Diversity Debate Audio and Opening Statement
After some unexpected technical and other issues along my travels, I’m driving back to New Hampshire from my debate with Adam Kokesh earlier this week in Miami. Unfortunately, these issues prevent me from doing the show until Monday.
Some of you had trouble listening to the audio on the YouTube video, and sadly Google gives me no method by which to enhance the audio. So instead I’m releasing some cleaned up audio from the debate, along with the text of my opening statement in this post.
Thank you all so much for having me, as you probably already know, my name is Christopher Cantwell and I’m the host of Radical Agenda. We air live Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 5-7pm Eastern time, we take calls on the air and so if any of you would like to engage with me after this event, I’d invite you to join us for the live program and chime in.
Thanks so much to the Rothbardian Circle, and America’s Future and Luis for putting this together. Obviously I would like to thank Adam for the opportunity to have this discussion, some of you may already know that Adam and I have a history that goes back several years, and while we’ve taken shots at eachother in public over that time, he has always been somebody I could call on the phone or meet with in person and be totally cool and I consider him a friend.
Which I find rather unusual since he seems to have taken a rather dramatic leftward shift in his tone, and most of my interactions with left wing people are not all that productive. I’ve been called a violent, racist, misogynist, hateful homophobic bigot so many times that I don’t even bother saying that I’m not anymore.
In fact, I have heard these epithets thrown at me so many times, that I decided to see what the real racists were talking about and shockingly enough they seemed like pretty reasonable people, which is why I’ve come to you today with a message of disunity, and hatred.
Now, I’m not entirely certain of the format for this event, and that’s as much my fault as anybody else’s. But I see this as more or less a debate on left vs. right as it pertains to libertarianism. I for one, agree with Hans Hermann Hoppe, the elder Murray Rothbard, and many other libertarians that libertarianism is a right wing movement, and that our leftist elements are useful idiots at best, and a cancer which can only be cured by one way helicopter rides at the far more likely worst.
When every effort to analyze our political problems is met with accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia, when every demographic disparity is considered a hate crime, when when libertarianism’s core demographic, heterosexual white males, is systematically emasculated, denigrated, and eradicated from the face of the planet. Intellectual inquiry, economic stability, and the prospects for a libertarian society dwindle to zero.
Here is the truth that almost nobody has the courage to say. The reason you are surrounded by white males at libertarian events is because with very few exceptions, white males are the only demographic capable of living in a libertarian society. And that means, for a libertarian society to exist, those white males will have to make their women subordinate, and non-whites will have to be largely if not entirely excluded from the society.
Luckily, libertarianism provides us with the perfect mechanism for doing this, in the form of property rights. When we talk about a libertarian society, a true libertarian society absent the State, there is no such thing as public property. We are talking about total privatization of all resources, especially land, at which point any discussion about public policy becomes rather pointless. We do not vote on who gets to come across borders, the property owners decide unilaterally who they allow in, and who they exclude.
Sadly, we do not live in a libertarian society, and so we do need to take an interest in public policy if we wish to ever find ourselves living in one. For example, the discussion of immigration seems to be a big division and the debate between Adam and Augustus Invictus on that subject is partly how we came to find ourselves here. I thought that was very interesting because it really wound up being more a debate on the legitimacy of the State as an institution. Adam and I agree that the State has no legitimacy in any objective sense, so I think we can forgo any such concerns today.
But regardless of any real or perceived legitimacy of the institution, the United States Federal Government is rather powerful and controls land masses commonly referred to as borders. For the United States to open those borders to every man woman and child throughout the world, to subsidize their breeding within these borders, and to do all of that at our expense, is a far greater violation of the non-aggression principle, than it is for said government to exclude those people from our society.
The common misconception of the left libertarian is that so long as the government controls a resource, that resource must be freely available to all. This is foolish, because that is precisely why governments are inefficient and destructive mechanisms for organizing human society. No such condition could possibly exist in a society based on private property. Who could imagine, in a stateless world, that all of humanity could simultaneously exploit a resource without completely depleting its value or doing violence to one another in the process. This is what we commonly call the tragedy of the commons.
Privatization eliminates this tragic phenomenon, but until that privatization occurs, it is imperative to our very survival that governments act as good stewards of these resources on behalf of their true owners, the taxpayers, and that means a great deal of discrimination, and violence in defense thereof.
And while I think all libertarians can agree, that war is horrible and should be avoided in every reasonably possible way, it does not mean that we are compelled to leave ourselves defenseless against invasion, be it by waves of hungry immigrants, or by foreign militaries, just because taxation is theft. The non-aggression principle does not compel us to have dangerous roads, and come to the defense of violent predatory criminals, just because the war on drugs is bad public policy.
In the absence of the State, drugs are discouraged by way of social and economic costs that come with being a drug addled loser. No private road owner would allow drunk drivers on his highways. And no private land owner would open his land to hostile foreign cultures to avoid being called a racist.
For these reasons and others, I no longer shy from being called a fascist. I think that so long as States exist, they should behave as market actors and promote productive virtuous behavior amongst the citizenry. It is only through the betterment of our people, and the exclusion of lesser peoples that we will acheive a libertarian society. So if reality detached communists are bent on waging revolution against such a State, then it is the duty of libertarians to quell that rebellion with a ruthless counter revolution, by any means necessary.