Fascist Libertarianism: For a Better World

pinochetHere at The Right Stuff we’re always tearing things down and burning bridges. I figured I’d try to write a hopeful article that reaches out to potential right-wing allies and proposes a solution — an article with a positive vision for change. Well, at least it’s as positive as one can be in an article that recommends interning large groups of Americans. I see a potential alliance and compatibility between occidental traditionalists and libertarians. Maybe this is a bridge too far, but it’s really the only way forward for the right.

Creativity, innovation, free actors, decentralization, free markets — it’s all great stuff. This point is granted; spontaneous order is the best. But not always. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances.

Drastic measures are required. We’re too far gone now. A small elite always rules over the herd, and this elite has the power to mold public opinion. We must become the elite, by any means necessary. Martial law is probably required, and that means the imposition of a fascist leader’s arbitrary will.

I understand the urge, I really do, but people are advocating purist libertarian policies at an inappropriate time. Advocating greater civil liberties and open borders in our current situation will only make things worse. We have a demographic problem. The barbarians are way past the gates; exclusion is necessary. The disenfranchisement of degenerates is necessary. The average man is not a libertarian. By empowering every individual you will be mainly empowering progressives.

Libertarians want the average man to have more autonomy, but they must realize that with this freedom the common man will only advocate more leftism, more insanity.

Our democratic constitutions are tantamount to a suicide pact for the Western world. The general public is overwhelmingly in support of Democracy, and it will be the death of us. If you’ve been in the activist world for long enough, it should be obvious that people aren’t going to change their minds voluntarily; without fascism… libertarianism is an exercise in futility. As Moldbug says:

The problem with Mises as guru is that Misesian classical liberalism is like Newtonian physics. It is basically correct within its operating envelope. Under unusual conditions it breaks down, and a more general model is needed… Just as Newtonian rules only make sense at low speeds, Misesian rules only make sense in a secure order.

There is a political hierarchy of needs. Starting with peace, you move to security, then law, and finally freedom. The libertarian wants to skip all the other steps (and the dirty work required in them) and hop right to freedom. We are currently engaged in a type of civil war, so we need to tackle the objective of “peace” first.

We are participants in a democratic civil war where voting wars rage between interest groups. What a grand experiment! On top of the political violence, we also have groups that literally mug, murder, and rape. Advocating libertarian policies in the middle of a war like this emboldens the warring parties and further inflames the conflict. Libertarians inadvertently encourage the opponents of order.

In a certain framework spontaneous order works, and that framework is one in which a libertarian-like culture has been thoroughly instilled and the rules have been clearly laid out. In the endeavor to achieve the libertarian’s vaunted spontaneous order we must first achieve ordinary, centralized, authoritarianism. Then, after this order has set in and the message has been received, the government can start to relax and society can devolve into spontaneous order. Markets can be freed, individual actions can be deregulated, and civilization can flourish.

If libertarianism is to be implemented it must be ushered in by the iron fist — by central planning, by non-libertarian tactics. This is the conundrum facing libertarian advocates: libertarians aren’t willing to countenance what it would actually take for their dreamworld to come true. Libertarians are anti-power and their worldview would require massive amounts of power to implement. The potent enemies of the Right are unencumbered by these moralistic anti-authoritarian ideals, and they will initiate force against you to enforce their egalitarian vision.

Pinochet needs to become popular again in libertarian circles. A heavy-handed police force isn’t always a good idea but sometimes it is quite proper. Libertarians, with their penchant for antagonizing the police, need to be reminded that street criminals are far more likely to accost you than the cops. If libertarians are really out to stop crimes against the individual the real enemy isn’t the policeman; it is the street thug and the common progressive. To re-install a libertarian order we will need police, they must become the libertarian’s ally. As Murray Rothbard himself declared: “Cops must be unleashed… and allowed to administer instant punishment.”

Another dominant idea that cripples libertarians and threatens the new fascist order: human neurological uniformity. Take a look around, non-whites are celebrating your disempowerment. Individualistic myopia, refusing to see groups of people as viable threats to order, is a huge obstacle on the road to the new regime.

Libertarians are usually white males. And these white males are always baffled as to why there are so few minorities involved in their CATO clubs. The individualism that libertarians value is rare in other races, and in the fairer sex. Libertarianism is a white man’s ideology. It’s also an ideology that is partly responsible for many great achievements in human history — great increases in wealth and knowledge. Have no doubt libertarians: your ancestors built this.

Since that time you’ve been dispossessed of what was once known as common sense. Whites are different, they have great power for abstract thinking, for inventing, and for creating powerful civilizations. Not everyone has this power.

Dear libertarian, take the rose colored glasses of racial egalitarianism off. Look around and see that other races don’t even disguise their hatred of you. Even though you don’t think in terms of race, rest assured that they do. Humanity is composed of a series of racial corporations. They stick together, and if we don’t… Western civilization is doomed.

For example, racial spoils are a direct result of white disunity. White males are considered second-class citizens when it comes to employment, education, and government benefits. You can’t pretend this is still your country — it isn’t. You can’t pretend that you can keep playing by the rules of democracy and somehow win. You won’t. If you keep buying into the progressive egalitarian narrative, and the universal human rights paradigm, it will cost you. No other race really believes that hoopla, only white people are wired to actually internalize that “brotherhood of man” stuff. You will be playing a handicap game if you consider the world as being populated by equal individuals without ingrained tribal loyalties.

Currently the dominant group in the West are the progressives, the fervent leftists. They must be contained; they are a direct threat to what American libertarians commonly refer to as “liberty.” Half of white America are political leftists, and their alliances with other tribes has made them drunk with victory. But the leftists are too big for their britches, much like the Sicilian from Princess Bride they are not as smart as they think. But good luck convincing them of that since they have been victorious for so long. They are formidable adversaries. They must be dealt with. Don’t feel bad, they’re dealing with us as we speak.

Progressives, communists, and degenerates of various stripes will need to be interned — at least during the transition period. Terrorism and guerrilla warfare can be prevented with this measure. In the instance of a coup d’état it would be reasonable to detain every person who might conceivably be an enemy of the right-wing revolution. Rather than starving or torturing them they should be treated well with the highest standard of living reasonably possible. Most of them will simply be held until the war is over and the winner is clear. This is actually much more humane than allowing a hotly contested civil war to occur.

True justice has just outcomes. Advocating radical universalist libertarian policies in our current world results in a terrible injustice. Supporting libertarian principles while outside the necessary framework moves a society towards chaos and destruction. You can’t take a libertarian approach, sanctifying the greatness of free choice, when the vast majority of people are refusing to choose libertarianism. You must bash your way into power, and from there you can have libertarian policies emerge.

Basically, hardcore Statism is required to reinstate an order that can even lead to something like libertarianism. This is the catch-22. The only possible methods that can achieve a type of libertarianism in America are repulsive to libertarians. Deontological libertarianism proscribes this fascism. The iron fist is ruled out a priori. Not because it doesn’t work, but because it is considered evil. Libertarians must discard this slave morality if they truly seek efficacy. If libertarians want to win — rather than just feel self-righteous — they must embrace what the reactionaries have to say.

Recognizing the need for the state doesn’t necessarily make you a milquetoast movement libertarian that wants to vote for Rand Paul. Be anti-democratic. A fascist libertarian is a rebel and an anarchist in this society, because it is beyond reform and undeserving of redemption. Besides, take a look at the current voting public, they want nothing to do with the theories of Mises or Rothbard. Elections favor the doltish generic man and libertarians are exceptional. Libertarianism will never become popular enough to win elections. Our current crop of people will not be organically converted to libertarianism. We should realize this. Libertarians are unfashionable weirdos. Other people think them insane, and yet they expect to persuade these same people. Talk can only get you so far.

A key insight that libertarians could take away from both progressives and reactionaries is that the State is a tool, and a useful one at that. Gregory Hood has done a lot of good work on this topic, and he has said that:

“State power allows whites to recapture the sense of building a society, ‘progressivism’ in its best sense.”

The libertarian actually needs the State in order to re-install their ideology in their homelands, to protect their people from enemies, and to help create the environment for a thriving market. I didn’t want to believe it when I was first told by a progressive professor that the market is just like a vegetable garden that needs the State to tend it, fence it in, choose what will be grown, help feed and nurture the seedlings, etc… but it’s true.

We don’t want purely speculative politics, and this is what a lot of radical libertarians are into. Their ideas about polycentric law and competing law agencies can be experimented with, but it’s best to stick to what’s tried and true: The State. And much like men, not all States are created equal: They don’t all have to be Democratic quagmires.

The libertarian’s respect for individualism combined with the reactionary’s understanding of humanity’s limitations will enable us to build a society that brings the best out of human nature, where the hand of government is lightly felt. Laissez-faire has its place and time, but we must set a deliberate direction for our culture and society with State action.

“If you want strong families, you have to reform family and marriage law and create economic policies that reward good choices. If you want quality education, you have to put through policies that recognize that not everyone should be going to college and that real skills and real curriculum should be taught both at a trade school and at a liberal arts university. If you want responsible financial management by families as well as by government, you need policies that reward saving rather than constant consumption. If you want a white ethnostate to stay white, you can’t just bar nonwhite immigrants and yell racial slogans — you have to create a system that prioritizes quality products over plastic junk and skilled labor over dull-eyed helots… All this can only come from the top. All of this requires force and state power.” –Gregory Hood

Another wise professor of mine once said that libertarians are often right, but they’re always irrelevant. Until libertarians can come to terms with the value of fascism they will be relegated to the harmless kook bin. Working within the democratic paradigm will bear no fruit for the libertarian, another way is necessary.

Libertarians must come to terms with the reactionary idea that the country might be a better place if Democracy was suspended, the Constitution annulled, and the government handed over to an interim dictator whose first act would be to impose martial law. For the new regime, consent must be manufactured out of a hostile populace. Libertarianism shouldn’t just be about proscribing certain actions of government regardless of context; it needs to be about the acquisition of power, and using it for righteous ends.

  • paa


    No one cares about libertarianism except nerds. It is a flaccid ideology. You are on the right track with fascism, but you still need to think bigger (fascism is still too nationalistic.) Its a globalized world, hence IMPERIALISM. Try it out for size…The Great White Northern Western Empire.


  • Darth Stirner

    Maybe you should read it. Libertarianism has valuable insights. The article mentions the fact that it’s for nerds though. Flaccid nerds even.

  • Prinz Eugen

    I am not the first to say that libertarianism is Leninism inverted. To that end libertarianism’s purpose was to infiltrate and take power away from true rightists and reactionaries in the form of “compromises” like Meyer’s “fusionism” yet somehow these compromise ideologies always tended to be right-liberal at their core with only a thin veneer of reactionary. This seems to have been Rothbard’s entire life’s purpose.

    This has more or less succeeded in diluting and neutering any “hard right” here in this country in the sense seen in Europe- this being the intention all along. For that libertarians are the enemy perhaps the greatest enemy.

  • http://www.theoldmaninthecave.blogspot.com/ TheOldManIntheCave

    Viva Pinochet!

  • http://snapperheadsoup.blogspot.com/ snapperhead soup
  • David

    I forget the exact quote but Hayek said something along the lines of “It’s better to live under a liberal dictator than a repressive democracy.” I really think he got it more than most of the libertarians who read him. He’s the reason I converted to the Alt-Right.

    I’m half White and half Chinese. A half-breed, a mongrel if you will. I have no shame about it; how could I? It exists and gives me intelligence. Power. What needs to be recognized is where our ideas are already flourishing. I am talking about China. They are a country of growth as ours is one of decline. Free markets, but dogmatic politics. Order and stability. When the Chinese buy a new house or car they will save until they can make a 70% down payment. I’m pessimistic about America, but very optimistic about China. This deserves further analysis.

  • http://transpolitik.com Nihiltue

    Libertarian: Dogma without direction.

    One of you TRS writers need to use that as a title.

  • Raw Paw 4ever

    If one path to liberty is more unlikely than the idealistic ‘teach the proles economics and liberty, then live happily ever after in libertopia’ silliness of the Ron Paul types, it’s this.

    The police must become the libertarian’s ally? Good luck with that. Why on Earth would the police want to ally with libertarians? What do libertarians have to offer the police? Supporting being tough on street criminals? So, basically, be conservatives, but without the drug war, or any money or political power to offer them?

    Saying ‘wouldn’t it be great if libertarian dictators could just force free markets on everyone’ is no different than saying ‘wouldn’t it be great if everyone learned economics and stopped voting for stupid policies.’ Yeah, maybe it would be great, but it’s not going to happen.

    Mainstream libertarians have a good reason to be wary of fascism–fascism generally isn’t very libertarian. That’s because the policies of dictatorships are generally pretty much the same policies that the people support. Pinochet was an exception–but one of the very few. Governments of Muslim countries will have Islamic policies, whether those governments are dictatorships are democracies. Why? Because A) it’s easier to maintain control that way, and B) the dictatorship comes from the general population, and will share many of its views. If there was a military coup in the United States, they wouldn’t govern like libertarians, because the U.S. military isn’t filled with libertarians. And why would they try to impose unpopular policies on a hostile populace, when they could just do whatever’s popular and more easily keep their power?

    Coming to terms with the value of fascism will not stop libertarians from being seen as harmless kooks. What libertarians need to come to term with is that *nothing* will stop the masses from seeing libertarianism this way, and there will never be a libertarian society.

    The best we can hope for is a somewhat more libertarian society. A fascist coup could impose better policies, or it could impose worse policies–I see no reason to think one is more likely than the other.

    The only workable strategy, I think, is secession. There’s plenty of historical precedent. It’s popular in many parts of the world–Britain is seriously considering seceding from the EU, and there’s plenty of anti-EU sentiment in other countries. There’s regional secessionist movements in Britain, Canada, Spain, Russia, China, and others I’m not aware of I’m sure. Secession isn’t that popular in the U.S. right now, but I bet it will be by the end of Obama’s 2nd term (at least in the South).

    Secession can work because it appeals to people’s natural tendency toward in-group loyalty. Living in the American South for the past few years, I’ve noticed much stronger regional and local ties than I’d seen up north. I think this guy’s got the right idea: http://www.occidentaldissent.com

    You don’t need to convince the masses to vote for libertarianism, or the elites to force it down the masses’ throats–everyone can keep all the stupid beliefs they have about economics and such. And we’ll get more libertarian policies anyway. The easier it is to switch between tax jurisdictions, the lower taxes will be, (and the less progressive–notice that American federal taxes are highly progressive, but state taxation is regressive http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/can_progressive.html ) and the fewer things the government will be able to do.

    • David

      Pinochet. Lee Kuan Yew. Deng Xiaoping.

      Texas secessionism is just talk.

      • Sun

        All secessionism is just talk.

        Do you think obese Americans will do anything other than consume, plugged to their t.v., when then have a double shift next Monday?

        Both the right and left have degenerated in their own retrospects.

        You give us too much credit.

      • Bowtie and Fedora

        Pinochet may be my favorite historical figure.

  • Steve E

    Fine post, but you wrote “teem” for “team”.
    Good blog. Best regards to you, sir.

    • Darth Stirner

      Good catch. Thanks. We’re assembling a crew of editors.

      • http://www.leftybegone.com Chris Graham

        Ooh, I am an excellent proofreader and would be glad to be a regular contributor in this area.

  • Darth Stirner

    “The only workable strategy, I think, is secession.”

    I think secession can and should be a part of this. Support for separatism can be a follow through of the coup. The interim dictator may decide that it’s in his best interest to cut certain sections loose. For various reasons.

    I’ll write a follow-up article that fleshes out the details of the Right Wing revolution, and how it can be realistically achieved.

  • Darth Stirner

    Thank you for the compliment David.

  • David

    You know, it turns out I was right. I did not know this before, but apparently Hayek was a huge supporter of Pinochet:


    It’s possible to convert libertarians. Just tell them to check their primary sources.

  • Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/01/30 « Free Northerner()

  • Stephen

    This is an excellent article, I hope you write more in this vain.

  • Frank

    If you really believe in this concept, mentioned in the article Libertarian Fascism, I am working on a book that discusses something like this, but not in terms of a dictatorship in the US. I would like to be able to send you a copy when it is done if you could drop me a line at my email above.



  • Pingback: The essence of Rightism? - Page 5 (politics)()

  • http://gravatar.com/mikelorrey mikelorrey

    Libertarian fascism, is that where we take over the government in order to… LEAVE YOU ALONE, by FORCE?

  • http://www.leftybegone.com Chris Graham

    [T]he country might be a better place if Democracy was suspended, the Constitution annulled, and the government handed over to an interim dictator whose first act would be to impose martial law.”

    Realistically, no dictator would voluntarily relinquish his own power, so this path seems dangerous and as unrealistic as Libertarianism. No?

    • Bowtie and Fedora

      There was a leader once. Augusto Pinochet of Chile. When the people elected a Marxist (Salvador Allende), he stepped in to save his country. Milton Friedman even convinced him to adopt laissez-faire economic policies, and so Chile became (aside from a few major industries) a truly capitalist nation that didn’t lose it’s soul. And then, he stepped down. He had promised his people that they would be allowed to vote to keep him or return to democracy, and when they voted for democracy he agreed.

      Francisco Franco also relinquished power, but in his case he was relinquishing it to a monarch.

  • Pingback: An Apostate On Libertarians | The Right Stuff()

  • Simon

    I hope you will try and “contain” the leftists. :) Do it in the armed way.

    It would be nice to have an excuse to exterminate all of you and your aberrant, authoritarian ilk from the fucking planet. The majority will always agree with us because our values are far more palatable to the average human being than yours. So once you start your little rebellion, you and all of your friends will end up in ditches. I can’t wait.

    • David

      Rebellion? This guy’s missing the point entirely. Understand before you criticize at least.

    • Dr. Phelim M’Quirk

      “It would be nice to have an excuse to exterminate all of you and your aberrant, authoritarian ilk from the fucking planet”
      You have repressed authoritarian tendencies. It is much healthier embrace your authoritarian impulses rather than projecting it on others.

      “The majority will always agree with us because our values are far more palatable to the average human being than yours”
      I take it you are not familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory. Right wing values are actually values that humans have evolved with. Liberalism is, and will always be, a delusion of the intellectual class.

      Judging from your comment, I think it is quite obvious you are naturally authoritarian, not a liberal. After all, I was like you once.

    • Anonymous

      I just love threats from limp wristed leftist faggots on the internet. Leftists in America are completely emasculated. You forget who owns all the fucking guns.

  • http://twitter.com/cr0w13y Anonymous (@cr0w13y)

    Yes, I’ve felt this catch-22 as well. The problem is, there are no worthy Fascist leaders and there never will be.
    Face it, fascists are dicks. The entire ideology (as it is practiced) basically comes down to ‘stop liking things I don’t like’. That’s hardly a useful cornerstone for a society.
    Fascism won’t happen again because nobody wants it. It won’t happen because it serves no universal purpose. Liberty, on the other hand, serves everyone and all desire it.

    • Lev Bronstein

      “Face it, fascists are dicks. The entire ideology (as it is practiced) basically comes down to ‘stop liking things I don’t like’.”

      you just described every political ideology right there….

  • Strike Three

    This is an excellent article. But the cynic in me wants to ask, “Does Jeffrey Tucker, he with the faggoty bow tie over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, really want libertarianism to ‘succeed’?” What I mean is that all of those Lew Rockwell brainiacs depend upon the non-success of libertarianism in order to sell more books, conferences, coffee mugs and other sundry things. Their libertarian thought world is essentially a parallel dimension in which they reign as philosopher kings, and all of the poor libertarian schlubs who have to go to work at a real job each day are the courtiers who long to eat the crumbs from the king’s table.

    If libertarianism succeeds then Walter Block, Jeff Tucker, Lawrence Vance, Thomas Woods, Karen deCoster, et al become normal Joes like the rest of us.

  • http://libmises.eu5.org/ Augusto Pinochet

    I approve this message!

  • Michael Jon Barker

    “Pinochet needs to become popular again in libertarian circles. A heavy-handed police force isn’t always a good idea but sometimes it is quite proper. Libertarians, with their penchant for antagonizing the police, need to be reminded that street criminals are far more likely to accost you than the cops. If libertarians are really out to stop crimes against the individual the real enemy isn’t the policeman; it is the street thug and the common progressive. To re-install a libertarian order we will need police, they must become the libertarian’s ally. As Murray Rothbard himself declared: “Cops must be unleashed… and allowed to administer instant punishment.”
    Fuck facism …

  • Pingback: An Open Letter To Libertarians | The Right Stuff()

  • Bowtie and Fedora

    This is still my favorite essay on The Right Stuff, and perhaps anywhere on the Internet. Very inspiring, and without it I probably would have spurned Reaction before giving it a real chance.

  • doodls

    You cannot fight your way to peace any more than you can screw your way to virginity.

    You might think you need force now, but there would never be a time when you would feel safe divesting a central power. Your arguments are ones I often see from tea partiers, scratch the surface and you will find blatant racism and fear.

    And btw, I am a libertarian female.

    • tommcgtx

      Racism and fear? What the hell are you talking about?

      • doodls

        Fear of immigrants (which is really a well-hidden version of racism). Fear of other people and the decisions they might make. But forget that… read the first 2 sentences more carefully. You CANNOT institute libertarianism through force… it will NOT work. There will never be a point that you will feel comfortable enough with your fellow man to remove that force. This is the same argument used by Hitler and Mussolini… the justification of total power and absolutely horrible actions for the promise of a wonderful world somewhere down the road.

        • Michael Enoch

          You couldn’t do anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism or whatever else through force because by definition that would be contradictory. Those are pie in the sky utopias anyway though. But for sure you could impose libertarian economic policy and property rights through force and many governments have done this in the past. Remember, Pinochet retired peacefully before he was hounded to his grave by international leftists. His economic policies were informed by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

          And as far as “racism” well, I don’t think anyone here really cares that much about that scare word. I prefer to live around a majority of whites for various reasons. One being shared values, the other being higher intelligence and lower propensity for violent, criminal behavior. If you really want a libertarian society you should want the same instead of shaming people as “racist” for expressing their personal preferences.

          • doodls

            I’m not shaming you for your beliefs. I’m using the term racism in its proper context (see my reply to tommcgtx above). I explain in that reply that I don’t want the same — and whether you agree with my reasons or not is beside the point — the point is, you have no right to dictate your preferences to other property owners.

            When you talk about Pinochet using force to create a free market, I think you mean the force of defense; and defense is the ONLY acceptable use of force. So unless he Pinochet forced people to accept the return of their property and to again become entrepreneurs, then he wasn’t using aggression against peaceful people, he was using defense against powerful corporations and other governments. Big difference.

          • Michael Enoch

            These are all just your opinions.

          • doodls

            No, the definition of racism is not my opinion. And the definition (or even morality) of aggression vs. defense is not just my opinion.

          • Anonymous

            Actually it is just your opinion.

        • AlexanderMcNabb

          Which immigrants are you talking about? Is this the part where we claim all immigrant groups are created equal and none of them contain elements we might not want in our society?

        • tommcgtx

          My problem with your statement wasn’t about instituting Libertarianism through force, that is pretty much a stupid idea. You said that arguments like this were often heard from “Tea Partiers”, which is patently false, and I’ve never heard such things. I’ve also never seen any type of racism from “Tea Partiers”, and you are just regurgitating leftist lies. “Tea Partiers” usually talk about immigrants obeying the law, and that’s about it. That does not translate into “fear of immigrants”. I happen to agree with alot of what “Tea Partiers” stand for, and my wife happens to be a Mexican immigrant, a completely legal one. If you are going to make statements like that, at least attempt to show some type of evidence, and no, what some MSNBC host said doesn’t count.

          • doodls

            My statement is from personal experience, not any news source. I have a number of Tea Party friends & acquaintances, I have spoken with them at length about the main issues that seems to keep them from being libertarian… and one of those main issues is immigration. They couch their defense of strong borders in a variety of language; but when I converse with them long enough, they always resort to arguments like the one Michael Enoch lists below (or even Alex McNabb’s for that matter, since no “group” i.e. race acts as a monolith — I’m not remotely like Hilary Clinton or Cathy Woods or
            Brittney Spears or Kathryn Lutesinger, yet they’re all white females).

            The New Oxford American Dictionary defines racism as: “1) the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. 2) prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.”

            These people believe that certain races exhibit traits, as a whole, that they choose not to live around (in fact, this is so common, I’m beginning to think there is a Tea Party Playbook out there somewhere). Their feelings are fine, and in keeping with a libertarian philosophy of free choice… but then they wish to treat the United States, in its entirety, as their private property by keeping peaceful people from migrating to any land within the invisible and arbitrary borders defined by the US government.

            These folks are welcome to keep immigrants off their private property, they are even welcome to ban together with other property owners and create entire communities that refuse access to immigrants. What they can not do, is to speak for the millions of other property owners to decide who the rest of us may live around or sell our property to… To do this would be to create the isolationism that some accuse Ron Paul of trying to create. And isolationism IS a bad thing, it limits ideas and possibilities. So I choose NOT to limit the possibility of new neighbors based solely on their race or origin of birth. Now, who are you, or anyone else to limit my access to new friends and ideas? If you don’t want someone of a certain heritage living next door, the only thing you can do is buy more land; you can NOT tell your neighbors not to sell their land to whomever they choose.

          • tommcgtx

            Your argument is just plain stupid. The United States of America, and any nation for that matter, has a right to establish laws, and have them respected. If you want open borders, etc., than change it, but don’t just think because YOU decide our laws are meaningless that they therefore should not be enforced and/or respected. That DOES NOT translate into “racism”, period! None of the oppositon to illegal immigration is due to racism! That’s stupid, and I think you probably know that. It’s not just “immigrants” from south of the border, it’s anyone who thinks they can come here ILLEGALLY, from ANYWHERE, with ANY SKIN COLOR, etc. You have your own idea about how things should be, but it isn’t reality. If you don’t understand that, then it’s no use trying to explain it to you.

          • doodls

            By what “right” do governments establish laws? Go read the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson will explain quite clearly that “… that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.” The rights he was referring to are the natural rights of life, liberty and by obvious extension, property. Governments were created to defend rights… not to act aggressively against peaceful people. If a person or group is not infringing the aforementioned specific rights of another, then government has no authority to act against that person or group. It is immoral to attack, steal or enslave peaceful people. Immigrants, by and large are peaceful people migrating to new lands. Only when they become violent may we as a group act against them through our government. But I’m sure you’ve heard of the open immigration the US enjoyed up until the early 20th century… if not, google Ellis Island circa 1900.

            I could take the same dim view that it is no use to patiently explain to you that you’ve been duped by a strategic marketing campaign to convince you that not only is massive government necessary, its moral as long as a majority votes for it… but I don’t take that dim view. I think you are very smart and fully capable of unlearning the propaganda you’ve been exposed to since birth. Start with this quick video, (if you can’t afford to devote 6:45 to hear the entire video, just listen to it from 2:30-4:30) then search YouTube for “Lysander Spooner and The Constitution of No Authority” if you wish to hear an in-depth explanation of why this is valid on every legal level.

          • tommcgtx

            Hopeless. Good luck in crazy-town.

          • doodls

            Ok, but if, someday, you look around and discover that you are one of the very few left on the battlefield while the rest of the world is interacting voluntarily and peacefully, don’t be afraid to drop your weapons and your fear… because that’s the only way you’ll get to a peaceful world. For now, you are actually feeding the fear and hatred that is being used to keep you enslaved to others who play on that fear to keep themselves in power.

          • http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com Global Political Awakening

            I guess tommcgtx couldn’t argue with logic.

          • BurningBeardFYA

            Laws are nothing more than shackles through which the powerful control the weak.

          • BurningBeardFYA

            Politicians don’t pass laws for your benefit, you dunce. They don’t care about you. The state doesn’t care about you. All those people care about is power and wealth. You’re like progressives who think regulations are passed for their benefit. No, regulations are written by corporate lobbyists to protect big business from their big business competitors. Government has never been designed to serve the average person. Limited government is a myth.

          • BurningBeardFYA

            *small business competitors

          • tommcgtx

            Says the idiot, 10 months later. Your Utopia is just as bad and impossible as stupid leftist progressives.

          • http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com Global Political Awakening

            I think it’s important to mention the fact that reasonable people oppose immigration for a variety of reasons; the most reasonable, of course, is the fact that the government provides welfare benefits to many immigrants, including those who are here “illegally”. Yet another example of how the government destroys freedom.

          • doodls

            True, GPA, but when you discuss the possibility of correcting the welfare problem that with Tea Partiers, you don’t usually get agreement… you get the arguments expressed by the folks here or you get the “laws” argument.

    • Anonymous

      You talk about peace while violence is all around you, woman, violence that you’re largely protected from only due to the actions of violent men. Peace at the cost of liberty is what men call “slavery” or “serfdom”.

  • http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com Global Political Awakening

    This is the most illogical, incoherent, and dangerous view of libertarianism I’ve ever wasted my time to read.

    • AlexanderMcNabb

      I take it you’ve never read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”

      • http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com Global Political Awakening

        You are correct. I haven’t read it but I am familiar with the theme and plot narrative. Regardless, my view of this article is the same. What am I missing?

  • http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com Global Political Awakening

    It doesn’t take long reading through the comments here to conclude that many of those who agree with the article are bigots.

  • http://www.capitalismv3.com Curt Doolittle

    The origin of liberty, as we understand it, and that is the ONLY origin of liberty that has ever existed, is the ORGANIZED application of violence by a willing minority to institute property rights by granting them to those others who would fight for them. Therefore property was a right earned reciprocally in contract from others.

    Over the past 150 years, in order to justify the entry of women and proletarians into the voting pool, this requirement – membership in the militia as qualification for citizenship – was dropped.

    The voting data suggests that liberty would have survived the introduction of the lower classes, as well as the catholics, except for women. Within one generation of women entering the voting pool, they drove the policy left in an attempt to restore the female reproductive strategy of bearing children and placing the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (the state).

    If we are to have liberty again, there is no historical precedent other than the use of organized violence to obtain it. Or, the threat of organized violence as an incentive to require those of us with different reproductive strategies (married protestants using the absolute nuclear family) from extortion by those with family structures other than the absolute nuclear family (ANF).

    The ANF prohibits free riding, even by one’s children. Whereas single mothers free ride entirely, tribal families free ride entirely, and extended families free ride partially.

    The ability to tolerate free riding is a LUXURY GOOD. And we are no longer competitive enough to tolerate free riding by such extensive numbers of people.

    SO ideology or not, facts are facts. We are libertarians. And we are supposed to be the most economically literate polity. That should not stop us from ignoring scientific evidence: people are tribal and the english are one of the least diverse people on earth – and that was part and parcel of our success in building the high trust society, and conquering the world with it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute.

    • Michael Enoch

      Thanks Curt. I couldn’t agree more. Keep up the good work.

      • http://www.capitalismv3.com Curt Doolittle

        Thanks Michael. :)

  • Techno-Progressive Libertarian

    The problem with this article is that it bascially asks libertarians to give up libertarianism and then still pretend they’re libertarian. Or maybe fascist libertarians. Ludwig Von Mises thought that fascism had saved Europe from the commies, but then he turned around and starting castigating them for being socialist, so your mileage may be short.

    Another problem is that libertarianism is not just free markets – it’s also about social freedom, so assuming that libertarianism is some sort of ultra-right thing is foolish. There is a trend of what you could perhaps call conservatarianism which defines the Tea Party, which is basically just hating fags and darkies + plutocracy worship, but libertarianism as an ideology distinct from ultraconservatism, must necessarily embrace all that leftist faggy freedom you hate.

    Libertarianism is a fusion movement of the left and right (ironically, like fascism), and as such is just as much an enemy of the right as the left.

    Asking libertarians to embrace brutal authority because otherwise they can’t beat the left (our only enemy supposedly) is the same as asking us to STOP being libertarians. If you want to hate on the ideology, just say it.

    I don’t think the left or the right can win in the long run anyway. It is the left-liberal and not the Marxist who is in ascendance anyway. These guys LOVE the regulated mixed economy, and that at least means private property. That leaves open the advance of technology to provide off-grid solutions in solar energy, and solutions in desktop manufacturing, and uses for common materials like carbon (graphene anyone?) that sap the left’s control over the economy, by localizing it away from the very corporations that the modern leftist loves to hate. That and the rise of automation and AI to render public services less tax intensive, and thus less coercive.

    If anything it is the left who are laying the seeds of their own destruction by trying to advance technology… and you are asking us to join the ultra-right in the mires of traditionalism, just so we can have another war in which the ultra-right gets spanked anyway.

    No thanks. I’d rather exploit the left, then fire guns at them.

    • http://www.capitalismv3.com Curt Doolittle

      Mises and Rothbard were half wrong. For their inspiration they looked to the ghetto: the anarchic state within a state – just as did all jewish intellectuals from that part of the world. The jewish enlightenment not the anglo or continental was where they looked for inspiration. The problem is, you’d need the monarchical state to reconstruct the ghetto. That’s the Crusoe economics: the island is the ghetto, and the ocean is its walls.

      For a study of economics it’s adequate. Rothbard doomed our movement though, by looking to ghetto ethics. Effectively rothbard says “we will both give up violence but we will not give up deception.”

      It has not occurred to Libertarians, of any stripe, that it’s praxeologically impossible to form a polity with enough trust in one another, and therefore low enough transaction costs, that they will reduce their demand for a third party (the state) and thus grant one another liberty.

      It’s impossible because it’s irrational. Non logical.

      This is why libertarianism failed. Rothbard does not so much advocate liberty as justify immorality.

      There is no peaceful solution to liberty. The source of liberty (property rights), was the exchange of those rights between those men willing to use organized violence to obtain those rights – including the prohibition on violence, deception and free riding. The wealth that resulted from the prohibition on violence, deception and free riding produced status signals that were desirable for others to imitate. Over time, westerners evolved to adopt the prohibition on violence, deception and free riding,

      Rothbardian ethics are parasitic because they do not enforce a requirement that individuals produce what they transfer – rothbardian ethics permit and justify parasitism. The NAP is insufficient because it does not prohibit parasitism. Without a prohibition on parasitism, humans will not reduce demand for a state to limit parasitism.


      **If you will not fight for property rights, you have not earned them in exchange from those who do fight for them. You’re just another beggar trying to get them at a discount. Just another free rider on the backs of others. Just another parasite.**

      Curt Doolittle
      The Propertarian Institute

      • Karl Schipul

        “Mises and Rothbard were half wrong.”

        Why? Do you have any arguments of theirs you can actually rebut? Quotes and source, please.

        “For their inspiration they looked to the ghetto: the anarchic state within a state…”

        rather than go over any faulty arguments you claim they used, you try to associate them with unsavory things – a classic sophist trick.

  • Pingback: Ο παγκόσμιος “εμφύλιος” | True Anarchy ΑΛΗΘΙΝΗ ΑΝΑΡΧΙΑ()

  • Mike

    Fucking brilliant

  • Pingback: The Anti-Racialist Q & A – UPDATES ongoing | The Prussian()

  • Pingback: We Are All Francoists Now | FUIMUS()

  • Pingback: Mooring | The Right Stuff()

  • Baloocartoons

    This is a brilliant piece. I’ve reprinted it with commentary and illustration here:
    A libertarian society would be a wonderful thing indeed, but how do we get TO if from the mess we’re in now?

    • Karl Schipul

      well, going in the opposite direction sure as hell almost never works, but when certain people write about politics, up is down, left is right, etc. They would never apply this kind of logic anywhere else in their lives.

  • Luke

    This more or less follows my own philosophical progression: from libertarian to Southern Agrarian. The latter has a lot more rules associated with but it recognizes reality and the fact that the world is not made up of selfless, giving individuals.

    • Karl Schipul

      That’s your opinion (and unqualified), unless you can demonstrate that you read enough material from both libertarian and “Southern Agrarian” authors to make this claim.

  • Pingback: Using force to preserve freedom | Conservative News Voice for Puerto Rico()

  • Pingback: A Very Interesting Article: Fascist Libertarianism: For A Better World - Defending The Truth Political Forum()

  • Everyusernametaken

    The author should be tortured by one of Pinochet’s henchmen and then shot.

  • Maphesdus

    “If you want responsible financial management by families as well as by government, you need policies that reward saving rather than constant consumption.”
    –Gregory Hood

    This is factually incorrect. As John Maynard Keynes pointed out in his magnum opus, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money,” the key to a successful and prosperous economy is actually to encourage spending, not saving. Some saving is obviously necessary, but spending is more important. After all, without spending, there is no economy. One person’s spending is another person’s paycheck. If everyone stopped shopping, you’d get what Keynes called a Paradox of Thrift, and the entire economy would collapse.

  • https://twitter.com/Raiden679 Raiden

    This is based.