The free market cannot and will not fix this. If we want hospitals to get paid and have some control over costs, there is no way to get the government out of the healthcare system. Somebody needs to take money from everybody so providers can get paid for their services instead of having to sue for payment.

    • Agree: utu
Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Hans-Hermann Hoppe Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?