Libertarians and Race Realism

Gilbert Cavanaugh, American Renaissance, October 11, 2013

Who are our potential allies?

For those of us who enjoy a touch of libertarianism, the news of Jared Taylor’s recent appearance at Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society was well received. It also begs the valuable question, “Which libertarians are friendly to race realism, and which are not?” As it stands, what Mr. Taylor wrote over a decade ago in his review of Prof. Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed is still (unfortunately) for the most part true: “Libertarians, to the extent they have any influence on American policy, have been bitter opponents of immigration control. From the Cato Institute, to the Libertarian Party, to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, their generally laudable opposition to government control leads them to view border control as just one more intolerable act of government tyranny.” However, both then and now, Prof. Hoppe and a small band of allies within the libertarian movement have fought that trend; and they deserve notice for their principled and courageous stance.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Prof. Hoppe (sometimes referred to as “HHH”) and his Property and Freedom Society is a good place to start. Founded in 2005, it was forged in large part out of Prof. Hoppe’s dislike for the mainstream and politically correct libertarian group, the Mont Pelerin Society, of which he had been a member. Both the PFS’s tone and speakers lists have been influenced from the beginning with touches of race-realism and anti-establishmentarianism gleaned from Prof. Hoppe’s participation in the John Randolph Club. The latter group, paleo-libertarian in pedigree, featured many speakers familiar to AmRen readers, such as Taki Theodoracopulos, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, and during the early years, even Michael Levin and Jared Taylor. Unfortunately the Randolph Club has been more or less dormant for many years now, after several of its main participants died, and the remnants began fighting among themselves. Occasional AmRen contributor James Lubinskas’ The End of Paleoconservatism examines that group’s fall in greater detail.

The talks given at Prof. Hoppe’s gatherings can be found easily on YouTube (although this year’s are not available yet), and feature not only Richard Spencer and Peter Brimelow, as Mr. Taylor mentioned, but other prominent race realists as well, such as John Derbyshire and Paul Gottfried. Prof. Hoppe also wrote an interesting reflection on the origins and nature of his society, which can be found on VDARE—frankly, any libertarian willing to post on VDARE is a libertarian worth listening to. Additionally, much of Prof. Hoppe’s writings on immigration and discrimination can be found online. Especially noteworthy for AmRen readers are, “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration” and “Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem.


Richard Spencer, Taki Theodoracopulos, and Peter Brimelow.

Lew Rockwell is another libertarian figure worth knowing about, but is something of an enigma. In 1982 he founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which quickly became a conservative and radical counterweight to the increasingly liberal and mainstream Cato Institute. Murray Rothbard, considered a kind of libertarian god to many, would soon join him after being purged from the Cato Institute, which he had helped found. The Mises Institute, while more libertarian than anything else, has time and again shown itself to be unconcerned with the taboos that even many other libertarians fear. It has published sharp critiques of such liberal totems as feminism and multiculturalism.

Mr. Rockwell would also go on to propose a “paleo libertarian alliance” in 1990 that would make the case for libertarians to avoid the company of certain “liberated” groups that had begun making common cause with the movement, such as habitual drug users, nudists, and the like. Instead, Mr. Rockwell argued that libertarians should establish closer ties with the rising paleo-conservative movement. That same year Mr. Rockwell took his own advice and started the paleo-libertarian Rothbard-Rockwell Report, which ran into the late ’90s and featured a plethora of AmRen contributors such as Michael Levin, Paul Gottfried, and Robert Weissberg, as well as the then less well known Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Burton Blumert, Lew Rockwell, David Gordon, and Murray Rothbard.

Burton Blumert, Lew Rockwell, David Gordon, and Murray Rothbard.

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

Though originally not much different in pedigree and authorship from the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, the site has become steadily more politically correct. Who is featured on the website has to be separated into three categories: those who are listed on the contributors page, those who are not listed but still have personal pages, and those who have been deleted. There are many good writers listed: Prof. Hoppe, Pat Buchanan, and Clyde Wilson to name a few. There are also many good writers who are not listed, but still have pages, such as: Keith Preston, Marcus Epstein, Chilton Williamson, Michael Tuggle and H. A. Scott Trask. As for those who have been deleted, many were the best, such as Michael Levin and Jared Taylor.

VDARE published the most informative account of’s devolution, but Lew Rockwell’s own suspect recanting of what was, What I Learned From Paleoism, is also interesting. Unfortunately it seems likely that, with time, will continue its slide into political correctness and either delete or hide more authors–but for the time being, it is still worth visiting; it still carries the likes of Fred Reed and Chuck Baldwin.

Another important highlight of are the archives of the late Murray Rothbard–a man frequently credited with both inventing Anarcho-Capitalist theory, and popularizing Austrian economics in America. Not only was he a proud Copperhead and a vocal supporter of Strom Thurmond in his college days, but he also wrote a glowing review of Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve, and his famous essay, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, is a masterpiece.

Still considered "controversial."

Still considered “controversial.”

In many ways, it could be said that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is keeping alive the kind of fearless and conservative-oriented libertarianism that Murray Rothbard so perfectly embodied, and that Lew Rockwell’s various organizations and publications kept afloat for so long until his slow retreat of the last decade and a half.

The politically correct libertarians (who have many different monikers: beltway libertarians, left/liberal libertarians, and neo-libertarians are the most common) oscillate between vociferously denouncing their more realistic counterparts, and completely ignoring them. Reason magazine, put out by the Reason Foundation, is typical in this respect. While it acts as if Hans-Hermann Hoppe doesn’t exist, (just as The National Review acts as though Paul Gottfried and Jared Taylor do not exist) it has also gone out of its way to attack Ron Paul for being too right-wing. Every organization funded by the Koch Brothers either attacks from the left or completely ignores conservative libertarians. This is true of Reason, the Heritage Foundation, George Mason University, etc. Cato-affiliated Tom Palmer seems only to attack, and does so over and over. Meanwhile, the so-called “Bleeding Heart Libertarians” are almost the exact opposite in this regard, and seem to dedicate all of their time to earning a pat on the head from the Cultural Marxist left by ignoring any and every libertarian who has ever been touched by controversy. Unsurprisingly, they advocate open borders.

The two most powerful open-borders radicals among the libertarian ranks are, by far, Anthony Gregory and Walter Block. Walter Block has been with the Mises Institute for some time now, and is frequently Prof. Hoppe’s sparring partner on immigration. One such ideological duel can be found in this issue of the Journal for Libertarian Studies (which is put out by Mises), in which John Hospers, the founder of the Libertarian Party, voiced emphatic opposition to the idea of open borders. Anthony Gregory is of a younger generation of libertarians, and works for the fairly small Independent Institute–which also employs Alvaro Vargas Llosa (son of Mario) who recently penned a gushingly pro-immigration book. Troublingly, Anthony Gregory and Walter Block have both found ways to be featured frequently in what are otherwise reliable bastions of sensible libertarianism, namely the Mises Institute and Mr. Gregory seems to have redoubled his efforts, having made it into The American Conservative as well, while also being published in liberal publications such as The Huffington Post.

Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig van Mises

Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises

Two other important libertarian open-border advocates are Alex Nowrasteh and Jesus Huerta de Soto, while two other important libertarian immigration restrictionists are Gary North and Sean Gabb. It must be conceded, however, that the former duo has a great deal more influence than the latter. Mr. Nowrasteh has gained prominence from the media’s focus on immigration over these last few months, while Mr. De Soto is something of a mainstay in the libertarian scene. Meanwhile, Gary North has developed a reputation as a bit of an old coot, and is often cited as someone the Mises Institute should purge, while Sean Gabb has still not gained much name recognition in the United States.

If there were to be an underdog victory for immigration restrictionist libertarians, it would likely come not only from the groundwork laid by Prof. Hoppe and his annual gatherings of banished intellectuals, but from the historian Thomas Woods, Jr.. Most famous for his surprise hit, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History,” Mr. Woods also writes for Mises,, and a handful of other publications. From time to time, he shows fairly strong conservative leanings; in his review of Prof. Hoppe’s book, he recommended reading it in tandem with Pat Buchanan’s then-new The Death of the West. Additionally, he was once a member of the League of the South–and he is level-headed when it comes to immigration.

Self-styled libertarians and paleo-libertarians can also be found throughout the alternative/dissident right. The late Joe Sobran, who maintained a strong friendship with Murray Rothbard until the latter’s untimely death, was ultimately convinced by Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Anarcho-Capitalist ideas and went from being a strict constitutionalist to a “reluctant anarchist.” Ilana Mercer has similar leanings as well, and writes a paleo-libertarian column for the Russian organization, RT. Richard Spencer of NPI considers Prof. Hoppe, Dr. Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises to be essential reading. Taki’s Magazine which in the past has featured both Ms. Mercer and Mr. Spencer, has always had paleo-libertarian leanings as well.

However, when all is said and done, immigration restrictionists within libertarian circles have just as hard a time as those anywhere else. The Mises Institute has been labeled a hate group—an indignity that the Cato Institute never had to suffer, and it is well known that the latter has a great deal more money than the former. Part of the reason Prof. Hoppe now lives in Turkey may be because so many other libertarians were trying to throw him under the bus (though his troubles with Cultural Marxist academia probably influenced the decision as well). But, in defiantly inviting Jared Taylor to the latest gathering of the Property and Freedom Society, Prof. Hoppe has struck another blow to the stifling political correctness and dispossessing open border radicalism of mainstream libertarianism; with any luck, others will follow his lead.


Share This

Gilbert Cavanaugh
Gilbert Cavanaugh is a college student and Middle American Radical.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • JohnEngelman

    Libertarianism is like a woman who looks most beautiful from a distance. I mean, who could be against liberty, right?

    Well not so fast. in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France” Edmund Burke wrote, “The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may soon be turned into complaints.”

    We should also ask: for whom shall we increase liberty? It is clearly in the interest of the business community to open the borders to more immigrants. More immigrants mean more consumers and more job applicants. By the law of supply and demand this means higher prices, lower wages, and higher profits.

    Easing immigration restrictions also increases the liberty of people who want to move to the United States.

    Those who claim to be libertarians while advocating more immigration restrictions, or no immigration at all, are appropriating a trendy label while advocating an un libertarian agenda.

    Burke also wrote, “liberty, when men act in bodies, is power.” Since at least 1980 the liberty, the power, and the wealth of the business community has increased. Those who own and run the United States have certainly benefited. Has the rest of the country?

    • Daniel Schmuhl

      That’s not really quite correct. Immigration restriction is compatible with libertarianism from either a consequentialist or deontological ethical system. The deontologists could make a plausible case that since we live in a world of public property, it’s the right of citizens to to exclude people from that property to stop them from trespassing. A consequentialist libertarian could show how open-borders would reduce real-world liberty because of the political externalities or how multi-culturalism leads to decreases in liberty in order to force people to get along.

      • “Consequentionalist libertarian,” aka a racialist, i.e. not a libertarian.

      • Steven Bannister

        I’ll put it another way- libertarianism is great, as long as it’s practiced by the people who invented it. Once you let in aliens who do not share your philosophy of libertarianism, the whole thing disintegrates….

      • puffdaddy

        Most libertarians I know – of the Reason magazine variety – don’t make these arguments. I wish more of them would but most are immigration enthusiasts.

    • Most people who say they’re libertarian really aren’t. That’s the good news for us.

      • JohnEngelman

        They are in favor of more liberty for themselves, not for others.

        • And certainly not for white racialists. Which should be a clue to their real goal and what they’re really all about.

          • IanJMacDonald

            Libertarians across the board advocate respect for property rights and freedom of association. Such a society would have no room for affirmative action programs, i.e., diversicrats empowered to force companies to hire more minorities. Want to open a bar, restaurant or hotel that discriminates? In a free society, i.e., one based on private property and freedom of association, you’d be able to discriminate with no fear of lawsuits or incarceration.

            That would be a step in the right direction unless of course you’re a national socialist who has no use for private property or individual freedom in the first place.

          • Affirmative action could very easily continue under a libertarian governing paradigm.

            And if the only other option is libertarianism, I’ll happily give national socialism a second look.

          • IanJMacDonald

            Employers who exercise racial preferences in hiring pay a price. Let’s say that in a free society National Widgets, Inc., decides to hire Rufus Washington to be a production line manager so that they can crow about their “commitment to diversity.” Let’s say that Rufus turns out that he is incompetent but they decide to keep him. Firing him won’t bring down government heat, but they are worried about bad PR, so they keep him even though his incompetence results in defective widgets, wasted resources, and added costs. How long will National Widgets’ customer put up with buying inferior product? They will very soon switch to another widget company, one that hires and promotes people on the basis of merit.

            Affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, whatever you want to call it, cripples all the companies by forcing them to retain incompetent employees in the name of diversity.

            Economists Thomas Sowell and Walter WIlliams have written quite a bit about the costs of discrimination by employers.

          • Steven Bannister

            Conversely, if there’s a smart, qualified black man who will work as the production line manager for a little less money, then the boss of National Widgets might consider him a bargain and hire him.

            Performance is everything. There is NO owner of a major league football, basketball or baseball team who would turn down an athlete “because he’s black.” Blacks are paid well in sports because they PERFORM well in sports and funny enough, no Affirmative Action is required to bully sports teams into hiring black athletes.

          • dumbfuckdemocrats

            That is their right to be stupid and hire the savages. If you want to commit suicide, why should the state prevent you?

          • dumbfuckdemocrats

            I’ve never heard of a libertarian wanting to discriminate against whites.

      • 1stworlder

        Open borders wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t welfare as soon as they stepped in. Without benefits fraud most Mexicans would go home, and no African refugees could make it.

        • Don’t agree. The third world is so third worldey that they’d come anyway and wouldn’t go home even if there was some way to keep them from collecting our welfare, or even if we had no welfare. Of course we’ll always have some sort of welfare, so we can leave the fantasyland mentality of there never being any welfare.

    • dumbfuckdemocrats

      Most people are confused and get libertarians mixed up with anarchists. I don’t know of any libertarians who want to dissolve the borders or are in favor of a global government. It simply means that if the citizen is not infringing on another citizen’s rights, then that citizen should not be bothered by the government.

    • Preston Wigginton

      From my perspective there is only freedom to and freedom from. Freedom to express yourself of the heritage, culture and genetic identity that you come from and freedom to keep others from taking the first freedom from you. Each involve struggle and take effort, hence there is no free freedom as most libertarians wish.

  • Daniel Schmuhl

    I’m a semi-libertarian and race realist. The problem is that the libertarian establishment is wedded to the idea of open-borders and racial egalitarianism. Open borders is not really a libertarian concept because in the absence of a state there would be more borders. The reason is that beltway libertarians have sort of become more and more egalitarian over the years in order to try to get mainstream acceptance which is going to fail because liberal idealism is much more attractive to most people.

    I’m really not certain whether libertarian institutions could even exist without a majority European population. The only historical evidence we have comes from European societies. I mean libertarian in the sense of having lots of negative and positive liberty, not just in the size of the state. Some African countries have small states but very little in terms of negative or positive liberty.

    • “In the absence of a state, there would be more borders.”

      Not grokking.

      That’s like saying that in the absence of houses, there would be more doors.

      If open borders wasn’t really a libertarian concept, why is it in the modern politics of most of the white world, where the immigration patriots are, the libertarians aren’t, and where the immigration patriots go, the libertarians are going in the other direction?

      • Daniel Schmuhl

        I’m not saying that the absence of the state is desirable but in most places where this is no state there are no open-borders. Tribal socieites usually kill people who wander into their territory. If you had a society based on a private property most people would try to exclude strangers from their territory.

        Some of it due to the fact that mainstream libertarians want to signal how non-racist they are to progressives because quite a lot of libertarian ideology is racist in the sense that it isn’t sufficiently anti-racist.

        • Or, here’s another possibility:

          Quite a lot of libertarian ideology is genuinely anti-racist on its own volition.

          Tribal societies and private property based societies that give the owners of private property the unfettered right to exclude strangers for any reason are by definition not libertarian. They’re something, just not libertarian.

          • Daniel Schmuhl

            Libertarians can be anti-racist if they want it’s just that it isn’t really part of the canon in the way that anti-racism is part of the official leftist ideology.

            You can argue whether anarcho-capitalism, tribalism, or monarchism are libertarian or not, as I’ve said previously I’m not a libertarian and probably could be classified as a reactionary.

          • Sick of it

            Then you do not consider Hans Herman Hoppe libertarian. Or Ayn Rand or anyone else in the libertarian movement who believes in private property, which would be a fairly large number of people. Perhaps you prefer the term anarcho-capitalist?

      • Eagle_Eyed

        A “pure” libertarian society would have no “borders” but also no government which promoted immigration, integration, and all the other racial Marxist programs.

        • And if I happen on the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow tomorrow, I’ll declare my candidacy for President the next day.

          Real world, over here, this way…

          • Eagle_Eyed

            Well isn’t the discussion whether or not libertarianism and race realism are cohesive? I have problems with libertarian philosophy but much of our current problems stem from a centralized Marxist state. I guess my point is we share a common enemy.

          • The discussion about whether racialism and libertarianism can be cohesive is not necessary. Racialism and eating broccoli can be cohesive, too. Racialism is its own reward, and does not need to be justified in terms of anything else.

            Sure, I have as much of a problem with most elements of the centralized state as anyone else here. But that doesn’t make us libertarians. And we shouldn’t have to depend on libertarian ideology to give us the mental framework to be opposed to the centralized Marxist state. It’s wrong and abhorrent on its own face. I oppose it because it’s wrong, and it’s wrong because it’s wrong, not because libertarian ideology states that it’s wrong.

            Libertarians and our other enemies share a common enemy: Us.

          • Eagle_Eyed

            I agree we have a different political philsophy from libertarians (see below). (As an aside I myself don’t hold a consequentialist philsophy although I’m sure many others here do). But if some factions of libertarianism can be potential allies it is worth thinking about, especially considering a decentralized nation would make it easier for the states to pass laws which can be defended from a race-conservative viewpoint.

          • I agree. We have our differences with libertarians.

            The Montagues and Capulets had differences with each other. The Earthlings and Martians in War of the Worlds had their differences, too.

            Oh, I’m sorry, I said “differences,” I should have really said “sworn to the death enemies.”

            The factions of libertarianism that can be useful to us aren’t being libertarian while they are being useful to us.

          • IanJMacDonald

            So Prof. Hoppe stopped being a libertarian when he invited Jared Taylor to speak before his Property and Freedom Society?

          • HHH stopped being a libertarian the first moment he became racially aware.

          • IanJMacDonald

            Ok, I understand you now. So if a white libertarian becomes racially conscious, he is, in your book, no longer a libertarian.

        • Rhialto

          That’s an important point. Libertarians believe that governments should be racially neutral; that is that a citizen’s race should have no effect on a government’s treatment of them. This is an attitude that I could support. Of course, the Liberals consider this attitude Racist, because the Liberals support different treatment for different races.

      • Sick of it

        With more of a focus on private property and personal rights as opposed to collective rights and collective authorities, you could put a big fat concrete wall around your property, thus creating a truly defensible border. You could choose who you serve at your privately owned business. You could gather with whatever group you wanted to and exclude people you do not wish to include. I’m not a libertarian, but I get what they’re talking about – We’d have more physical borders as well as mental borders, if you will.

        • But then someone would notice the racism of it all, and all the libertarians that lionize Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks will demand you take down those walls in the name of libertarianism. Because raging violent blacks have the individual liberty to kill us.

          • Sick of it

            But you could shoot those same people for trespassing upon your private property without just cause. No one has a right to break into your home or invade your property. That’s how folks used to handle things in these United States of America.

          • Not even the most staunch libertarian would jettison the Duty of Care.

          • Sick of it

            I honestly don’t know the libertarians you’ve been involved with, but it’s very different with those I’ve known. Duty of care? For invaders and criminals? That’s more of a liberal concept.

          • Duty of care means you don’t shoot the kid who uses your yard as a shortcut on his way back and forth to school every once in awhile.

          • Sick of it

            It’s more than that, but again if one entirely owns their property, instead of being encumbered by some collective organization, they could do what they pleased on their own land. Such as making a visitor wear funny hats…or shooting intruders.

    • 1stworlder

      Their other big thing is what can be done with property. A home is many peoples biggest investment and its bad enough NAM moving in lower property values.

    • RedFIag450

      I consider myself a libertarian nationalist. I believe in complete freedom of association, a free market and promotion of civil freedoms while maintating an isolationist, decentralized political system that’s focused on protecting the just freedoms of its citizens and only its citizens.
      I personally favor an immigration policy that doesn’t explicitly say it’s meant to keep the US majority White, but it would be based on level of IQ and obtaining both level 9 English and a clean criminal record. This would mean little to no third world immigration. But in terms of domestic policy and social policy, I say one should be allowed to do as they please as long as they don’t hurt others or society at large (so I support marriage privitazation and ending the War on Drugs for example).

      Sorry for a late reply, just wanted to give my two cents.

  • So we’re back to this mess again.

    If you already have a gallon of ice cream, why would you willingly mix it with a gallon of mud? Or any amount of mud? Racialism is the ice cream, libertarianism is the mud. (I’m being polite when I say “mud,” if you catch my drift.)

    Yeah, there are racially correct thinking libertarians out there, that freely and openly admit that they’re swimming against a stiff current. So why don’t they get out of the stream and find a new one? All I know is that if I’m on a dead horse, I’m getting off the horse. Why bother with all this navel gazing into an ideology that in its pure form is tee totally against us and even taking out its treacherous elements, might not serve us that well?

    Then there’s the other consideration. Even if we try to combine racialism with the non-bad elements of libertarianism, how far is that going to get us politically? I can assure you that the kind of political candidate that spends campaign season campaigning for immigration patriotism, combating the black undertow but then says he wants free trade with the cheap labor world and wants to take away your Social Security and Medicare will win almost no votes.

    We win the future by combining social racialism with mixed socio-capitalist economics and economic nationalism. Think: Pat Buchanan, not Ron Paul.

    Then there’s yet another consideration. What do racialist libertarians really want? Are they racialists first who advocate the non-treacherous elements of libertarianism within a locked down ethnostate? Or are they libertarians first who cynically latch onto racialism in a cuckold manuever, in that they know libertarianism is extinct when white people are? If they’re the former, then they can be trusted even though we have our disagreements on what kind of economics we should have in our locked down ethnostate. If they’re the latter, then they shouldn’t be trusted because at the first moment that the heat gets too hot, they’ll turn Judas and deny racialism like Peter did Christ.

    Proof of what I said? The Rockwell-Paul axis that this article talks about, and how quickly it ran away from us when they thought we were no longer useful to them.

    A libertarian racialist that is truly in his heart racialist first would sound a whole lot more like Jared Taylor and a lot less libertarian. That most libertarian racialists don’t sound more like Jared Taylor makes me suspicious of their motives.

    • emiledurk16

      extremely insightful !

    • itdoesnotmatter

      “That most libertarian racialists don’t sound more like Jared Taylor makes me suspicious of their motives.”

      Reduction, without the absurd. Well done.

  • Another thing: As JT, HHH and many others can personally attest, professional libertarians aren’t so libertarian when it comes to white people who are racially aware. This is why I think a genuinely or even kiddie pool libertarian government would as bad as any leftist when it comes to racial repression, maybe worse because some libertarians (think: surname Paul) think they have something to prove to the leftist establishment.

  • Spartacus

    There is nothing above race . Any ideology that does not put race as the fundamental principle will, in the end, fail . A non-White libertarian country will look like Somalia, while a White libertarian country will look basically like what the US looked like at the beginning of the 20th century .

    • Sick of it

      If we divided along conservative/liberal lines tomorrow, this country, or rather the decent part of it, would look like the American population at the beginning of the 20th century. Actually, it would end up more positive than that. I pay attention to voting trends, the character of non-voters, and phenomena like ethnic solidarity during crises.

      • Which is the decent part? the more conservative states tend to have the highest number of minorities, for instance blacks have their highest populations in the South.

        • Sick of it

          The minorities themselves are not conservative.

          • Right. It would seem that the more minorities, the more conservative, excepting California and NY.

          • Right. The more minorities seems to mean the more conservative a state is, excepting California and NY.

    • jackryanvb

      Agreed these race denying libertarian loon conferences should be held in Somalia – no government, few taxes, everybody armed with automatic guns, also few restrictions on guns – libertarian loon heaven.

      He’ll for sane White racialists.

    • “A white libertarian country”

      That’s an oxymoron. Libertarians would never let a country be white.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    The issue comes down differences of political philsophy ultimately. Us racial conservatives believe race is a biologically real ontological distinction which manifests itself negatively in society whenever and wherever diversity is present. Because of this, the best thing for societies to do is segregate and for nations to form on the basis of (in descending order of importance) race, language, religion, broader culture, politics, economics.

    Libertarians are ultimately anti-statists. Their goddess, Libertas, is the ultimate paragon of worship. Any coercive action by one party on another is viewed as negative to the ultimate good and because the state is the ultimate coercive force it is the ultimate antithesis. They have it exactly backward, however, as liberty cannot flourish without a social order to base our lives around. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it occurs when order is established and tranquility is maintained. A moral people is required; a unified nation with a shared history, race, and language unnegotiable.

    • Daniel Schmuhl

      The problem is that libertarians focus on abstract liberty and not real world liberty which is constrained by human nature. I guess I’m more a conservative but I don’t really like arguing over labels.

  • Puggg

    So this is what it’s come down to. We need permission from an enemy ideaology to advocate for our own selves.

    (Doggy goes to the corner and cries.)

  • Free market economics cannot possibly be an antidote to affirmative action, because the economic spectrum was not the reason why AA was enacted to begin with.

    AA was enacted because white traitor vote whore politicians wanted to have giveaways to blacks for racial reasons, and AA still exists thanks in no small part to black politicians that want the AA gibsmedat gravy train to continue for racial reasons. Only good racialism will correct the mess that bad racialism caused.

    • Sick of it

      White isn’t the most accurate term. Perhaps we should say that they were not Eskimos?

  • Same here.

    If I didn’t like being wet, the wetness nonsense of liquid water would always bother me, too.

    Get my point?

    Libertarians:Open Borders::Liquid Water:Wetness

    And that leads me to an important point, my philosophical underpinnings which so far have governed almost every post I’ve made on this thread. As much as Ls talk about issues relating to the size and scope of government, when you strip Ls down to the bare metal of their hard drives, I don’t think that’s what really really matters to them.

    The fundamental prerequisite to libertarianism is being against the notion that groups of people who number fewer than the whole of humanity and are innately related to each other somehow have fundamental collective rights because they are part of that group and for the benefit of those in it, but not for the whole of humanity and sometimes to the detriment of people outside the group.

    If you are for that notion, then you cannot possibly be a libertarian, even if you happen to agree with other things that libertarians claim they want. If you don’t agree with that notion, then you can be a libertarian, even though not everyone who doesn’t agree with that notion is a libertarian, some are liberals, some are neo-cons, some are lamestream conservatives, some are communists, and so on.

    Strangely, libertarians will give collective rights to voluntary associations of people (chess clubs, e.g.) that they won’t to involuntary associations of particular people (tribes, ethnicities, races).

  • libertarianrealist

    Immigration into Galt’s Gulch was by invitation only. That’s how a free society consisting of high-quality people who seek separation from the primitives surrounding them gets started. See also Orania.

    • Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction. A good one, but fiction nonetheless.

      Lots of cool neat things happen in fictional novels that have no relevance to real life.

      But if you want to play with the metaphors, Galt’s Gulch was ideologically and economically restrictive, the real world Orania is quasi-racially restrictive. Yeah, they use environment and ecology as the excuse, but we all know the disparate impact of that.

      • David Ashton

        Ayn Rand said: “Check your premises”. This needs to be done with libertarian ideologies built on the implicit abstraction of “man” as a self-reliant young English-speaking adult of high IQ without any “uncontracted” obligations to parents or children, let alone to wider relatives or neighbors. Having studied all of Rand’s fiction, most of her non-fiction, some of her interviews, plus two major biographies, I frankly do not think she would support either “open borders” (despite herself as an early beneficiary) today, or even the “global usury” as urged by the “kosher collective” that has inherited her name and incidentally mucked up the chance to produce “Atlas Shrugged” as a great movie.

        • I tend to agree with you about what Ayn Rand really wanted.

          But that doesn’t help us out. She’s been gone for 30 years. Almost everyone that considers themselves to be a modern day adherent to Randianism wants open/no borders.

          • David Ashton

            Indeed. We have to act on our own premise of national identity, cultural heritage and racial variation.

        • 1stworlder

          Atlas Shrugs 1& 2 are already out as movies the third movie is in production and due out next year. You can buy the dvd or watch on streaming.

          • David Ashton

            Thank you. But not what she wanted, with any of the big stars she recommended.

      • 1stworlder

        I guess you didn’t know it was recently changed to non-fiction when ministry of science went after the new rerden metal.

      • sbuffalonative

        I always loved the quote, ‘a novel is a lie masquerading as the truth’. You can apply it to movies and theater and art in general.

        Art is manipulation; getting people to see things as you see them and you want others to see them.

        I try to stay away from referencing ideas to art and fiction. Even ‘1984’, as harrowing a warning as one can get, isn’t real and leaves questions and is open to speculation.

        Unfortunately, too many are influenced more by fiction than reality. ‘To Kill a Mocking Bird’ and ‘A Time To Kill’ are both lies masquerading as truth.

        Not really going anywhere with this other than to say books are powerful and influential. Liberals are far ahead in their influence through fiction.

        • Sick of it

          There’s a lot of good fiction out there which does not fit with the usual multicultural message. Especially older fiction. You know, back when they said this stuff was nuts (and were trying to warn people).

  • A couple of questions that maybe someone who was at this conference in Turkey can answer for me. And I’m not being my usual smart aleck self in asking them, even though these questions are obviously loaded:

    1. At this conference of racially minded libertarians, what was the ratio of libertarian discussion to race discussion?

    2. Were the racially minded libertarians who attended this conference in Turkey, other than Jared Taylor, because AR is Jared Taylor and vice-versa, ever seen attending AR conferences? Did they give a standing ovation to the race-oriented speech that, e.g. J. Phillipe Rushton, gave at AR conferences when he was still living?

    • Puggg

      I know you, so I have to believe you when you say you’re not a lawyer.

      But as you know, the kind of job I has requires me to be in a court room during a trial from time to time. That’s a better cross examination than almost all I’ve seen, except the other side’s lawyers would object, saying “leading the witness.”

  • David Ashton

    It would be interesting to have the view of the Englishman Dr Sean Gabb, a libertarian and patriot.

  • Rhialto

    Like they say in New Jersey: Do what you gotta do.

  • Nathanwartooth

    This should be renamed “who’s who among paleo conservatives”.

  • Sick of it

    Three of the above mentioned open-borders advocates have obviously foreign names – What a surprise!

  • Sick of it

    How exactly is Detroit being reborn while still in the process of collapse? Just curious about his now oddball point of view (I used to read Lew Rockwell all the time).

    • 1stworlder

      Some whites with no kids are moving in. You know the type.

      • IstvanIN

        Yuppies or gays or both, I presume? At any rate not enough of either to save the city unless they manage to save a big enough chunk to make it habitable for families. Not likely.

  • bigone4u

    Gee whiz, the author is a college student and I used to be a professor, but he knows a lot more than I do about libertarianism. I have my homework to do to click on ALL the links and educate myself. Good job, Mr. Cavanaugh.

    • Sick of it

      If you want to go back to the pre-Rand roots of libertarianism, read Voline (The Unknown Revolution) and about the various popular movements in Russia before the Bolsheviks/Reds took everything over.

    • Oil Can Harry

      This was indeed a fine piece. One error, though: Reason magazine is NOT “put out by the Cato Institute”. They’re separate organizations albeit both receive funding from the Koch brothers.

      As far as I can tell Murray Rothbard and other libertarian pioneers came up with the concept of “open borders” in the ’60s. Since then more and more libertarians have begun to challenge this awful idea, though not nearly enough.

      • IanJMacDonald

        Rothbard started out as sympathetic to free immigration, but later in life he became opposed to the idea and fleshed out arguments against open borders.See his Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State for the Journal of Libertarian Studies (11:1, Fall 1994).

  • bigone4u

    Your website looks informative and interesting. I’m going back to it and do some reading. Thanks for posting the link.

  • Are there some people intimated by the cultural Marxist system who knowingly use “libertarian” as a workaround for racialist? Yes.

    What I’m referring to are people who have some libertarian tendencies (I’m one of them) who call themselves whole hog libertarian and feel the need to defend libertarianism when this issue comes up here in the raciosphere.

  • Xanthippe2

    I was a bad girl and only looked at the photos without reading the article. Doesn’t fill my heart with hope….

  • JohnEngelman

    There is nothing new about libertarianism. We had a libertarian economy during the nineteenth century. We voted against it because the vast majority of Americans did not benefit from it.

    Those who benefit from a libertarian society are those who earn a good income with no assistance from the government. If you own a profitable company that receives no subsidies from the government, and no tariff protection, if you have a diversified investment portfolio, and a good understanding of the stock market, or if you get job offers over the telephone, you would benefit. By job offers, I do not mean requests to be one of seven people going in for an interview. I mean calls from people who will hire you on the spot because they have heard of your reputation.

    Those who benefit from a libertarian society are those who have no reason to worry about economic competition from immigrants.

    • IanJMacDonald

      “We voted against it because the vast majority of Americans did not benefit from it.” A booming economy, unprecedented rise in standards of living….oh yeah, it was really terrible.

      • JohnEngelman

        Millions of people back then worked twelve hours a day in dangerous mines and factories for poverty wages. Food was often contaminated with bacteria and dangerous chemicals.

        • IanJMacDonald

          Yes, conditions were harsh, but compared to what? The luxurious lives we lead today?

          As harsh as conditions were, workers nonetheless left the countryside in droves in order to work in the cities. Over time, things improved, and not because the government waved a magic wand.

          Viva capitalism.

          • JohnEngelman

            Agricultural workers left the countryside because industrial agriculture destroyed their jobs.

            The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top, and to go through increasingly destructive economic downturns. Karl Marx pointed that out in The Communist Manifesto, written in 1847, and published the next year.

            During the Roosevelt administration the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes counteracted this tendency by reducing the work week, instituting a minimum wage, strengthening labor unions, and raising the top tax rate.

            Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 the policies of Keynes are being reversed. The tendencies recognized by Marx are again becoming apparent. The rich are getting richer as the average standard of living declines. Economic downturns are becoming deeper and longer.

          • IanJMacDonald

            Mechanized agriculture produced an abundance, allowing food prices to drop dramatically. Marx didn’t have a clue about *anything.* He clung to the labor theory of value which in economics is the equivalent of the flat-earth theory. He certainly didn’t understand the first thing about the business cycle, or the role that central banks played in it. His ideas were utterly refuted by Eugen Böhm Ritter von Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I am somewhat amazed that anyone would still take that batty pamphleteer seriously.

            Roosevelt’s policies prolonged the Great Depression. Had he simply gotten out of the way, the panic of 1929 would have soon self-corrected, people who made bad bets would have gotten a haircut, and the economy would have soon enough returned to normal. See the works by Tomas Woods, Bob Murphy, or Thom DiLorenzo. And it wasn’t WWII either that got us out of the Great Depression, That’s another bit of mythology peddled to naive high school students. Robert Higgs has devastated that myth.

            The accumulation of wealth among the top stems in large part from government intervention in the economy.. In a free society, investors and investment banks that make bad decisions would not be rescued from their own folly through bailouts, stimulus programs, and a central bank at the beck and call of Goldman Sachs with the power to conjure money out of thin air

            You don’t really think that we live in anything resembling a free market economy, do you? We live under a form of post-modern fascism.

          • JohnEngelman

            I did not say anything about the labor theory of value. A political thinker should be read for insight, rather than doctrine. Marx had good insights. He made mistakes.

            Roosevelt was reelected three times because for most Americans life began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated.

            There was a steady decline in unemployment, except for a year after 1937, when he made the mistake of reducing government spending. There was nearly as much economic growth during Roosevelt’s first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolrige. There was considerably more job creation.

  • Stentorian_Commentator

    Amen. I think Libertarianism implicitly assumes atomized individuals who connect and disconnect as they please. I don’t think much of the libertarian construct even if that were true, because individual interests clash as much as they mesh (meaning we’d have a lot of people complaining that others are violating their “rights”), but once we add the variable that some people form groups and act in group interests for their benefit and to others’ detriment, I see Libertarianism as a form of self-disarmament. I say as one who has never been a joiner that coordinated group action usually whips individual effort, and it’s better and easier to be in a group than to strike out on one’s own.

  • Then the libertarians will start coming around to all the new tribes and clans, infiltrate them, ingratiate themselves with tribe and clan members, hawk economics books, then denounce the collectivism of tribe and clan members thinking tribally and clannishly.

  • MB

    A cavalcade of asshattery. “Race realists?” LOL. Is that what you proto-Klansmen Kids are calling yourselves now?
    How delicious is it that border warrior and cultural supremacist Hoppe is hiding in Turkey? On the Euro side, I presume.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    I think part of Sobran’s confusion came from his definition of assimilation. His own obsession with Catholicism–and the fact that the 3rd Worlders pouring in were largely Catholic–meant to him that assimilation and harmony would be inevitable.

    But, unfortunately, Catholicism isn’t the only thing the 3rd Worlders were carrying with them across the border. They also brought their 3rd World culture–including anti-white racism.

  • David Ashton

    This misreads what Jesus is supposed to be in (1) Christian theology and what he probably was in (2) real life. (1) A world saviour whose mission was outwards to convert others not to invite in others for material reasons, and who is to come to judge the nations. (2) Someone who preached first to members of his own nation, and was killed for professing their spiritual leadership.

    The parable of the kindly Samaritan visitor is a lesson his own people to put compassion to their compatriots injured by criminals before the regulations of ritual purity. It is about the scriptural meaning of “neighbor” not a message to open the gates to Samaritans or any other foreign settlers.

  • ViktorNN

    This seems like a good survey. I’ll have to go through and figure out who’s who and see if there any libertarians worth a damn.

    Here’s my litmus test:

    1. Does the libertarian acknowledge the existence of real biologically-based differences between the races?

    In my experience, libertarians don’t. They say they’re “colorblind.”

    2. If they do acknowledge that race is real, do they then acknowledge that races have group interests and that it is right and good for them to organize to perpetuate and defend those interests?

    In my experience, libertarians jump all over such arguments and claim that racial awareness and racially-based political organizing is a form of “evil collectivism.”

    Show me a libertarian who’s on board with these two fundamental principles and I’ll be willing to give the rest of what he has to say a listen.

    • Show me a libertarian who’s on board with those two things, and I’ll go to work convincing that person that he or she is by definition not a libertarian. My powers of persuasion are rather average to poor, but even then it shouldn’t take me long.

      Our civilization will die thanks in no small part to the liberTARDian cultists among us who think that our enemies have an individual Constitutional liberty to kill us and at the same time our organizing to defend our race and tribe is evil collectivism.

  • DavidHilbert

    It begs no question.

    • MBlanc46

      Speaking of questions, have you come up with any new ones lately?

  • Here’s what’s bothering me more than anything.

    This is the second thread in two weeks here on AR about this confab of mostly irrelevant crank losers in Turkey. At best, anything they discussed there is not much relevant to our cause, at worst, most of the people there are trying to fake and cuckold their way into our nest for their own benefit and our detriment. At least the good part is that from what I read, we’re wise to the treachery of liberTARDians, nobody is buying their game and their scam anymore. Even the article is written in a mostly critical tone.

    On the other hand, did you know that there was a massive rally today in and around Nashville of our kind of people protesting the demographic replacement of white Dixierons via mass non-white immigration, and also the greed of plutocrats like the people that run Treason (Tyson) Foods who stand to benefit from all that cheap labor? If all you ever read was AR, you wouldn’t know.

    I can guarantee you that what Jack Ryan, Hunter Wallace and many many others did in Nashville today will be infinitely more beneficial for our cause and for the cause of good decent honest white civilization than all the empty and useless chatter that went on in Turkey.

    I would have been there (Nashville) today if I still wasn’t on the road trying to make a living.

  • AntiGnostic

    This is the second thread in two weeks here on AR about this confab of mostly irrelevant crank losers in Turkey.

    Calm down brother, it’s the Internet. We’re all crank losers here.

    Libertarianism is appealing because it is the central State which is enforcing colorblind equality and open borders. In a libertarian regime, there are only owners, tenants and trespassers.

    That being said, Lew ditched an excellent writer, Bob Wallace, over some racial realtalk, and the Mises Institute is delusionally pro-immigrant. They weren’t always; something happened to take things in a different direction.

  • “Reason magazine, put out by the Cato Institute…”

    That’s news to the Reason Foundation, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit that actually “puts out” Reason magazine and funds all its propaganda projects, most notably and ReasonTV. Yes, the “free markets” people are a nonprofit with several wealthy sugar daddies, because their ideas cannot compete in a for-profit, open marketplace.

    • Scott Bieser

      Most ideas-oriented (as opposed to mass-consumer-oriented) magazines are underwritten by non-profit organizations funded largely by “sugar daddies.” Reason is hardly alone in this regard.

      • “ideas-oriented as opposed to mass-consumer-oriented”

        I’d call that a distinction without a difference. All media, however deep or shallow, deal in ideas. The majority are able to survive without handouts and fundraisers because they produce a product that people want and are willing to pay for. I find it ironic if not hypocritical that Reason, the “Free Minds and Free Markets” (and, presumably, pro-capitalism) people, cannot survive in the marketplace of ideas without the aid of a nonprofit foundation.

        Libertarians love to mock PBS and NPR and all the other quasi-government media enterprises. “Let them compete and try to survive in an open marketplace,” they chide. I would offer the same challenge to Reason.

        • IanJMacDonald

          They are competing and surviving. They have enough consumers (donors with deep pockets) to keep them afloat. They organize as a 501(c)(3)in order to escape the burdens of taxation which would otherwise attach. Had we no income tax, they would of course have no need to organize as a non-profit. I don’t particularly like the Reason Foundation, but I hardly blame them for dodging the IRS’ bullets.

      • As an example, AR.

  • Transpower

    I was in the Libertarian Party until the Leftists and Anarchists took it over in the late 80’s. Now I’m with the Tea Party Patriots–and yes, I am a staunch minarchist, which means I believe in a strictly-limited Constitutional Republic, strict laissez-faire capitalism and a strict meritocracy. Minarchists do believe in border control, unlike the Leftists who co-opted the Libertarian Party. Rothbard was an anarchist and sought ties with various Leftist groups. Ayn Rand was far superior to him intellectually; and I’m still a member of the Ayn Rand Institute.

    • That you are for border control is reason enough to cheer.

      But be mindful of the fact that racialism combined with minarchism and L-F capitalism is unlikely to win many elections, even among white people. If you have two candidates, one is everything we want but wants to take away your SS and Medicare, the other is nothing we want but wants to keep SS and M, the second candidate will win every time even among white voters.

      We would make it so much easier on ourselves by mixing nationalism and mixed socio-capitalism.

    • JohnEngelman

      What did Ayn Rand have to say about restrictions on immigration? I would expect her to have opposed them.

      • Transpower

        Rand was a minarchist, and minarchists do believe in protecting the borders! Hispanic illegals amount to a foreign invasion of the U.S. Under laissez-faire capitalism, individuals are rewarded based on their production in the free market, not their political pull. In a mixed economy, various pressure groups seek to obtain largess from taxpayers.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    Why would differences between races indicate anything other than the possible gains from exchanges and interactions due to comparative advantages? Furthermore, mobility of labor results in even more efficiency of production due to lower transportation costs. Interacting and intersecting cultures is how great food, even better music, and truly fantastic people get created.

    Cultures, institutions, and economies all are enriched by broadening the pools of talent and human capital that they can draw from. Segregation by races seems a crude form of autarky, and judging an individual by one of their group associations can only be collectivist thinking. Indeed, one’s upbringing, education, social life, and career are far more relevant to who that person is and how they behave than their skin color or their genes.

    • Quod erat demonstrandum.

      You think you’re disproving our point; you’re actually proving it.

      • perfectlyGoodInk

        Recognize, I could have just said that about your whole movement and just not touch it with a ten-foot pole, but that would just be segregation of ideas.

        • Epiminondas

          Besides music and restaurants, can you name any other benefits of “diversity”?

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            As I said earlier, “Furthermore, mobility of labor results in even more efficiency of production due to lower transportation costs,” or in other words, higher efficiency of production. Anybody who supports freedom of capital should recognize that similar benefits would result when you have freedom of mobility for labor.

            Also, diversity’s effects in the arts has a very similar effects on knowledge and technology, the key drivers to economic growth. When different ideas intersect, you end up with much more interesting and creative ideas. I recall industrial/organizational studies that show that heterogeneous workgroups tend to be more creative than homogenous ones because they are less prone to groupthink.

        • Ironically, the regular here most critical of liberTARDianism has George Strait in his avatar.

          Anyway, your argument is stupid because you’re comparing music to human civilizations.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Civilizations thrive upon the creativity of its citizens. Creativity is essential for problem-solving, after all.

            Also, I’m not sure how old you are, but name-calling isn’t very mature behavior.

          • Stick around, troll. The more you talk, the more you prove my point. Everyone, read the troll’s posts, and re-read them. That’s a libertarian, this is what you have to sign on to if you want to be a libertarian.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            If your point is that “racialists” aren’t really libertarian, I do agree with that and have seen little to indicate otherwise.

          • Very good. You’re saying that libertarianism and racialism are incompatible, and in fact, polar opposites.

            Now, would you do us a favor? Go over to Stormfront and White News Now and say that as often as you can before your keyboard wears out.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Are they making claims like this article does?

        • MBlanc46


          • perfectlyGoodInk

            As economist Ben Powell notes, “How big is the net benefit of immigration to the native-born population? Harvard Economist George Borjas is probably the most established academic critic of immigration. But even he admits that immigrants create net benefits for the native-born and, in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, puts this gain at $22 billion a year. Using his method of calculation and updating for more recent immigrant flows puts the number at more than $36 billion.”

            Apparently, including the link causes the moderation to kick in, but just Google “An Economic Case for Immigration” and Powell, and you can find the original article.

            Also, which assertions do you disagree with?

          • JohnEngelman

            When someone says that a policy is “good for the economy” we must ask, “Whose economy?” Immigration benefits immigrants and their employers economically. It does not benefit employees who already live here. For us it means more competition for our jobs, less job security, and fewer, leaner pay increases.

            The high rate of immigration made possible by the Immigration Reform act of 1965 is a major reason for the growing income gap.

            I like immigrants and the cultural diversity they provide. Nevertheless, I recognize that what I like about immigrants has economic costs.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            That is a good point, but overall, I would say that the effect similar is akin to that of Wal-Mart. Liberals like to criticize firms like Wal-Mart for how little they pay their employees, but this completely ignores one whole side of the equation: Wal-Mart’s customers. The lower that Wal-Mart can reduce their costs, the lower prices that they can charge.

            Note that there are two ways that a person can increase their wealth: 1) make more money, or 2) spend less money. Likewise, there are two ways an economy can increase the standard of living for its citizens: 1) increase real GDP per capita, or 2) reduce prices.

            And note, the number of Wal-Mart customers is a lot bigger than the number of their employees. Anything that reduces costs and thus prices has a similar effect. Just like with free trade, not everybody gains, but the overall amount of gain far outstrips the amount of loss simply because the number of people who benefit from lower prices is huge compared to the number of people who lose their jobs.

          • JohnEngelman

            That is a good point, but overall, I would say that the situation is similar to that of Wal-Mart. Liberals like to criticize firms like Wal-Mart for how little they pay their employees, but this completely ignores one whole side of the equation: Wal-Mart’s customers. The lower that Wal-Mart can reduce their costs, the lower prices that they can charge…

            Note that the number of Wal-Mart customers is a lot bigger than the number of their employees.

            – perfectlyGoodInk


            By paying their employees as little as possible Mal-Mart creates economic pressure for their competitors to do the same. Wal-Mart also drives smaller stores out of business. Thus, the negative effects of what Mal-Mart is doing extends beyond their employees.

            A different way of doing things was introduced by Henry Ford. When he opened his first assembly line he paid twice the going rate for factory work. Business rivals of course called him a socialist. That is their term of derogation for anyone who cuts into their profit margin.

            Ford explained what he was doing by saying, “I want my workers to be able to buy the cars they are making.

            Increasingly, our economy is moving in two directions. Wal-Mart represents one direction. Wal-Mart hires those those who are desperate for any job they can get, and pays them as little as necessary. Microsoft hires the best computer professionals it can find, and pays what it needs to do to attract them.

            In 1953 President Eisenhower selected Charles Erwin Wilson to be his Secretary of Defense. At the time he was President of General Motors. During the hearings for that selection Wilson said, “for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”

            Liberals derided and misquoted this statement. Nevertheless, for decades General Motors and other corporations provided people of average and below average intelligence with decent incomes. Because they were well paid, they were good consumers.

            Now there is a race to the bottom, as corporations pay most of their employees as little as possible, while cutting pay rolls.

            Mitt Romney embodies the new trend American capitalism is moving in. His father, George Romney, made a fortune as president of American Motors by creating cars and jobs.

            Mitt made a bigger fortune doing…What? Can you buy something Cain Capital makes? No. You can’t get a job there either without a fancy post graduate degree from a fancy university. Mitt Romney may have saved a few jobs for a few blue collar workers, but he did not create any. Many blue collar workers and white collar workers lost their jobs because of his business activities.

            On Stormfront I read someone describe this kind of thing as “Jewish capitalism.” That kind of thinking is the way some white Gentiles deflect blame for twenty-first century casino capitalism away from other white Gentiles who., like Mitt Romney, belong to an increasingly predatory and Gentile plutocracy.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Firms that go out of business because they are uncompetitive is an inevitable part of market competition. But companies fail all the time (3/4 of them do not survive a year). If company failure was a net negative for the economy, company failure over time would result in higher and higher unemployment over time.

            Schumpeter realized that firm failure was creative destruction. The firm’s employees are hurt, but the economy actually benefits because firm failure is the means by which market competition creates such strong incentives to lower costs, and thus prices, and thus increasing standards of living.

          • JohnEngelman

            You are describing how the economy works. Unfortunately, the economy you are describing does not exist. When people lose jobs to creative destruction few of them get better paying jobs elsewhere.

            When factories close factory workers who used to have well paying union jobs find themselves competing for jobs in the service industry, like waiters, and retail sales clerks. Although these usually pay less than production jobs, they require more in the way of academic and social skills.

            Even retail sales jobs are declining in number. Bar codes make it possible to for retail sales clerks to serve more customers faster. As a result retail sales clerks lose their jobs. Automatic check out counters also reduce the number of jobs for retail sales clerks.

            We could reduce the work week, while increasing wages for low skill workers by strengthening labor unions and raising the minimum wages. This has been done in the past, with good results. It is not the direction the country is moving in, however.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Jobs are not commodities in fixed supply. Jobs are exchanges (labor for a wage), and just like other transactions in markets, the number of them constantly fluctuates in response to supply and demand.

            If the job market worked as you suggested, unemployment should permanently increase with each and every technological advance, but it has not.

          • JohnEngelman

            As for growing inequality, the cause is not well-understood. Some economists think it has to do with technology. I suspect it has more to do with how easy it is to use money to influence the government to tilt markets to get more money.

            – perfectlyGoodInk

            I would say that there are three reasons for growing economic inequality. Liberals only want to talk about the first reason.

            First, since the 1960’s the tax system has become flatter. The value of the minimum wage and unemployment compensation has lost value to inflation. Labor unions have become weaker.

            Second, although the birth rate for those born in the United States has declined, the American population has grown because of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. This was unpopular at the time, but it had bi partisan support. More people mean more consumers and more job applicants. By the law of supply and demand this means higher prices, lower wages, and higher profits.

            Liberals do not like to think of the second reason because they are sympathetic toward immigrants, especially if they are destitute and victims of third world tyranny.

            Third, computer technology increases the relationship between intelligence and income. Computer technology creates opportunities for geniuses to become fabulously wealth. Bill Gates, for example, has an IQ of 160. Computer technology also reduces the economic value of the kinds of jobs most people can master. Computer technology makes automation and the shipping of jobs to low wage countries possible.

            Liberals do not like to think of the third reason because they like to pretend that IQ tests measure nothing of value, and that IQ differences between individuals, and average differences between races are unimportant.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            I think most of those are sound economic arguments, but note that your technology argument indicates that market forces will act to regulate immigration automatically, as the gains from it will decrease.

            Also, technology actually increases the productivity of labor, and thus the wage. Just for labor that can utilize the technology, but that’s always merely a question of designing a good enough user interface. Note that even very uneducated and unintelligent people these days can write e-mails, answer phones, make copies, and surf the web.

            Of course, those who cannot use technology to boost their productivity definitely lose a competitive edge. In a meritocracy, isn’t that as it should be?

          • JohnEngelman

            As the productivity of labor increases, employers need fewer employees, so they fire more, and hire fewer. This means that wages decline, rather than rise.

            As far as your last paragraph is concerned, I am explaining the growing income gap. I am not interested in justifying it.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Only if unemployment increases over time, meaning that supply becomes greater than demand, but it has not. It fluctuates cyclically.

            On the other hand, the labor’s value to the employer is its productivity, which does rise over time.

          • JohnEngelman

            If I become twice as productive as my co-workers I am likely to get a raise. However, if I and my co-workers each become twice as productive as we used to be, my employer needs half as many employees, so some of us will lose our jobs, unless the work week is reduced for employees of my employer, and for employees of his competitors.

          • MBlanc46

            You make assertions about diversity then cite articles on immigration with some undefined notion of “benefit”. So which is it, diversity or immigration? And what “benefit” are you talking about?

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Immigration brings diversity which creates a wider talent pool for the economy to draw upon and lowers costs of production, raising standards of living.

          • MBlanc46

            Just another assertion without a shred of supporting evidence of argument.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            If you believe that the races are inherently different (I’m not so sure, but it sounds like it is widely held within your movement), then it follows that immigration brings diversity. The rest is backed by the Powell article referenced above.

          • MBlanc46

            Undefined “benefits”. “Skill sets”. Typical social scientist and business school buzz words.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            They are terms which encapsulate real ideas.

            Honestly, “skill sets” shouldn’t have needed me to define it, as the term is rather self-explanatory. Your skill-set defines what you are able to provide for your employer. Assuming you are gainfully employed at a corporation, just look at the different jobs at your office and think about the ones that you wouldn’t be qualified to do and why (you can just go up and ask your co-workers about what they do if you aren’t sure). Alternately, just think back to the last time you looked for a job and were framing your experience on your resume in a way that would be attractive to the widest possible number of employers.

            Economists measure benefits in a rather complex manner, but Borjas’s methodology is standard within the field. If you are genuinely interested in learning about it, I should have time to explain it tomorrow.

          • Konstantinos Fasouletos

            Immigration also brings murder.

            About a year ago near Camden New Jersey, a muslim “youth” was arrested after it was found that he kidnapped, tortured, cut limbs and eventually decapitated his victims. The two victims were Christian and Egyptian Coptics, which were also a gay couple.

            Your rant on “immigration brings diversity”, i call bullsh*t. Apologies if my profanity disturbs the decorum.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            As I’ve said elsewhere here, science does not rely upon anecdotal evidence because it is so easily cherry-picked. Think about what one could say about white nationalism and murder using anecdotal evidence.

          • Konstantinos Fasouletos

            You are clearly obfuscating and completely ignoring the comment i made. The person who did the killing was NOT white. In addition, the killer was a “moderate” muslim since he had no history of Al Qaeda connections that we know of.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            You cannot draw meaningful conclusions from anecdotal evidence. There are too many events and murders in history that you can merely pick and choose a event to back up almost any conclusion.

            Forgive me if the following comes across as patronizing, but I hope it will make the point crystal clear.

            On August 5, 2012 in Wisconsin, Wade Michael Page shot and killed six people with a handgun that he legally owned. All of the deceased were of Sikh faith. Page was a Christian with no ties to Al Qaeda, but did have ties to white supremacist groups. He was born in Colorado in 1971.

            Which of the following is a valid conclusion to draw from this event?

            A) White people are violent animals.
            B) Christians are violent animals.
            C) Handgun owners are violent animals.
            D) People with tattoos are violent animals.
            E) People born in Colorado in 1971 are violent animals.
            F) White supremacists are violent animals who hate Sikhs more than Muslims.
            G) None of the above.

            Like I said, anecdotal evidence can be used to argue anything. This is where science and statistical analysis shows its value.

        • Carney3

          There is significant benefit attached to cosmopolitanism, to coastal and river cities that are at the center of trade exchanging ideas including cultural memes, as various peoples of various origins meet and interact.

          However, not all groups are equal in their ability to provide useful or beautiful additions to the ferment, and any good thing, even the hubub of cross-cultural interaction, is good only up to a point, and has downsides as well.

          A healthy society also has a culturally and usually ethno-linguistically and religiously homogeneous heartland which it taps to remains grounded to its identity, history, and existence as an authentic, distinct, unique, irreplaceable people. Such conservatism can indeed be backward, narrow-minded, etc. at its worst, but it acts as a healthy counterweight to the big cities.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            The social scientist in me would want to know by what metrics you would judge the health of a society to test this assertion, but in my gut, I can’t really argue with that goal.

            I do have to ask the means by which you would achieve this, though. Not everybody on this page is equal in their ability to provide useful or beautiful additions to this conversation, but I think anybody should be allowed to try.

          • Carney3

            But your rule presumes a priori that blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and whatnot should be imported in large numbers, and individuals be excluded only after they cause trouble.

            Why impose such unnecessary demographic change on white nations and areas in the first place, when the nations and areas of origin of such nonwhite peoples are so obviously undesirable, and the potential of those peoples to provide meaningful benefit not at all obvious?

            At what point, such as overwhelmingly consistent clustering at all the worst points in socio-economic and cultural performance (most criminals and welfare recipients, fewer ballet and symphony prodigies, fewer engineers), are we allowed to notice patterns and generalize?

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            I only presume that people should be judged on what they do, not what other people have done. After all, should everybody here be judged for the violence committed by other white nationalists?

    • Carney3

      Why WOULDN’T differences in outcomes between races indicate at least some degree of genetic differences? Particularly when such differences are so strongly pronounced and consistently expressed in a wide variety of eras, societies, and locations? Canada never had slavery, pre-1800s black Africa was not colonized, Ethiopia / Liberia / Haiti have long histories as independent, black cities in America and elsewhere have had near absolute power over their own affairs for generations now, and in all cases the results are the same – anarchic violence, tyrannical thuggery, pervasive corruption and incompetence, collapse or non-existence of physical and cultural infrastructure, etc.

      Any benefit to be found by living in close quarters with such a people is overwhelmingly, crushingly outweighed by the neighborhood-wrecking, school-wrecking, city-wrecking, nation-wrecking costs.

      This isn’t remotely like islanders specializing in fishing while plainsmen specialize in wheat-growing, and both benefiting from contact, trade, and division of labor.

      Race isn’t “skin color” – if Whoopi Goldberg or Jay-Z were an albino she or he would still be heavily black and obviously so at a glance. Nor is it skin-deep, it’s bone-deep – forensic anthropologists can identify skeletal remains by race. Blacks have smaller craniums, brains, and lower intelligence as a direct result.

      • perfectlyGoodInk

        I will admit that economists don’t have a good explanation for why Africa remains the way it is, but if “living in close quarters with such a people” necessarily entails city and nation-wrecking costs,” then cosmopolitan American cities should be economic and sociological disasters by your reckoning.

        But they aren’t. There are pros and cons to living in a city, including higher crime and pollution, but on the net, more and more people find the pros to outweigh the cons as our society continually becomes more urbanized. Whether urbanization is a good thing is certainly arguable, as you point out below, but that it is happening seems to cast doubt on your claim.

        As for the science of race, this is outside my area of expertise, but I believe Bamshad and Olson did genetic work that found that genetic similarities were more likely to be among different people spread all over the world than within geographically concentrated groups.

        Still, I am arguing that, even if there were racial differences in ability (which I don’t think is settled), comparative advantage argues in favor of more exchanges and interaction, not less. Geographical nearness would facilitate this, and the growth in our cities seems to bear this out.

        • Carney3

          Cosmopolitan cities have pros in spite of, not because of, the black element, and their best areas are their least black ones. Conversely, in general, the blacker the neighborhood, the worse the neighborhood. In fact, the best indicator of a neighborhood’s crime rate is NOT its income level but the percentage of blacks or Hispanics.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Can you cite your source, please? I am in the process of perusing the literature, and while it is interesting reading so far, I have not found backing for this claim as of yet. Indeed, it is contradicted by the findings of Judith Blau and Peter Blau (1982), “The cost of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime.”

          • Konstantinos Fasouletos

            Cite sources?

            An openly gay individual like myself would be at a disadvantage in a black or hispanic neighborhood. That IS enough “cited” sources for me to stay away. Yours truly was assaulted years ago by a group of none other than 6 black “youth” in a suburban 99% white neighborhood.

            On the other hand, walking around White, Asian or Polynesian/Micronesian neighborhoods would be a whole lot more safe.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            As I have stated elsewhere, this movement claims that it is not a racist one because it is based on science instead. Science does not make conclusions based on anecdotal evidence, nor assume that correlation means causation (lest you believe that global temperatures are tied to a decrease in pirates or that high debt causes low growth rates).

            In addition to reverse causality, correlation between two variables can also be a result of a third variable. In this case, that obvious third variable is income. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes.

            If there is a study that indicates race and crime are still correlated AFTER controlling for income, I would be interested in reading it. If this movement’s claim about science is true, one would expect this to be seen as a reasonable request (especially since I myself was requested to furnish evidence regarding a claim that I made).

            Also, I know this is anecdotal, but note that Matthew Shepard was murdered in one of the most whitest states of the union.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Well, I finally found your own source for you. Glayde Whitney (1995), “Ideology and Censorship in behavior genetics.” It’s not a study. It’s a talk that he gave to the Behavior Genetics Association, later reprinted in Mankind Quarterly.

            As I have stated elsewhere, the problem with merely finding correlation between two variables is that it does not rule out the possibility of reverse causality (the problem with Reinhart & Rogoff’s debt and growth paper) or that there is a third variable affecting both.

            To address this, one can use regression techniques to focus on two variables, controlling for the other variables that might muddy the waters (note, the results are not nearly as definitive as controlling for variables in a laboratory, but note that social sciences must make do with natural experiments and clean the data as best they can). There are fairly standard methods available to do so, but Whitney does not make use of them and instead simply evades the issue of such other variables by merely claiming ignorance of any other that could better explain the finding.

            In contrast, Morgan Kelly (2000) in “Inequality and Crime” looked at the correlation between income inequality and crime and did indeed control for race and other variables, and found that, “for violent crime the impact of inequality is large, even after controlling for the effects of poverty, race, and family composition.”

            I will refrain from commenting on other issues related to Whitney and his talk.

  • One more thing I have to get off my chest before the weekend gets away and this thread gets stale.

    Economic systems come and go, they’re a dime a dozen. I am of the belief that if we get race right, economics will take care of themselves. IOW, the various white tribes of the world will, under the security of ethnostates for every one of them, find the right economic system to suit their needs. Whether it’s capitalism, socialism, some combination of the two, or some paradigm that has yet to be invented. Yes, sometimes our people will get it wrong, but it is possible to fix and repair wrong economic policies with right ones. In the recent past, even Sweden discovered it was too socialist, and made adjustments. But I also know that there will be one day soon when (real) Swedes will rue the day they let the first non-white Muslim African into their country.

    But if we lose on race, we lose everything. That should be AR’s goal, I think, to help us win on race.

    • MBlanc46

      Nicely said.

    • JohnEngelman

      I see little or no reason to allow the immigration of Muslims or Negroes.

      • China_Rising

        Muslim Negroes are a dime a dozen. A rare folk.

        You sure you don’t wan’t a few of these fine specimens?

    • Carney3

      Exactly right. I would far rather live in socialist Sweden of 1960 than in any Jack Kemp “enterprise zone” for blacks, or the anarcho-capitalist utopia that is Somalia, or even, likely, in Hong Kong.

      • And there’s yet another point.

        What I’m about to say is a mistake in judgment I made until recently. People hear or read “libertarian” and still think it refers to someone whose paramount concerns are the size and scope of government.

        When I was growing up, one of the many life lessons pounded into my head constantly was that words were cheaper than dirt, that actions have consequences, and to watch people’s feet, not their mouths.

        I know what libertarian says, and I also know what libertarian does. If libertarians were so concerned about the size and scope of government, then why do “libertarians” like Paul Ryan seem to be okay with a budget deal that enshrines ObamaDontCare into law “forever?” Why did Paul Ryan’s own budget proposals before now maybe balance the Federal budget in 20-30 years? School vouchers and the whole school choice movement weren’t hatched by libertarians, but they sure have taken up the mantle today. Someone concerned about the size and scope of government wouldn’t approve of the concept of taking money away from me to give to anyone to pay for school tuition. So why do many “libertarians,” e.g. John Stossel, approve?

        Because libertarian mouths are about the size and scope of government. Libertarian feet are about open borders, no borders, zero immigration control and race denial and egalitarianism all the way.

        Therefore, I assess the essence of libertarianism as denying race. All else is inconsequential talk. Like I said elsewhere in this thread, if you think that white people have the collective right to organize and lobby openly for their own best racial interests, then you are by definition not a libertarian and can never be. “Libertarian racialist” is an oxymoron.

        • perfectlyGoodInk

          We recognize the individual right to organize and lobby openly. Many libertarians do not recognize the government monopoly on the use of coercion (I think it should be used as little as possible), or that any individuals should be primarily defined by one particular group association.

          I see the question of whether race exists as irrelevant to those questions.

  • jackryanvb


    We live in a fallen world where all White nations with the exception of Russia, some Eastern European countries are rule by elites who brutal reject, persecute White racial realists.

    Race denying Libertarian loons are just one of many hostile intellectual elites. Just accept that this is the case and act best according to the unpleasant facts of this time.

    Whites survived in Eastern Europe ruled by brutal Communists, we’ll survive many more race denying Libertarian conferences in some posh place on the Aegean Sea.

    I spent the weekend facing Antifa Leftists as we stood up for White Southerners in Middle Tennessee. We also exposed the traitorous $7.8 million a year (White) CEO of Tyson Foods for flooding middle Tennessee with low wage Somalian Muslim workers.

    I feel good about my weekend of activism…

    Of course the attendees of this Libertarian conference in Turkey probably have better tans than I.

  • Reverend Bacon

    It’s clear to the Libertarian in me that open borders and forced redistribution of wealth is far worse than closed borders and forced redistribution of wealth.
    When an epsilon-minus semi-moron named Gray Davis was Governor of California, he presided over a similar debacle. The wholesale market for electricity had been deregulated, but the consumer/retail market had been capped at some maximum amount that other epsilon-minuses assumed would never be met. Well, the wholesale price exceeded the retail cap, and rather than just let the producers stop delivering energy to California until the market sorted it out, Mr. Davis simply used the $30B surplus in the Calif treasury, plus a whole bunch more, to buy the energy high and sell it low. Of course, he begged people to conserve, which did about as much good as you might expect. When California was giving away free (well, very cheap) electricity, there was a run on electricity, and the state went from having the largest surplus ever in the history of any state to the largest deficit.
    Libertarians skewered Davis, and his predecessors, for halfway-deregulating a market. They should do the same for the open-border epsilon-minuses.
    If we weren’t giving away all this stuff of value (including citizenship and anchor-baby rights!!?!) we could put two guys in lawn chairs on the border, and no one would try to cross.

  • jackryanvb

    Can I get an invite to the next libertarian loon conference?

    Some open border libertarian loon would suffer a bloody nose. It’s pointless to use reason with these types.

    • Bossman

      So you would give someone a bloody nose if they disagreed with you? It sounds as if you’re the one who is very unreasonable and it would be pointless to argue with you.

      • jackryanvb

        These libertarian loons, traitors are advocating the genocide of our people, flooding White nations with diseased rapists, polygamist Jihadists. I have a beautiful 23 year old White daughter, I know how the unwashed Muslim men in Algeria, Somalia, Lutton England treat attractive White women who dare show their faces, legs in public, OK it’s not some intellectual debate between honorable high IQ white PHD economists. We’re under a near all out invasion. Yeah a blood nose is definitely in order.

        Most of this American Open borders immigration loon nonsense could have been avoided if Ron Paul supportes had simply rubbed Ron Paul’s nose in dog poo in 1988 when he first ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket and started pushing this open borders immigration treason.

        That’s what works with raising puppies to be healthy,,loyal dogs – rub their noses in dog poo when they poop n the home.

        Would Amren readers try to use reason with puppies pooping in the home? Of course not, reason doesn’t wok with puppies and reason doesn’t work with a libertarian loons/traitors.

      • ThomasER916

        I’d do more than bloody a nose. I live in the real world. And it is pointless to argue with egalitarian, racial witch doctors.

  • MBlanc46

    I certainly don’t see any intrinsic connection between (right) libertarianism and race realism. One is a rather abstract political philosophy, the other a scientific view of racial difference. If anything, as this article suggests in several places, the anti-statism of libertarianism inclines it to conflict with the right of states to police their borders. Some libertarians are race realist, some race realists are libertarian. Some socialists are race realist, some race realists are socialists. Empirically, there might be closer connections between one pair of views than with the other pair, but there’s no necessary connection.

  • Freedom Hayak

    David Boaz has posted on his Facebook page how creepy this is – with others chiming in about how we’re all collectivists, racists, and loons. Typical.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    Yes, Joe was an enigma. I wouldn’t go so far as embarrassment, though. I respect people who truly say what’s on their minds. His thoughts on isolationism versus unlimited immigration were random at times, I admit. His work like ‘the Hive’ is what I remember him for.

  • CivilWar2

    The vast majority of people are sure they will acquire more wealth and security in a nanny state than in a condition of freedom, therefore they will never support Libertarianism. Libertarianism cannot by definition be imposed, and since it will never be freely embraced, it is nothing but a pipe dream. It is hobbyism for a certain class of white person. Even if Libertarianism found itself governing the USA it would likely fail. I don’t think it would work even if a majority of people could agree to try it, which they never would. Libertarianism is a great vehicle of critique of the existing economic system. In that sense it is very worthwhile.

  • MBlanc46

    Well, the electorate elected the presidential candidate of the party of economic nationalists all but twice from 1860 through 1908.

  • JohnEngelman

    When I say we had a libertarian society I mean that there was little government regulation of businesses, and little of a government safety net for ordinary citizens.

    One could say there was laissez faire capitalism for most Americans, and mercantilism for the rich. Through contributions to politicians they bought favors from the government. These consisted of tariffs, business subsidies, and the violent suppression of trade union activity.

    • Transpower

      John, I do think that the heyday for America was from 1865-1900, when we came closest to laissez-faire capitalism, a strictly-limited Constitutional Republican form of government, and a strict meritocracy. That period had the fastest economic growth rate of any ever in the history of mankind. And yes, everyone benefited, not just the managerial and professional classes; the working poor were able to escape the poverty of subsistence farming.

  • Bossman

    The ideology of Libertarianism is totally incompatible with strict immigration enforcement. Strict immigration enforcement belongs to another kind of ideology which is National Socialism. The Founding Fathers of the USA were very wise in that they left out all talk of immigration out of the Constitution.

    • IstvanIN

      Are you implying that only Nazi’s enforce borders?

    • The ideology of Libertarianism is totally incompatible with strict immigration enforcement.

      Bossman, I’ll never down vote any of your comments ever again if you promise me to post exactly that at Stormfront and White News Now repeatedly.

  • jackryanvb

    OK, but talk is cheap. Let’s see you do something about Libertarian elites that do demand open borders immigration in to White countries.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    The level of individuals is, by far, the only important one. All decisions that anybody makes — whether they be a person, government, or firm — ought to be made on an individual’s merits alone. There are always people who are different from their groups. Outliers.

    People should be judged purely on their own merits. That’s how a meritocracy works.

    Also, merely being dismissive of an argument isn’t an argument.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    I think managing the rate makes sense for the reasons you say, but I think the politics are similar to that of trade. The people who are hurt by trade and immigration (the industry which has to compete) are few, but are harmed significantly. The people who gain from trade and immigration (all consumers) are many, and benefit less.

    Thus, the ones who are hurt are the ones more likely to be political active about the issue. Thus, just like the level of trade, the current allowed rate of immigration is likely to be far lower than what is best for the country.

    Also, I suspect rate is not the only thing you would control.

  • MarcB1969

    I’ve always been a philosophical libertarian and still believe there is room for more libertarian policies within modern conservatism. But libertarianism requires a population valuing personal responsibility, and the US is no longer that place. Any libertarian with half a brain should realize that a greater the influx from the US Southern border, the more future big government voters are placed in the pipeline. Every sovereign nation has a duty to protect it’s borders to protect it from the dangerous influences that can potentially come from foreign invasion.

  • Pelagian

    I left libertarianism a l-o-o-ng time ago.

    States must provide order. Thats the very thing they do. However, lawful authority must listen to the signals of the free market, and err on the side of freedom, under the rubric of the Principle of Subsidiarity.

    And Murray Rothbard was a good guy, whose intellectual interests ranged well beyond the cold, dry science of what he was famous for. And even that, he made interesting.

  • Pelagian

    Protecting its borders is an essential function of government.

    The government is responsible for the territory within those borders, just the same as a father of a household is responsible for what happens within the walls of his house.

    This means the state must interdict all: invading armies, and immigrants and cheap imports that cannot be absorbed or are uninvited according to the public policy of that nation (focused always on the common good of the citizenry).

    That doesnt mean that the people within the borders of the state cannot be reasonably free in their dealings within those borders.

  • IanJMacDonald

    Some anarcho-capitalists, e.g., Walter Block, are open-border types.
    Some anarcho-capitalists, e.g., Hans-Hermann Hoppe, are immigration restrictionists.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    As I understand it, my arguments have been proceeding from the angle where, even if one assumes intrinsic differences between the races, what then would be the best policy?

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    Refer to Thomas Schelling’s, “Dynamic Models of Segregation,” which found that having even small percentages of people within each race with a slight preference for neighbors of similar race, over time this leads to stark segregation patterns that you see.

    If you Google “schelling segregation” you can find the paper as well as a YouTube video by Tim Harford that illustrates the point well.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    The main gain from immigration is not just human capital. Indeed, immigration that consists of just unskilled labor is a benefit because it lowers the cost of all goods produced by unskilled labor. As I noted with the Wal-Mart example in another comment, this hurts just the American workers with no skills, but it helps ALL American consumers.

    As with trade, the key is comparative advantage. To benefit from trade, what you need is a trading partner with different strengths and weaknesses, and the same applies to immigration. For a country to benefit the most from immigration, you want immigrants to have different strengths and weaknesses than the native populace (and as comparative advantage teaches us, it does not even matter if they have an absolute advantage or an absolute disadvantage at everything — the key is a difference in relative strengths).

    Indeed, all estimates of the economic impact of immigration that I have seen are positive. As I mentioned in another comment, economist Ben Powell cites a Borjas work critical of immigration which admits the net effect is a benefit of $22 billion a year. The National Academy of Sciences puts the benefit of $10 billion a year (note, this is a much older study). And the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors estimates a gain of $30 billion per year.

    It is very astute for you to point out that there are externalities. However, the empirical data is decidedly mixed. Butcher and Piehl (1998), examined over 40 cities in the 1980s and found no impact on crime from immigration. Bianchi, Buananno, and Pinotti (2012) found similar results regarding immigration into Italy. Borjas (1998) found contradictory evidence where displaced native workers became more likely to commit crimes (although note that this finding probably doesn’t exactly help your cause much). And Wadsorth (2010) found indeterminate results, where crime could increase or decrease from immigration.

    And as I have noted in a comment elsewhere, there are also positive externalities from diversity, as diverse groups tend to be more creative. This is a boost in all the arts (art, music, film, food), but note that every field and every endeavor involves a great deal of problem-solving, where creativity is key.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    By the way, I should say that my reception here has been far more civil than some times when I have poked my head into partisan liberal or conservative groups. I had been expecting to be censored immediately here and have actually been very pleasantly surprised by the level of engagement.

    Note, I do suspect that there’s probably a high level of racist thinking here, but I take the view in Malcolm Gladwell’s _Blink_ that most everybody is probably racist to some degree whether they know it or not, and it’s just a matter of whether or not people consciously try to counteract these instincts or not. In that sense, I see political correctness as a misguided attempt to avoid topics that make people squeamish or uncomfortable.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    You are cherry-picking countries, and I could do the same for U.S. states. I was referring to the overall European unemployment rate, which stands at 12% right now. More importantly, it has historically been higher than that of the U.S. for decades.

    I agree that inequality is increasing, and I already mentioned that many economists believe technology is one culprit. I am contesting with your belief that technology that increases productivity of labor costs jobs in the aggregate. This seems to indicate a model in your head of jobs being commodity of which there is a fixed amount, what economics calls “the lump of labor fallacy.”

    Note that in 1920, unemployment was 5.2%. Since that time, we have seen a number of inventions: the traffic signal (putting a lot of cops out of work), the photocopier (putting human transcribers out of work), the microwave oven, the calculator, the personal computer, spreadsheet software, etc. Not to mention that, in the 70s, women entered the workplace in droves and there have been millions of immigrants.

    If jobs were a commodity in fixed supply, all of these changes should have permanently increased the unemployment rate, but in 1988, it was 5.5%, and in 2000, it was 4.0%. It’s 7.3% now, but note that we are still recovering from a recession.

    And no, recoveries are not getting longer and longer. The 2001 and 1990 recessions lasted only 9 months (the average since 1900 is 14.4 months), and the one in 1981 lasted just 6. The reason this one is lasting so long will be argued for a while, but I think the Keynesian school has the best explanation. The government usually fights recessions by lowering interest rates, which increases spending and investment. That doesn’t work anymore when interest rates hit 0, and this is what they call a liquidity trap.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that when a question is asked, no matter how basic it is, the asker actually wants an answer to it. I was perfectly fine with keeping comments brief and concise instead using the obviously unwieldy academic style of citing sources, but remember, you were the one here who specifically asked for supporting evidence.

    Indeed, I was under the impression that your movement claims it is not a racist one because it is based on science. If this claim were true, one would have expected participants here to be more versed on the claimed scientific foundations of their argument and to better understand the economic implications of it (never mind being more receptive to a science-based argument).

    Of course, I myself didn’t actually expect any of that, but I still think it was worthwhile to check. Like I said, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes they don’t deserve it, but you never know unless you give them a chance.

  • Transpower

    From the Wikipedia article on the Gilded Age:

    “During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly.[11] For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%.[12] Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a scientific management revolution transformed business operations. By the beginning of the 20th century, per capita income and industrial production in the United States led the world, with per capita incomes double that of Germany or France, and 50% higher than Britain.[13] The businessmen of the Second Industrial Revolution created industrial towns and cities in the Northeast with new factories, and hired an ethnically diverse industrial working class, many of them new immigrants from Europe.”

  • Massinissa

    It’s like you’re describing me.
    Well put!

  • It would be hard to find anybody of note who would disagree with this statement.

  • JohnEngelman

    Charles Murray has acknowledged that people do not deserve their IQ’s. I care about decent, law abiding people of all races who are of average or below average intelligence.

  • ThomasER916

    You started with an insulting false premise then attempted semantic slight of hand to prove a point. You failed.

    Political Correctness is a Cultural Code. You said nothing of culture. You didn’t address it in the least. You don’t understand it. Political Correctness is evident in Libertarians when they’re screaming NEOCON!!1111one every time someone disagrees. It’s the indoctrination which labels anyone who disagrees with their Cult as a bugbear just like Liberals.

    Liberals and Libertarians don’t disagree on the Cultural Codes of Political Correctness, they disagree on the litigation. Libertarians enforce them exclusively through Culture, which ends up being Liberal anyway. Just because the enforcement varies doesn’t mean the behavior varies. Libertarians will chase away those “Evil, racist, NEOCONS!!!111one” and “rednecks” as fast as a Liberal.

    Did we forget the Libertarian reaction to Ron Paul’s “racism”? There was a time when no one would give a crap. That was before Political Correctness. That’s what this article is precisely about. You still don’t get it.

  • Like most intellectual pursuits, they are fine in theory and may provide benefits beyond constipated conjecture among intellectual elites capable of comprehending the topic(s) and the impact(s). Concordantly, immigration, regardless of its merits/costs is unimportant hyperbole. Voting is the central problem. Men are not all intellectually gifted, nor will they necessarily possess the rudiments of intellect. Therein lies problem for every political and societal debate that arises. That no restrictions, nor minimum qualifications exist for citizens to exercise the voting franchise, assures the weak of mind will be corraled by the commonality of their complaints and used to sequester power in the hands of those that promise them relief to their several complaints. Importantly, when the natural controls that restrict breeding are removed/palliated, and the weak minded are encouraged to breed, an equation of destruction is set in motion.
    Weak in mind almost always equates to a lower income and standard of living. Problem solving for the weak minded is problematic and often focuses upon immediate gratification – at the expense of long term usefulness. The weak minded are typically the most suceptible to promises of relief that excuse their incompetence, and, importantly, punishes those more affluent than they. If the relief can be packaged with inflicting suffering and monetary losses upon their bettors, the weak minded will eagerly provide their vote. Envy, jealousy, and the hate the former two foster, are inseparable and omniscient among the dull witted. Emotions replace reason. Emotions frame each issue and drive the actions of the dullard. There is a correlate between emotions and reason that approaches zero-sum. When the former is prevalent, the latter is limited – and vice versa. The dullard knows better than anyone else the limits of their minds. Consequently, violence and force are adopted when the absence of intellect fails to provide peaceful solutions and emotions bolster their frustrations. Seeing their bettors suffer provides the dullard immediate gratification and assuages their convoluted value system – projecting suffering will teach the bettor what life is like for the dull witted/low income strata. Again, obtaining emotional gratification trumps reason. Sadly, more often than not, satisfying emotions provides the less optimal solution set. When political arguments are specifically crafted to inflame emotions and make excuses for incompetence/failures, it is a winning message. The absence of long term thinking keeps the dullard blind to the consequences of their votes. WIth unrestricted/rewarded breeding, the numbers of dull witted increase as do their demands upon society/government. Nefariously, the number of dullard votes rise in proportion to their numbers. The combination of factors assures only one outcome – death of the society and form of government that endorses and subsidizes the creation of an ignorant voting majority. All other issues are moot.

  • I have come to the conclusion that libertarianism is a political chimera, its whatever you want it to be and it doesn’t exist in the real world.

    I have also noticed that when I get a libertarian to debate anything, they turn out to be either an anarchist or a free-market liberal.

  • Libertarians often say that a business that doesn’t serve minorities would lose too much business and not be able to compete. So, I believe you are correct.

  • Bossman

    National Borders are by definition public property. Who would own the public lands separating different countries? If everything were to be in private hands, it would then be a very strange world indeed.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    The impression is based on information on this website as well as the common usage of the unusual terms, “racialism” and “race realism.”

    Libertarians believe in the right of free association, so it’s fine when individuals wish to move wherever they wish, whether it be diverse or homogenous. Libertarians only have a problem when somebody wants the government to hoist their personal preferences upon the rest of the country, whether it be liberals with health insurance, conservatives with religion, or “racialists” with segregation and border controls.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    My point is that anecdotal evidence can be so easily cherry-picked, which is exactly why science does not rely on it.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    Yes, special interests often impose preferences on others. I oppose this, as I view it as a negative side-effect of how our political system works (that tariffs are a similar case). Note, imposing personal preferences is rather different from arguing for/against a policy based upon its projected effects upon the country, or arguing from principles that this country was founded upon, like liberty and justice.

    Yes, there are many libertarians who advocate open borders (per the original article above). I tend to be less ideological and more pragmatic, supporting policies that would not be identified as strictly libertarian, such as pollution taxes, school vouchers, expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I do support some minimal border controls, albeit I think it should be less than what we have now.

    And yes, a libertarian utopia in America is about as unlikely as a “race realist” utopia in America. I see this as little reason to stop openly arguing in favor of what I support and against what I oppose.

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    It is widely thought within economics that Henry Ford paid more because he believed it would boost worker productivity, both by improving morale and also by increasing the value of the job (i.e., getting fired became a much bigger deal). This practice is now called an “efficiency wage.”

    Whether or not he also cared, only Henry knows.

    • Widely thought by who? Everything I’ve read, which I admit is little, says workers wouldn’t stay.

      • perfectlyGoodInk

        Ford is literally used as the textbook example of the efficiency wage. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw’s _Principles of Economics_, 6th edition on page 646: “In 1914, Ford introduced another innovation: the $5 workday… about twice the going wage…. When the new $5-a-day wage was announced, long lines of job seekers formed outside the Ford factories.” The text also claims that productivity increased and turnover fell after he implemented the change.

        In Snowdon and Vane’s _Modern Macroeconomics_, they quantify the effect a little more on page 394: “The result of Ford’s new wage policy was a dramatic reduction in absenteeism (down 75 per cent), reduced turnover (down 87 per cent), a massive improvement in productivity (30 per cent), a reduction in the price of the Model T Ford, and an increase in profits. It appears that Ford was one of the first entrepreneurs to apply efficiency wage theory. Later, Henry Ford described the decision to pay his workers $5 per day as ‘one of the finest cost cutting moves we ever made’ (see Meyer, 1981; Raff and Summers, 1987).”

        Note, there is disagreement about Ford’s actual intentions, of course. For example, Jason Taylor argues he meant to boost aggregate demand.

      • perfectlyGoodInk

        Sorry, I realize now that this was exactly what you were saying.

        • I thought it sounded particulary astute!

  • perfectlyGoodInk

    As someone else here might say, “Assertions galore, but not a shred of evidence.”

  • ThomasER916

    This is what happens when you’re an indoctrinated Useful Idiot. You still DON’T GET IT. You and your fellow Cultists lied up and down saying “Those letters are not Ron Paul!” Libertarians are Useful Idiot Cultists just like you. They scream racism 24/7, blather on about this mythical “Blowback” and hate “old white people.”

    Read the last paragraph over and over and over again. Here, I’ll copy-n-paste just so you don’t get lost:

    “There was a time when no one would give a crap. That was before Political Correctness. That’s what this article is precisely about. You still don’t get it.”

  • ThomasER916

    I’m not surprised at all. I’ve said this many, many times:

    Libertarians are Cultural Marxists. They behave like Marxists in nearly every way except they’ve traded their worship of a Fixed Market for a Free Market.

  • Jackryanvb

    “Libertarians that oppose open borders immigration” – like National Anarchists, yeah I guess more on our side, all very bright people, but…

    Kind of like trying to find good things to say about Stalin, as he was supposedly better than Trotsky and old Bolsheviks on national issues – Stalin just wanted to starve the Ukranians, genocide the Volga Germans – but hey, at least he put an ice pick in the head of Trotsky and hated Marxist intellectuals as much as any National Socialist.

    Nah, just have to go with grim reality that Libertarians are loons, traitors on racial issues.

    These types need to be forced to shut up and do some manual labor.

    I still can’t get over Ron Paul’s 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign where he tries to reassure a panicky White California voter that Mass Third World immigration to California was a good thing and any problems with immigration were caused by too much American border controls, too much regulation of US labor markets.

    And don’t ever try to use reason with open borders Libertarian loons. They always have some spin to make Al Qaeda terrorist immigration from Yemen a good thing, or more often, not really important one way or another.

  • RedFIag450

    Out founding fathers were basically both libertarians and white nationalist. They wanted a society for Europeans (Naturalization Act of 1790) while having a lot of liberty.

  • Anders Hass

    >The two most powerful open-borders radicals among the libertarian ranks are, by far, Anthony Gregory and Walter Block.

    Walter Block has said there could be made a case that limiting immigration could be good (economically) he just says it is anti libertarian.