Radical Agenda EP094 – The Libertarian Case for Trump

We don’t usually air on Sundays, but tomorrow there is a “We Are Breitbart” Meetup in Manchester which I would like to attend that conflicts with our regularly scheduled program. So rather than skip it, or leave you without a show, we’ll do one early. This evening, Sunday January 24th from 9pm until whenever, we’ll go live. There will be no Monday show this week.

Radical Agenda EP094 - The Libertarian Case for Trump

Radical Agenda EP094 – The Libertarian Case for Trump

There’s plenty to get to, but I have been asked many times about my support of Donald Trump and never had a place to send people to specifically. So consider this that piece.

Let’s start off by stating the obvious. Democracy is a terrible system, which invariably initiates force against peaceful people. It will always elect violent rulers by a vote of many stupid people who are incapable of comprehending the consequences of the policies they support. Consequently, all elections have horrible outcomes, regardless of who wins them. I have no doubt, the next president of the United States, whomever he (or she) may be, will do terrible things.

The orthodox libertarian position on political candidates is thus, needless to say, they are all irredeemably evil. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, or Rand Paul. They will all initiate force on a scale so grand it boggles the mind, and we would all thusly prefer that no presidential powers existed, negating the necessity for an election.

Sadly, democracy has not been abolished as of yet, and such a goal is terribly unlikely to be accomplished prior to the November 2106 election. Chances are, a president will be elected next year. Chances are,  that president will initiate force. Chances are, that force will have catastrophic consequences.

So one is left to choose between four basic options.

  1. Support a candidate who will do things which are unlibertarian, but is less harmful than the other candidates.
  2. Support a candidate who will do things which are so unlibertarian that society will be irreparably harmed and the government will collapse that we might rule the wasteland.
  3. Support a libertarian candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning
  4. Renounce elections as unprincipled, wield zero influence, and remain in a powerless echochamber of libertarian autism.

I choose option number one, and I frankly think you’re a useless moron if you choose any of the other three. The notion that libertarians ought to remain completely uninfluential and powerless is a theory being floated by people who have no desire to see us succeed in anything.

Let me clue you all into a little known secret of the universe. Power, not principles, guide societies. When a predator charges toward you, you do not ready your argumentation ethics and denounce him as a moral criminal. You do not post to Facebook about what a sellout he is. You do not post memes about how silly it would be to join the criminal class and change it from within.

You shoot him.

He sought to use force against you, and you, if you wish to survive, must use force against him. You must do so in a way that overwhelms his ability to wield force, up to and including ending his life.

The idea that the dynamic somehow changes once democracy gets involved is patently ridiculous. For years, I have called for insurrection. I have dedicated nearly all of my time to promoting a violent overthrow of government and a continued culture of resistance which would prevent the establishment of a new one. Those calls have not only been ignored, they have been vehemently resisted, smeared, and dishonestly attacked by other self described libertarians. Yet, if one wanted to bring about a libertarian order in a perfectly libertarian manner, this would be the only way to accomplish that goal.

I am convinced, after years of struggling, that this will not happen. At least not without a number of prerequisites. I believe Donald Trump will help to meet the most important of those prerequisites.

The utter destruction of the left is a prerequisite of revolution, or any positive social change.

I know it is popular amongst libertarians to say that “It doesn’t matter if the boot on your neck is a left boot or a right boot” and perhaps this may have been true at some point in human history. Today however, it is a patently ridiculous notion.

Today, left wing influence is threatening our very existence. Subsidized mass immigration displaces libertarianism’s core demographic with socialists, communists, and theocrats. Public education is dumbing down the populace. The welfare state is destroying the family unit. Political correctness not only threatens “free speech”, it removes entire categories of information from observation in political discourse and scientific inquiry. Feminism and gender confusion is subsidized and promoted, along with birth control and abortion, causing more familial disconnect, declining birthrates, and demographic decline.

These patterns are not only absolutely unsustainable, they are an immediate danger to our safety in the present moment. Right now, students in prestigious universities like Yale, are panicking because they think Halloween costumes are racist. They cannot tell the difference between rape and a hangover. Rice is cultural appropriation. The list goes on, and these lunatics are not a simple sideshow for us to mock. They will eventually graduate from these universities and become Presidents, Senators, Governors, and captains of industry. They have some of the most insanely dangerous ideas, and they will be our rulers in a few short years if they are not stopped.

There is legitimate criticism amongst libertarians and conservatives that Donald Trump is not a slash and burn antigovernment right winger or constitutionalist. He doesn’t want to abolish social security, the welfare state, medicare or medicaid. He doesn’t want to reduce the size of the military, though he is far more hesitant to use it than many would give him credit for.

With economics being the primary complaint amongst libertarians about the left, you might thus find yourself asking what he would do to defeat liberalism, and I respond as follows.

The all too common libertarian idea that we are conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues is a fallacy which has sadly gained entirely too much traction. We are not liberal on social issues, we just want to let the market sort out the positives and negatives of human interaction. Drug use, promiscuity, feminism, homosexuality, racial and cultural diversity are all social negatives which would, and for many centuries were, discouraged by the market.

Promoting these behaviors as virtuous is a consequence of liberal economic policies and general societal degradation brought upon us by said policies. We are not freeing ourselves by smoking marijuana and letting other guys fuck our girlfriends, we are in fact responding to the stimuli of our enslavement, and helping to further perpetuate it.

When leftists scream “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobe” at their opponents, it doesn’t make a spec of difference whether or not they are explicitly endorsing the State taking action against the people they hurl these epithets at. They are repeating government propaganda, the aim of which is to outlaw the discrimination which has always served as a market deterrent to degenerate behavior and cultural decline.

They want unchecked debauchery, irresponsibility, and reality detachment, because this makes for a more easily ruled civilization. If Bruce Jenner can become a woman, or Rachel Dolezal can become black, then the concept that human beings have a nature is undermined. Popular opinion and government decrees can take the place of obvious truths, and once one is willing to accept that sort of thought process, communism is not far off. After all, if human beings have no nature, then there are no economic laws aside from those set by the State.

What Donald Trump does to offset this is incredibly small, but it is more than we have seen from anyone else in my lifetime. He completely neutralizes this aspect of left wing influence. Between his rhetoric on immigration, his statements about Muslims, his willingness to retweet racial crime statistics, white genocide, and other things which seem quite shocking by modern standards of political discourse, he has made himself the hated target of every left wing outfit of note, including those who falsely portray themselves right wing like Glenn Beck, Fox News, and the National Review.

Any other candidate, commentator, or person of any sort of interest who came under such attacks would have long ago backpedaled and signaled and apologized for fear of being financially and politically ruined, if not assassinated. Instead, Trump continues to double down. More importantly, he remains successful while doing so, proving irrefutably that these ridiculous smears are meaningless and one can not only survive such attacks without apology, but can stand a very real chance of ascending to the presidency of the United States.

This neutralizes the entire structure of the left wing media. The system of propaganda that hammers us day in and day out with liberal bullshit is rendered powerless by an openly racist billionaire who insults powerful people with impunity.

The left is invading libertarianism, because they have already dominated statism.

There is an attitude amongst many libertarians that leftists can make good allies as long as they reject the use of State violence to achieve their leftist aims. I posit that this is ridiculous, demonstrably false, and dangerous.

Leftists dominate State politics. Even those who are typically seen as right wing such as Fox News commentators, the National Review, and “establishment” Republicans like Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham, are just left wing invaders who work diligently to make certain that the left has no real political opposition. They grow government, give credence to anti-discrimination nonsense, promote multiculturalism, and long, drawn out military conflicts without any plan for victory. They are r-selected leftists parading around as the definition of conservatism, and they have been remarkably effective.

With the welfare state, egalitarianism, gay marriage, abortion, gun control, and all manner of liberal victories accepted as permanent fixtures of American society, they have moved onto the final nail in the coffin of conservatism, immigration. The Republican party, in the name of maintaining political power in an increasingly non-white country, has made it part of their political strategy to begin trying to appeal to non-whites by promoting open immigration. We’ll talk in more detail about immigration later, but for now let us just accept that this is a left wing idea promoted by establishment Republicans.

If the left did not already have a stranglehold on State politics, they would not be wasting their time on destroying libertarianism. If you have any doubts that leftists are in fact working diligently to destroy libertarianism, you’re probably not a regular reader of this blog, nor have you bothered to educate yourself about libertarianism generally. I direct you herehere, here, here, here, and here for background on that.

Democratic governments move in a singular direction, leftward. They have no choice but to do that because popular lies defeat uncomfortable truths in popular elections. Bribing voters, dumbing down the electorate, and importing more stupid people to vote are features of democracy, not malfunctions. The only thing that can stand against the leftward inertia of democracy is an intellectual movement that rejects democracy itself, and for that we have a choice between a dictator or a stateless society.

While I personally agree with Hans Hermann Hoppe that monarchy is far superior to democracy, I also agree that a stateless society is preferable to a monarchy. Democracy will fail, that is inevitable. What replaces it thus becomes a question of extraordinary importance.

Were democracy to fall today, it would be replaced by a dictator, and sane people the world over would be quite correct to rejoice that it did not fall to statelessness. Were a society to be guided by the “wisdom” of Reason Magazine, the Cato Institute, the Center for a Stateless Society, and other left wing outfits, we would all be on a collision course with extinction. The intellectual soil of libertarianism has been soaked in left wing herbicide that prevents anything from growing there. What today makes up what passes for the libertarian movement is not so much guided by Rothbard, Hoppe, or even Woods or Molyneux, as it is guided by a Pollyanna-esque sense of equality and entitlement. Capitalism has been replaced by Konkin’s anticapitalist “agorism”. Discrimination is not seen as an essential market function, but rather an unfortunate side effect of freedom to be denounced and humorously enough, discriminated against. It is not so much about property rights as it is about removing the social stigma from homosexuality, promiscuity, and drug use.

Donald Trump’s open racial awareness, advocacy of immigration restrictions, and attacks on the left wing media are a call to arms for the left. They are shouting from the rooftops “all hands on deck” and it is working spectacularly. Nothing works so well for spotting a leftist as seeing how vigorously they denounce Donald Trump. His policies by comparison to his opponents are really not all that extreme, but his attitude is decidedly right wing and it scares the living hell out of leftists that right wing attitudes could again become popularized because this would mean they had actual political opposition.

If the left had political opposition, they would have less time and resources to dedicate toward destroying libertarianism. Libertarianism will never get anywhere if it does not deal with its leftist invasion. We are and will always be rightly viewed by the left as enemies of their economic plans, alliances with them serve only to undermine our own goals. We are sadly, and wrongly, viewed by the right as left wing childish retards who will never accomplish anything, and this is entirely due to our left wing alliances. Right wingers who read Hoppe or Rothbard would largely be sympathetic to our goals. Right wingers who are called “whorephobic” and racist by the Buehlers and Reisenwitzs of the world will sadly dump us all into the same category of ovenworthy nonsense.

Sorry Egalitarians, Race and Culture Matter.

That was slightly disingenuous. I’m not sorry in the least. I hate you with a perfect hatred, and I sincerely hope the most horrible things happen to you.

All people are not equal. In fact, two individuals who are in every socially discernible way the same, have an infinite number of differences between them. When those people have evolved for thousands of years in radically different environments, those people will have even greater differences between them. Such differences will include but not be limited to intelligence, propensity for violence, and propensity for cooperation.

Any libertarian with the slightest bit of observational skills has to have noticed that we’re mostly a movement of white males. They would also notice that there is no libertarian movement to speak of outside of cultures descendant from Europeans. This is not a weakness of libertarianism, as our leftist infiltrators attempt to insist. It is rather a very obvious indicator that white males have a greater natural inclination toward market cooperation than other peoples. To insist otherwise is nothing more than the denial of human nature, it is biological and cultural Marxism.

Leftists know this, and since they hate freedom, they hate white males. They will thus do everything in their power to destroy us before we manage to make any headway in advancing our ideas. This includes mass subsidized immigration from third world countries.

While our ideal society would have no government and thus no arbitrary geopolitical borders enforced by State mercenaries, the notion that there would be free and unrestricted travel the world over in the absence of the State is a remarkably ridiculous left wing idea. Borders are the whole point of freedom, as borders are demarcations of property rights.

Public roadways and common spaces are government programs. They are subsidized by taxes and inflation, and they would not exist in the absence of the State. These things would be privately owned and controlled. In many if not all circumstances they would be controlled with greater restriction than those imposed by the State – just as you do not allow “free speech” demonstrations inside your home by people who hate you. Any “libertarian” argument for open immigration simply ignores this reality by insisting that anybody should be able to cross government geopolitical boundaries with no restriction whatsoever. The assertion there is that in the absence of the State, highly desirable resources would simply remain unowned in perpetuity and that all peoples from all over the world could exploit them in any way they saw fit without any conflict ever arising. It is pure nonsense.

Trump’s proposals for stricter immigration controls thusly accomplish two decidedly libertarian goals.

  1. Making State immigration policy more closely resemble that which a free market would create.
  2. Saving libertarianism’s core demographic from extinction

 

 

If this were all he did, he would be my pick for the president, but there is so much more. I want to get this blog post published immediately, but I’ll update it periodically both before and after the show to make it a more comprehensive case.

As always, we’ll be taking your calls at 218-936-0815 or Radical Agenda on Skype.

Join us, this Sunday January 24th from 9pm Eastern until whenever for a special off schedule episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about common sense extremism where we talk about radical, crazy, off the wall things like neutralizing the liberal media.

Listen live on the TuneIn app! Got Roku? We’re on there too! Or add the raw stream to your favorite streaming app! Get the podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Roku, RSS, or RadicalAgenda.com

 

 

 

 

This production is made possible by donors like you, you can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • Thanks for the episode.

    I still have concerns about Trump, but as for me, I’m giving my (unenthusiastic) support for Trump, merely because however unlibertarian Trump may be, I think a Trump win will in the end be good for libertarianism and for political incorrectness. A Trump win will convince the white people that they matter, and we libertarians who are principled can gain some traction among white Americans, and perhaps Trump may make America great again.

    As for immigration, I’m unsure about whether regulations would be beneficial in the long run. However, it is not that big of a concern for me, and I don’t want to live or die on this hill.

  • Jeff

    Anarcho-capitalism is impossible because you need a state to keep out non libertarian people from different cultures. The only way libertarianism can work is with a state.

    • Richard Chiu

      No. A voluntary nation, absent a state, can resist invasion by people from an incompatible culture as long as the situation is not inherently militarily hopeless.

      Hundreds of different “indigenous peoples” have demonstrated this in thousands of historical conflicts, and uncounted numbers of conflicts not recorded in history.

      Including European people…as they must again or pass from the earth forever.

    • liberty lover

      So Libertarianism is just another form of statism.

      • Jeff

        > implying a society without a state can even exist

        • liberty lover

          It can with around 7 billion sovereign states.

  • I am very sympathetic to your point of view. At this point in time I think that the left’s assault on western civilization “Trumps” all other political concerns. If they have their way we will not have any capacity to debate what we dislike about traditional society.

    In the last six months or so I think that we have seen the death of Libertarianism. This has been caused by the ongoing ineptitude with anyone associated with Libertarianism as well as Trump bashing through the MSM narrative, something the Libertarians have been trying to do for more than 50 years, in less than a year and with seemingly no effort whatsoever. It seems to me that right now Libertarians are taking sides between kooky leftists (Berwick/Reisenwitz) and the pragmatic alt-right (Cantwell/Molyneux).

    Being sucked in to the Left-right paradigm is something that I have always despised, Unfortunately much like right before WWI it is a growing global trend.

  • paendragon

    You’re finally starting to put it all together, Chris! Kudos!

    Re: “Today, left wing influence is threatening our very existence. Subsidized mass immigration displaces libertarianism’s core demographic with socialists, communists, and theocrats. Public education is dumbing down the populace. The welfare state is destroying the family unit. Political correctness not only threatens “free speech”, it removes entire categories of information from observation in political discourse and scientific inquiry. Feminism and gender confusion is subsidized and promoted, along with birth control and abortion, causing more familial disconnect, declining birthrates, and demographic decline.”

    … and:

    “Drug use, promiscuity, feminism, homosexuality, racial and cultural
    diversity are all social negatives which would, and for many centuries
    were, discouraged by the market.

    Promoting these behaviors as virtuous is a consequence of liberal
    economic policies and general societal degradation brought upon us by
    said policies. We are not freeing ourselves by smoking marijuana and
    letting other guys fuck our girlfriends, we are in fact responding to
    the stimuli of our enslavement, and helping to further perpetuate it.

    When leftists scream “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobe” at their
    opponents, it doesn’t make a spec of difference whether or not they are
    explicitly endorsing the State taking action against the people they
    hurl these epithets at. They are repeating government propaganda, the
    aim of which is to outlaw the discrimination which has always served as a
    market deterrent to degenerate behavior and cultural decline.

    They want unchecked debauchery, irresponsibility, and reality detachment, because this makes for a more easily ruled civilization. If Bruce Jenner can become a woman, or Rachel Dolezal can become black, then the concept that human beings have a nature is undermined. Popular opinion and government decrees can take the place of obvious truths, and once one is willing to accept that sort of thought process, communism is not far off. After all, if human beings have no nature, then there are no economic laws aside from those set by the State.”

    Precisely. And this is, as Bob Livingstone put it, deliberate:

    By design, America and the West are being destroyed by the political and pundit class on behalf of the globalists. The globalists’ goal is to eliminate borders; and to do this they intend to swarm all nations with people of other races, from other cultures, nationalities and even religions, so that people of civilized and established nations lose their cultural and nationalist identities and become homogenized. The argument can then be made that, since a nation now has no cultural or racial identity, borders are irrelevant.

    In a world without borders, people become world citizens. World citizens need world government.

    And it’s not only the government, either: the enemedia and so-called “education system” are also complicit – they serve the same globalist corporazi masters the politicians do.

    A great way to control people is to convince them they can’t manage their own affairs.

    Even better is to convince them they’re only potentially dangerous (hateful racist bigots) mistakes who shouldn’t even think about trying to defend them selves because by doing so they are guaranteed to always hurt innocent others.

    Best of all is to convince them they are not only all helpless victims, but to be proudly competitive in endorsing victim status – which is exactly what today’s feral “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs) are all about!

    Which is both how and why the enemedia endlessly shames us all as potential racists all the time, and insists we import hordes of swarthy savages who we know want to murder and enslave us, to make up for it.

    Re: “Democratic governments move in a singular direction, leftward. They have no choice but to do that because popular lies defeat uncomfortable
    truths in popular elections. Bribing voters, dumbing down the electorate, and importing more stupid people to vote are features of democracy, not malfunctions.”

    Yes, exactly – like this guy said long ago:

    “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy…”

    Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770

  • paendragon

    Re: ” Donald Trump. His policies by comparison to his opponents are really not all that extreme, but his attitude is decidedly right wing and it scares the living hell out of leftists that right wing attitudes could again become popularized because this would mean they had actual political opposition.”

    WRONG.

    Honestly, people – “right wingers” don’t actually exist.

    Hitler was a National SOCIALIST.

    And even “Fascism” was invented by Benito Mussolini, the devoted Italian SOCIALIST.

    So, what’s a “right winger?” It’s any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshipping “socialist” gangsters.

    • Marco Savo

      Ciao coglione. A “right winger?” is a conservative moron who wake up enough to defend his privileges, be it aristocratic privileges, the one given from owing most of the money, the privilege of being a man over the women, white over blacks, heterosexual over homosexual, a citizen over illegal immigrants… someone that want to perpetuate the caste system, earn more privileges, and don’t change anything else.

      • paendragon

        So it’s “moronic” to favor citizens over illegal immigrants (aka criminal trespassers)? And genetic reality favors heterosexuals over homosexuals, who can’t reproduce.

        • Marco Savo

          You represent all the worse we have on earth. Are a libertarian? “citizens over illegal immigrants” so you legitimate the government, a nation is an invented concept, why I am wasting my time with you? as in the French Revolution, but without going so far the Nazi-fascists, your kind of people will be wiped out from earth. Hard working people, yeah sure I still haven’t met one, you’re exploiting your privileged position, that’s what are you doing

          • paendragon

            Stupid wop faggot. A “nation” isn’t an “invented concept” which you commies pretend was invented by white males during the Enlightenment to oppress swarthy gangs of roaming, nomadic “noble savages” for fun and profit.

            All “nations” in history really only always grew organically from families, clans, and tribes, and eventually evolved into states and even empires.

            Borders, like fences, make for better neighbors. And Yes I’m a Libertarian, because unlike you, I believe in individual rights to own and defend personal property. You no-borders communist gangster trolls have nothing to lose, so of course you can pretend to be magnanimous with other people’s properties.

            I dare you to invite a few Syrian rape-fugee families to come into your home and live there for free, using your fridge, eating your food, and taking your welfare checks from you for a while. Let’s see how long that lasts, before you suddenly decide you believe in private property and borders.

            And of course you’ve never met any hard-working people, because you only associate with feral gangster criminal trolls like yourself, who brag about how they will form the biggest gang like in the French revolution to violently rob and take all the property from those who actually earned it.

            But then, once that’s done, you won’t know what to do with it, so, like your fellow traveller “muslims,” you will live in squalor in the dirt and ruins of the properties and countries of those people you destroyed, while always looking for your next targets to blame and rob – repeat endlessly.

            Bottom line: poverty doesn’t cause crime (some of the poorest places in the world have the lowest crime-rates, and not only because there’s nothing there to steal) but criminals like you definitely cause poverty.

  • Doop-doo-doop

    Chris, I have some book recommendations:

    1. The Quest for Community, google “nisbet vs plato and rousseau” for a summary by Gary North
    2. The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis, the wikipedia page has a good description/summary
    3. We Are Doomed, by John Derbyshire

  • PongGod

    Damn, you mean we’re stuck with this shitty democracy for at least another 90 years?

    • Sam Cru

      The god of democracy will take a very long time to die, and an even longer time to be forgotten. The christian god died over a century ago, and people still believe in it.

  • Richard Chiu

    I’m not going to become a Trump supporter.

    But I will continue defending Trump supporters because they’re fighting the system itself, and thus do more good than anyone who isn’t hunting down and killing cops (no comment on whether they’re doing more good than me).

    And Trump has a valuable characteristic that none of the other politicians has. He understands and accepts that a rather large portion of his supporters are ready (physically, morally, and mentally) to start voting from the roof-tops if the system keeps betraying them, and that none of them like him personally so much that he’d be exempted from that vote.

    • Libertymike

      Richard, do you think most Trump supporters favor less spending on the military? Less military interventionism?

      Do you think that most Trump supporters favor a dramatic reduction in the size of municipal, county, and state police forces?

      Do you think that most Trump supporters favor the abolition of the income tax as well the IRS?

      If they are not in support of all of those things, they are, by definition, supporting the system itself.

      • Richard Chiu

        A lot of things don’t support those things, but don’t support the system either. So you’re kinda operating on a fundamentally false premise there.

        I don’t suggest that the motives of Trump supporters are pure. But they are in fact fighting against the existing political establishment as nobody else. Not least by opening up the question of resorting to violence against leftists…including politicians.

  • lowell houser

    “I don’t see any of you coming up to Ne Hampshire to form an army to violently overthrow the government.”

    That would be because you’re asking us to die for New Hampshire. mean seriously you Free State Morons, if you wer going to pick a place that is fuckin cold, you could have at least picked Alaska. Someplace beautiful with LOTS of open land to claim and an absolute TON of natural resources. But nope, you want us to die for New Fuckin England. Pass.

    • Richard Chiu

      Leaving aside the very pertinent military question of whether New Hampshire is remotely defensible, who exactly was asking for a libertarian militia to be formed there? I thought the Free State Movement was explicitly reliant on voting rather than militancy.

      • Randall Stevens

        Voting still requires going out in the snow, walking through the snow and possibly having to stand and wait in said snow. Fuck NH and its shitty snow.

      • lowell houser

        I was speaking to Cantwell’s decision to move to NH as part of the FSP migration, even if he doesn’t agree with it’s pacifism. It was a mistake to settle there.

        That’s the thing about actual libertarians, we tend to be pasty white academics. Pasty white academics integrate into long since settled and civilized New England just fine. But there are still parts of the Alaskan wilderness where white people haven’t actually set foot on yet, and pasty white academics don’t do so well in a place like that, which is why we should have gone there. The people that can thrive in that environment are the ones we need, not the left-leaning New Englanders.

        But Cantwell, being from New York, must have been overjoyed at taking over a place that more or less has the exact same culture as the one he was raised in, but he missed an important detail. He keeps mentioning needing 60,000 Rothbardians to descend on NH to militarily take it over – there might not be 60,000 Rothbardians in the entire US, and you sure as hell aren’t going to find the majority of them EAST of the Mississippi.

        Meanwhile in Alaska, the Republicans and the Alaska Independence party are numbers one and two, respectively, every election……

        • Richard Chiu

          So you were quoting Cantwell?

  • bruce

    Always been sympathetic to libertarian ism until I understood this open borders position it struck me nor only as incredibly stupid but completely antithetical to what i thought of as libertarianisms core principles, property rights and market force. why on earth would I open my country that I built and paid for to anyone who wanted to leave the shithole they created and game my system; and how on earth would the market decide what types of nations work and dont work when this can be done. True I was not a very studious libertarian and didnt realize you guys thought passivism was the highest good. i find that naive really a leftist type mistake where you thin you can design a real world system based on how your friends behave.Trumps an idiot and they will find a way to destroy him even if they have to shoot him but I strongly support him hes moving the overton window calling for a show of hands this will raise moral, and when they take him down or if by some chance hes president and can gety nothing accomplished it will demonstrate how thoroughly democracy is a diversion for the rubes and hopefully enough people will get serious about killing them. sadly its the only way. Many hope a collapse will save them but that will only be seized on as an opportunity to grab total power I wouldnt be surprised if they orchestrated a collapse for the purpose. The hard part is how do you go from stringing up Merkle and Clinton to a stabil civilization

    • Libertymike

      Core libertarian principles do not include a system to be gamed. Put otherwise, no warfare / welfare state, no problem with Pedro. If he comes, it will be up to him to survive. If he violates your property rights, shoot him. Otherwise, leave him be.

  • Sam Cru

    There are more than four basic options. Option 5 could be “Move out of the country.”

    • Richard Chiu

      Offering yourself as a ritual sacrifice to Cthulhu is also an option. And not necessarily less meaningful than moving out of the country.

      But neither option is actually technically exclusive of “Renounce elections as unprincipled, wield zero influence, and remain in a powerless echochamber of libertarian autism.”

      • Guy From V

        I would argue that any action or lack of action on behalf of an entity like Cthulhu might be one of the most meaningless gestures a sentient and sane being can even comprehend. But of course that magnitude of apathy is pretty cool so you never know…

        • Richard Chiu

          There is a bottom limit to how meaningless an action can be and still be comprehensible, but it necessarily varies with subjective definitions of significance and coherence.

          I’m not saying offering yourself to Cthulhu is above that limit. Just that moving out of the country isn’t necessarily above it.

          • Sam Cru

            So, you would rather stay in America, feed the beast, and engage in meaningless intellectual masturbatory sessions on christophercantwell (dot) com? That’s so meaningful. You’re a libertarian god. If you haven’t moved to the world capital of childish douchebaggery located in Keene, NH you need to pack your bags right now!

          • Richard Chiu

            I’m not a libertarian. Or a god. But if this is a “meaningless intellectual masturbatory sessions on christophercantwell (dot) com”, then who exactly started it?

            Oh, right.

          • Sam Cru

            Cantwell started it…

          • Richard Chiu

            As you will. And you were irresistably attracted to what you deem his “masturbatory sessions”. The rest of us don’t regard them that way, but since you do maybe you should reconsider your choice of activity.

      • Sam Cru

        I moved out of the country, so I don’t pay US income taxes (my income is less than $100,000 per year so I am exempt). That’s meaningful. If you continue to stay in America you are probably paying income taxes, so you are feeding the very beast you claim to despise.

        • Richard Chiu

          I don’t pay income taxes…and I dare the Feds to do anything about it.

          And I’m ready to kill them if they try.

          Actually, I’m ready to kill them for trying a lot of other things too.

    • Mortado

      Where would you go?

      • Sam Cru

        I already left, and I’m not telling where.

  • Jeffrey Pope

    Great article Cantwell. I like your arguments and love where you are going!

  • Mortado

    Unfortunately, it seems most libertarians would rather the movement have zero real-world relevancy and remain a form of intellectual masturbation that can’t be applied practically. Also, great point about the market and society traditionally discriminating against degenerate behavior. I find it funny that left-libertarians think a stateless society would be a leftist one when leftism has only become as influential as it has through government and violence.

  • gurugeorge

    The problem is Trump is unlikely to win. If Trump is nominated, you will see the biggest landslide in history as a “not-Trump” vote comprised of a coalition of “liberals”, independents and moderates. Outside the Right-wing echo chamber, Trump is viewed as a buffoon, and if he is nominated the message that he is a buffoon will be hammered home 24/7 by the MSM, academia and the entertainment industry.

    Cruz on the other hand, stands a ghost of a chance – there are many “liberals”, independents and moderates who feel it’s time for a change. Cruz is charismatic enough, thinks fast enough on his feet, and just generally all around resembles a human being enough, to sway, certainly moderates and independents, but also, I would argue, even a small proportion of “liberals” per se.

    I’m predicting it here: if Trump is nominated, there will be a huge turnout, as both the Right and the Left act with tremendous unity; but there won’t be enough people on the Right to outweigh the “not-Trump” coalition. Trump will just squeeze through.

    If Cruz is nominated, the turnout will be low, but provided the Right can act with a similar degree of unity, Cruz may just squeeze through, because in that case the will of the Left will be weak (since there will be nothing to rally around – the choice between Hilary and Bernie being uninspiring by anyone’s reckoning).

    tl;dr Ferchrissakes don’t give the Left something to rally around by nominating Trump.

    • Richard Chiu

      You forgot vote fraud.

    • On the other hand, among Hispanic Republican voters Trump is #1. Though most Hispanics just echo Univision and Jorge Ramos, friend of socialism.

      Trump gets more Dem cross-overs than any other Rep runner “in the race”.

      Irrelevant. I’m not voting for any gf them, If they forced me to mark “X” for one of them maybe Rand. And if there are any local libertarians (they are not).

  • Put me down for option number 4.

    • Why? Is there a benefit to number 4, or what Cantwellites often call “autism,” that i am unaware of?

      • I don’t vote. In my estimation, when you vote you consent to the outcome of the election even if it’s what you voted against. I tried voting in 2014 for a libertarian governor for Florida, medical marijuana, and a libertarian something or other else. I left the rest of the ballot blank. Nothing I voted for won. It just left me feeling dirty and as if I’d violated my own principals (probably because I had). I’ll never do it again. I could have stayed home and had the same outcome without the guilt.

        • what do you then think of the recent NRx-libertarian bromance, with the rise of vocabulary such as cuck and autiste, the emphasis on race realism and opposition to free immigration, traditional pre-modern culture, etc.?

          I’m mixed on it. I admire much of the alt-right, personally, and I disagree with much as well.

          However, I think the NRx-libertarian bromance has its rightful place in the war against the State and against totalitarianism.

          • I comment on amren under another moniker. I believe you recently followed me when I used it here. The Alt Right, in my opinion, places way too much faith in government and especially the police. I also would have to say I’m mixed on it. As far as the vocabulary goes, I’ve seen so many words and phrases come in and out of vogue over the years that I’ve lost track. I find the word cuck offensive and wouldn’t personally use it. I do agree though that much of the time it’s used accurately.

            Edit: You did not follow me. I guess you just upvoted me.

          • What’s the moniker? I forget.

          • I upvoted you on this thread with it earlier today. Around 2 hours ago.

          • Oh, thanks.

          • Libertymike

            Curious, where else do you comment? Do you ever post comments at Reason’s Hit & Run? Taki’s? Bleeding Heart Libertarians? Eric Peters site? NRO? Tom Woods site?

          • I’ve commented at all of those except EP Autos and Reason. I don’t go to reason anymore. I’ll occasionally comment at Mises too. Eric’s site doesn’t have disqus and neither does ProLibertate so I don’t comment on those two. NRO banned me for a year so now I’m more careful. I’m also banned at Crooks and Liars and Raw Story under my other moniker right now. They’ve banned my IP address so I can only comment those places if I go mobile and use this account. I mostly don’t bother. I comment at amren under my other moniker. I have used this one but only once. When I started commenting there I was still trolling liberal sites pretty regularly and knew they would check my history often.

          • Libertymike

            Why have you stopped going to Reason’s H&R? To be sure, a significant faction of the commentariat is actually not libertarian, never mind an-cap.

            Yes, Eric’s site doesn’t have disqus and one must enter one’s handle and e-mail with every posting. However, I really like Eric’s writing and I think he’s awesome.

            I love me some William Norman Grigg.

            Why did NRO ban you? The other day, in the aftermath of NRO’s hit piece on Trump, I read a number of comments and posted some comments in response to some Ronnie Raygun worshippers.

          • Fl Cracker

            I kind of boycott Reason over the Koch brothers treatment of Murray Rothbard. I also feel that they’re “libertarian light”. I avoid Cato Unbound for the same reasons. I read Eric’s site pretty regularly. I just don’t comment. I got banned at NRO for calling GWB a neocon murderer. For some reason, stating the obvious bothers them. I used my othe moniker to comment on an article or two in the Trump issue. I’m more careful now. They don’t like libertarians.

          • Libertymike

            Yes, Reason is libertarian light. Frankly, some of the regular commenters are hostile to anarchy, the NAP, and Rothbard. I will say that H&R does have legitimate diversity of opinion, even some house progressives and that it is difficult to get banned there.

            NRO is firmly within the progressive umbrella. After all, Buckley was, a big government conservative, just like Reagan.

          • Fl Cracker

            I truly love Rothbard’s essay, Reagan an Autopsy. I don’t know if you’ve read it but it’s great, especially to give to “Small Government Reagan Worshippers”.

            I used to read Reason and Cato everyday. As I got “radicalized” they became less and less relevant. I read LRC each day now. I’ve been reading Amren each day although they have their issues with big gov over there too. They are mostly Ron Paul supporters though. They also recognized Rand Paul as a traitor 2 years ago in their first White Renagade of the Year award.

            BlackListed News is a good place to comment as well. I believe it’s impossible to get banned there although I may be wrong.

          • Libertymike

            Thanks for the tip on BlackListed News. I will check it out.

          • They also hate Christians I think, but they hold their nose and tolerate Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano. They used to invite Christopher Hitchens ever year for a party, for “Christmas I think”. That’s the anti-Christian crusader who actually blamed Christians for Stalin’s mass murder of Christians.

      • GOD

        cantwell resorting to name-calling is just pathetic, he might as well call everyone racist LMAO

  • liberty lover

    I’m just loving this. So now Trump is the new libertarian savior? We went from Ron Paul, to Rand Paul and now Donald Trump!! My how the libertarian standards have fallen off big time. And when he doesn’t win? What then? Wait another 4-8 years for your next political savior? Looks like the left has usurped the state as enemy #1 in the eyes of libertarians. Now what we see is libertarians wanting to wrest control of the state, away from the left and use it for their own means. Serious question here, if you want control of the state to achieve your own ‘libertarian’ ends, What’s wrong with the left wanting to control the state for their own ends? Isn’t the state, and all factions competing for control over it the real problem? Without the state there would be no ‘left’, or at least it would be powerless. Its sad to see ‘libertarians’ fall into this republican mentality. Now all hopes have been pinned on Trump, it will be fun to see all the crying and depression when he loses (if he even makes the nomination). The political battle is a battle you are destined to lose.

  • lowell houser

    Also, Hoppe is dead WRONG about monarchy being better for people than deliberately limited democracy. Monarchy freezes society and technology in place, and if hadn’t been thrown off the West would still be reliant on horses for transportation. The overthrow of Catholicism dominoed into the Protestants shrugging off the old world monarchies, and THAT is the entire reason that we even have an internet to shout at each other on.

  • sth_txs

    Here is my response when they tell me Trump is not a conservative:

    As a Ron Paul Republican, I did not bother to vote the libtard Mormon or Bush II. Not like Team R has done anything they ever campaign on ever. Bush II ran on a limited military intervention platform-conned on that. Taxes? Don’t make me laugh. Which government agency has ever been abolished or heavily limited repealing some of their authority under a Team R congress? I’m still waiting for the abolition of the Department of Education. Where has government ever been limited under Republican watch? Gun rights? Milquetoast compromisers all the time on that issue and many others. Abortion? Team R has been all talk for you those who care about that issue.

    If Trump did nothing else but kick the illegals out and encourage some controls on legal immigration, the country would be better off. He is stupid on single payer health system and ethanol subsidies, but those are Republican talking points anyway. Team R in Congress along with Bush II expanded Medicare benefits about a decade ago. Good thing John Roberts was appointed to the SC; lots of help there on ‘conservative’ causes. Hey, we better vote ‘conservative’. Pull your head out of your butts people!

  • Marco Savo

    I read somewhere that libertarians in the U.S. is the European equivalent of nazi-fascists, I just could not believe it. How you can appropriate a fascist movement with the term “libertarian”? you guys are the real the enemy of a free and equal society. Worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. Yeah go for Trump. It’s time to make it worse, and have the U.S. version of the French Revolution. Will be funny to see how all the white aristocracy caste of the 0.1% richest will be wiped out forever, including all you morons

  • davidinkeene

    you just like trumpestien because hes from NYC like you

  • Murray Roodbaard

    There is also the fifth option. To simply not vote, not because of a politician doing things that are unlibertarian, or because the voting process itself is “unprincipled”, but because to naively believe he would do *anything* he claims he will is stupid. A politician that doesn’t break his promises or doesn’t go back on his word is like a horse with wings. One could hold their nose and vote for Obama simply because he pretended to be an anti-war candidate and a promoter of government transparency, and yet what turned out to be true? You have no guarantee whatsoever, and no reason to assume, that Trump will do what he claims he would, but you would nevertheless put your stamp of approval on all the horrible shit he ends up doing. And you will have no excuse because the excuse that you believed him and didn’t think he would go 180 on many of his promises and claims is absurd and pathetic if you are a libertarian.

    • Murray Roodbaard

      And so, to add, the concept of not voting does not have to be a matter of “principle”, but a matter of not allowing yourself to be hoodwinked by professional frauds any longer, and because you’re so-called “influence” by voting (a ridiculous notion in itself considering the relatively minuscule amount of libertarians there are), would likely end up being an influence for the worse.

  • Murray Roodbaard

    I should also add that there is such a thing as being opposed to progressive imposition on society, without embracing the dichotomy that it means being a traditional “values” touting arch-conservative instead. I despise political correctness and cultural marxism, and generally have more contempt for statist progressives than statist conservatives. However, this does not mean i am looking forward to a “libertarian” society that tries to impose conservo-religious morality on everybody else, even if through total non-violent social ostracization, any more than one that tries to impose egalitarianism in the same manner. For me the free society is an end, not merely a means to achieve either some sickening egalitarian paradise of social justice with smug, self-fellating progressives, NOR to achieve some bible-thumping, sexually repressive, holier than thou, obsessively tradition-worshipping society of narrow-minded busy-body fools that should have been left behind in the middle ages. If you do, you can keep your culturally and socially collectivistic dreams, and i’ll be a lover of liberty for its own sake.

  • cocosims

    You make a lot of valid points in your post, many that I agree with. I understand Trump’s appeal in the sense that he has consistently given the middle finger to the establishment. I find it refreshing to see a candidate who has as much disdain for PC culture as I do.

    However, being a minarchist, I find it deeply troubling that he very publicly supports the 2005 Supreme Court majority decision in Kelo vs. City of New London. He essentially “agrees…100%” with the erosion of property rights and the abuse of the eminent domain clause to line his own pockets. Economic development that arises at the expense of individual liberties is not free-market capitalism- this is outright theft made possible by the bureaucratic machine.

    This, ideologically, makes him no better than any of the puppet scum backed by the establishment. It is a blatant aggression by the state against the citizenry and I am surprised that a self-described anarchist would show any favor towards someone who clearly has no respect for individual property rights.

  • Gary Johnston

    I’ll be watching…thanks for the heads up.

  • Justin Keith

    Statistically your vote won’t count at the federal level. So it’s effective option 4 by default.

  • SolusLupus

    Basically, you support Trump because you hate foreigners, you hate homosexuals and transgender people like me, and you hate the poor not getting trampled by the wealthy. Yeah, that sounds right, libertarians really as much of assholes as everyone says, and hypocritical too; you care about people doing what they want to do unless they’re “weird” and different.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      You know why trannies commit suicide so frequently? Because it’s the only decent thing they are capable of doing.

      • SolusLupus

        Yup. Thanks for proving what “Libertarianism” is all about. Glad to show it off to everyone else so they know not to follow such a defunct philosophy.

        • Christopher Cantwell

          Please, go forth and tell everyone that it is better to amputate one’s own penis than to be grounded in reality. Your kind have no place in the political process. I hope you are thrown from a government helicopter.

  • thebiscuit

    Great stuff Christopher, truly!