MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is There Really an 'Insidious Libertarian-To-Alt-Right Pipeline'?

No, but believers in "Free Minds and Free Markets" should be in the forefront of attacking racism, anti-Semitism, and parochialism.

Daily BeastDaily Beast"Libertarianism has an alt-right problem," writes Matt Lewis over at The Daily Beast. "It seems observably true that libertarianism is disproportionately a gateway drug to the alt-right."

He notes that a number of high-profile leaders of the alt-right—Milo Yiannopoulis, Richard Spencer, Christopher Cantwell, among others—either flirted with or explicitly identified as libertarian at some point in their stumblebum hegiras toward anti-Semitism, white supremacism, reactionary sexism, and/or neo-Nazism.

For instance, Cantwell, who can barely complete a sentence or a crying jag without slagging "the Jews," was part of the Free State Project before he rightly got bounced after advocating the indiscriminate killing of "government agents." Milo flirted with the term too before concluding that "libertarians are children...obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking." Richard Spencer apparently attended Reason's 2007 "Very Secular Christmas Party" at which Christopher Hitchens led a sing-along of Tom Lehrer's "Christmas Song" (I organized that event, which drew a couple of hundred people but had no idea that such a future thug was among the crowd).

Lewis notes that libertarianism and the alt-right tend to non-interventionism when it comes foreign policy and that

libertarianism is somewhat unique in its unflinching support of free speech. In some cases, this free speech is unsavory. If you're anti-political correctness, libertarianism might seem like a good place to land—even if you don't buy into the whole libertarian philosophy.

Along the same lines, libertarians mostly believe that private actors have a right of association that would allow businesses to refuse customers even for racist, homophobic, or sexist reasons. That is in no way an endorsement of such behavior, but it clearly creates space for alt-right haters to catch their fetid breath.

Lewis' article (in which I appear, more on that in a moment) builds on a recent post at Hot Air by Tyler Millard, a libertarian contributor to that conservative site. Millard argues that the loose coalition of libertarians and conservatives needs to "purge White Supremacist Leaders, Ideology," from our midst.

The problem is these Richard Spencers and Peter Brimelows [the founder of the racist site Vdare.com who wrote anti-immigration articles for National Review in the 1990s] got their start in "the movement," under the guise of paleoconservatism, while others are part of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe bloc of libertarianism. They are the wolves in sheep clothing looking to draw more and more people into their pack while ripping away at the foundation of freedom and liberty at the same time.

So there is definitely some mingling going on. But does any of this add up to a "pipeline"? I don't think so, for reasons I explained to Lewis.

"These people [may] start off calling themselves libertarian, but they are the antithesis of everything that the libertarian project stands for—which is cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, individualism vs. group identity, and libertarianism or autonomy versus authoritarianism," Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of Reason.com tells me....This affinity for libertarianism "wears off when they realize that we're principled, that no, we're not just trolling," says Gillespie.

The Cato Institute's David Boaz reminds Lewis that Jason Kessler, the organizer of the fascistic and deadly "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, was originally a member of the Occupy movement while granting that "some libertarians become conservatives, some become welfarist liberals, a few drift into creepy extremes." And Lewis himself admits "that many of today's alt-righters are disaffected conservatives." So it's an overstatement at the very least to characterize the alt-right as mostly former libertarians.

Yet there is no question that some elements in the broadly defined libertarian movement articulate policy positions almost indistinguishable from those of the alt-right and Donald Trump. This is especially true when it comes to issues such as immigration. From Lewis' story:

On a post-Charlottesville blog post, Cantwell discussed his conversion from libertarianism to the alt-right. "As immigration became a leading news story in America and Europe," he writes, "Lew Rockwell gave a talk titled 'Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property.' From here, I decided to read Hans Hermann Hoppe's 'Democracy: The God That Failed.' From these, I realized that the libertine vision of a free society was quite distorted. The society we sought actually would provide far more order and control than [would] modern democratic governments. It would encourage more socially conservative behavior and less compulsory association. Just when I thought I had everything figured out, I was once again reminded of my naivety."

I told Lewis that Ron Paul's high-profile presidential runs in 2008 and 2012 played a role too. When I started at Reason in the fall of 1993, I'd say that most people came to libertarianism via exposure to some mix of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, along with some Robert Heinlein, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and institutions such as Cato, the Foundation for Economic Education, the Institute for Humane Studies, and Reason. But over the past decade or so, there's no question in my mind that Dr. No is probably more responsible than any individual for raising libertarianism's visibility and reach.

"In a way, Ron Paul is the guy who lit the fuse," Nick Gillespie says. "And he embodies some of those contradictions [between libertarianism and the alt-right]." Gillespie tells me that Richard Spencer came up to him at the Republican National Convention in 2016 and said that he was activated into politics because of Paul. Gillespie sees Paul's legacy as very mixed, as someone who was "simultaneously… positing this very libertarian worldview, but then he's also speaking to people's fears and anxieties." If one were looking for the missing link to explain this phenomenon, Ron Paul (and his paleolibertarian allies) would be a good place to start.

Paul really did simultaneously embody an attractive, idealistic version of libertarianism and an appeal to populist paranoia that is very evident in alt-right fears about porous borders, encroaching Sharia law, and foreign control of America's economic and cultural life. As Brian Doherty reported in 2008, Paul was packing college auditoriums with a basic stump speech that went something like this:

He wraps up the speech with three things he doesn't want to do that sum up the Ron Paul message. First: "I don't want to run your life. We all have different values. I wouldn't know how to do it, I don't have the authority under the Constitution, and I don't have the moral right." Second: "I don't want to run the economy. People run the economy in a free society." And third: "I don't want to run the world....We don't need to be imposing ourselves around the world."

Paul does not mention abortion or immigration—areas where his views are more conventionally conservative and not of great appeal to this age group. He's against abortion and thinks the fetus is a human life deserving of state protection, but he also thinks that like all such crimes against persons, abortion is a matter for states to decide without federal interference. He thinks that border defense is a legitimate function of government, and that government has been doing a bad job of it. He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants. Paul's style of libertarianism includes a populist streak of distrust for foreign forces overwhelming our sovereignty, whether through the United Nations, international trade pacts, immigration, or a feared "North American Union" between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

If you bleach out the libertarian aspects of Ron Paul's 2008 stump speech, you're pretty much left with the agenda pushed by Donald Trump and the alt-right, both of which seem comfortable with a welfare state as long as the welfare is going to the right kind of people. Paul also eschews the sort of "Make America Great Again" rhetoric, which undergirds Trump's and the alt-right's fetishizing of masculine virtues and an overbuilt military.

Which is to reiterate that there is no "pipeline" between libertarianism and the alt-right. The alt-right—and Trumpism, too, to the extent that it has any coherence—is an explicit rejection of foundational libertarian beliefs in "free trade and free migration" along with experiments in living that make a mess of rigid categories that appeal to racists, sexists, protectionists, and other reactionaries. In that sense, the call by Hot Air's Taylor Millard for libertarians to purge white supremacists, anti-Semites, and living, breathing Nazis from our movement is misdirected since such people by definition are not libertarian. But he is surely right that alt-righters need to be called out wherever we find them espousing their anti-modern, tribalistic, anti-individualistic, and anti-freedom agenda.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Milo flirted with the term too before concluding that "libertarians are children...obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking."

    So can we conclude that Libertarianism is a dead-end for the alt-right?

  • timbo||

    The sub-title says all there is to the discussion,.

    That and the fact that I cannot figure out what alt-right or far right is. So far as I can tell, the only tag that sane people might try to attach to far right are anti-government, off the grid types who want to be left alone and want the right to protect themselves with plenty of firearms. More sympathetic to their wishes I could not be.

    Fascists(Nazis), Socialists, and Communists are all leftist psychos. And usually they become so in that descending order. Throw in radical racists and religious zealots and you have the majority of controlling, censoring, fear-mongering, government dictating, anti-liberty pieces of shit on earth.

    There is no material difference in the three. In fact, Marxists are pretty hard core nationalist idiots as well so all three of these dipshit affiliations/systems are by definition, left of the political spectrum.

  • David Nolan||

    Fascists are right wing, as was so obvious at Charlottesville.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    dork

  • Radioactive||

    ach, we've been discovered...to the schloss where we will submit to blood tests to assure the purity of our message and our DNA!!!

  • What about Sloopy's mom?||

    If you want to keep believing that, don't read The Coming Corporate State, the BUF's 1935 booklet on what fascism is.

  • David Nolan||

    If you want to keep believing that, don't read The Coming Corporate State, the BUF's 1935 booklet on what fascism is

    If you want to keep believing that England is fascist.

  • rudehost||

    Someone forgot to tell Mussolini.

    Minimum wage
    8 hour work day
    progressive taxation

    Or from Mussolini himself from the document that defined fascism.

    "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State"

    I mean all of that stuff could be cribbed right out of a Bernie stump speech. Tony would probably have an orgasm just reading it assuming he didn't know the source.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Someone forgot to tell Mussolini.

    Mussolini's was the only left wing fascism.. It's called Guild Socialism, applying the fascist-style statism to benefit unions instead of big business.

    Eagerly brainwashed, witless tools of the political elite, now claiming that even white nationalism and Jew-hating nazis are lefty. All to blame the violence mayhem and murder in Charlottesvile on "libtards"
    More to be ridiculed than scorned.

  • Devastator||

    Exactly a lot of people don't seem to have the mental facilities to break down politics into correct niches and just see left or right.

  • Lester224||

    Fascism is not socialism. Facism is all about nationalism, race and centralized power. The Nazi's put the word socialism into their name to gain support, but their policies were facist. This guy says it better. Fascism is all about "national/racial superiority, rearmament & expansion, and consolidation of capital."

    https://tinyurl.com/ybsb73a9

  • rudehost||

    The claim was not that fascism is socialism. The claim is that it is left wing which it is. All of those progressive policies combined with a scorn for individualism and worship of the state is about as left as you can get. I recognize fascism has become a bucket term for anyone with an authoritarian bent rather than its original meaning but can anyone honestly argue that even by that "new" definition progressives and leftists don't fit the bill?

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    The claim was not that fascism is socialism. The claim is that it is left wing which it is.

    That's wacky, but it helps hide the white supremacist and fascist roots of our glorious alt-right. Only rightwing wackos will swallow that bullshit, but that's the only folks we need to recruit more of.

    but can anyone honestly argue that even by that "new" definition progressives and leftists don't fit the bill?

    Most of humanity knows that some leftists do, not all. Like many on the right, ,but not all..

    That's why you're advancing our cause and helping recruit and brainwash from the wacky right. As long as we do that, and increase our tribe, who cares that the vast majority of Americans openly ridicule us? They'd have never helped us launch the violence, mayhem and murder in Charlottesville, so we don't need them.

    Keep up the good work on behalf of our glorious white race!

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Fraud, slanderous shill.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Since "alt-right" is a term that refers to an intangible collection of non-traditional "conservatives", it serves as a catch-all for lazy argumentation.

    Fascism has certain markers that make it clearly not "conservative" nor "leftist", including a fundamental opposition to both Marxism/Communism and liberal democracy.

  • sparkstable||

    As I understand it, The hate of Communists was one of hating the unwashed ruling the ubermensch. But past That, fascism believed that the state controlled property while giving lip service to private industry. It was a regulatory state... your property rights existed until the state said otherwise. The current American system is not too far from such a thing. So whole there is a symbolic sense of owning, and thereby controlling, one's property... the reality is very much in line with leftist ideas of socialism in that the state controls the economy. As such, all three systems are based on the violation/rejection of property rights.

    In addition, the "who" of who it is being done for is different. In socialism/Communism the who is the collective "us". In fascism it is the singular "state" which is... ironically... supposed to be the collective "us."

    It's a distinction without a functional difference as far as individual rights go.

    If I'm wrong on this... someone please correct me.

  • Devastator||

    Just because the government wants to control everything doesn't make it "leftist" it just as easily be right wing authoritarian, believing that corporations are better for controlling the population than collectivism is. It's all authoritarianism where the government controls every aspect of a civilian's life.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Since "alt-right" is a term that refers to an intangible collection of non-traditional "conservatives", it serves as a catch-all for lazy argumentation.

    Also many faux libertarians, notably Ron Paul's cult, as Ron is the intellectual founder of the alt-right.

    Drooling retards say the alt-right are really lefties, ignoring Bannon's claim that Breitbart.com is "the platform of the alt-right." Calling Breitbart a haven for libtards, even unwittingly, is a sure sign of mental idiocy.,

  • damikesc||

    We should ignore that Milo has repeatedly said he is not with the alt-right and that they loathe him. He simply reported on what they are.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "National Reviews provided more proof that damikesc is a witless propaganda tool for the authoritarian right - for those who need more proof!

    "Last week, Breitbart writers Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos took it upon themselves to pen an apologia for the "Alternative Right," or Alt-Right — the grab bag of ostensibly right-wing anti-liberal ideologies whose disciples, of late, are thrilling to the rise of Donald Trump. The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, ... anyone familiar with Yiannopoulos's theatrics, or Breitbart's self-appointment as Donald Trump's Pravda, will not be surprised to learn that the article is a 5,000-word whitewash. But it is valuable, in this way: It exhibits, albeit inadvertently, the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the Alt-Right."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Millard argues that the loose coalition of libertarians and conservatives needs to "purge White Supremacist Leaders, Ideology," from our midst.

    I'm getting a little tired of the "you're not spending enough breath denouncing stuff that strangers you've never met but claim to be fellow-travelers do".

    Does the media follow Democrats around with a microphone, asking them if they denounce self-described Social Justice Seekers such as Pol Pot?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Or better yet, how about all those Marxists within their ranks, who applaud the 100M murdered last century? There's something to cut loose and purge. Just like their hero, Stalin, and Lenin before him, and Mao after him, and Maduro today.

  • Devastator||

    I've never met a single liberal who supported the deaths caused by Nazis/Stalin/etc last century or thought it was cool. Who the fuck are you hanging out with?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Does the media follow Democrats around with a microphone, asking them if they denounce self-described Social Justice Seekers such as Pol Pot?

    No.

  • Headache||

    That includes Reason.com

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Does the media follow Democrats around with a microphone, asking them if they denounce self-described Social Justice Seekers such as Pol Pot?"
    No, but that's because a Libertarian doesn't enjoy as much luxury in being selective when it comes to interviews. Have no doubt, if more Democrats took hostile interviews with conservative Media, there's get those kinds of questions. Same with Republicans.

    The difference is not in how people treat the politicians, it's that mainstream politicians have an easier time staying in their bubble.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Does the media follow Democrats around with a microphone, asking them if they denounce self-described Social Justice Seekers such as Pol Pot?

    Pol Pot is a current issue for only puppets of the wacky right. How about Atilla?

    The authoritarian right, precisely like the authoritarian left, both point to violence by the other side ... to "justify" their own violent barbarities. Like 5-year-old children, caught red-handed, "HE STARTED IT, MOMMY."

    Social Justice Warriors vs Religious/Political Justice Warriors, flip sides of the same authoritarian coin

    Each conducting a modern (un)Holy Inquisition.
    Each dedicated warriors fomenting hysteria for an imminent moral catastrophe.
    Each is motivated by self-righteous zeal, driven by raging hatred, thus eager to be exploited by their gleeful puppet masters.

    They commit endless aggressions … justified in defense of some "greater good."
    Hustlers – liberty, faith and social – find their cults eager to be manipulated, eager to be exploited by their blind faith. "WE ARE WARRIORS – MORALLY SUPERIOR -- TRUE BELIEVERS."

    Get a life.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Does the media follow Democrats around with a microphone, asking them if they denounce self-described Social Justice Seekers such as Pol Pot?

    Pol Pot is a current issue for only puppets of the wacky right. How about Atilla?

    The authoritarian right, precisely like the authoritarian left, both point to violence by the other side ... to "justify" their own violent barbarities. Like 5-year-old children, caught red-handed, "HE STARTED IT, MOMMY."

    Social Justice Warriors vs Religious/Political Justice Warriors, flip sides of the same authoritarian coin

    Each conducting a modern (un)Holy Inquisition.
    Each dedicated warriors fomenting hysteria for an imminent moral catastrophe.
    Each is motivated by self-righteous zeal, driven by raging hatred, thus eager to be exploited by their gleeful puppet masters.

    They commit endless aggressions … justified in defense of some "greater good."
    Hustlers – liberty, faith and social – find their cults eager to be manipulated, eager to be exploited by their blind faith. "WE ARE WARRIORS – MORALLY SUPERIOR -- TRUE BELIEVERS."

    Get a life.

  • WakaWaka||

    Is there a pipeline between libertarianism and being a washed-up piece of shit like Nick Gillespie who needs to constantly attack other libertarians so he can be seen as cool by his betters?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Mirror mirror on the wall.....

  • Hugh Akston||

    There is an admirable simplicity to the minds of people like WW and Bombadil, isn't there? Like, they wake up every morning, look at themselves in the mirror they've covered with black electrical tape, and shout at the top of their lungs "today's the day I'm going to bring down Reason", followed by a string of incoherent obscenities. The serenity that must come from the unity of purpose untroubled by doubts or complexities must be exhilarating.

  • SIV||

    Fuck off, cuck.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Haha. Delightful.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'm pretty sure that saying things like that is where folks get the idea that you folks are connected to the alt right.

    So, uh, go on saying it if you like. But don't be surprised when someone calls you a duck.

  • Devastator||

    Yep it's a common characteristic that alt-righties can't argue at some point and just knee jerk out a "fuck off cuck" and then it just becomes an insult fest because their brains can't handle the strain involved in actually thinking about where their personal philosophy comes from or why it might be reasonable.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANTIFA THUG ATTACKS FREE SPEECH!

    SIV|8.23.17
    Fuck off, cuck.
  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    I hope I can be as smug and glib as you when I grow up.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    You know a TV or film franchise is going downhill when the fanboys respond to every criticism of it with "if you don't like it, why are you watching it and talking about it?"

    Likewise with political mags/blogs.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Most people I know would stop visiting a website they don't like shortly after realizing they didn't like it

    Our trolls have no choice. They've been banned from all other political websites, Reason is he ONLY major political website with unmoderated comments, thus INVITING asshats.

    pophat.com (a major site defending civil liberties)

    DOJ is targeting Reason.com, a leading libertarian website whose clever writing is eclipsed only by the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery. Why is the government using its vast power to identify these obnoxious asshats, and not the other tens of thousands who plague the internet? Because these twerps mouthed off about a judge.

    Various Reason editors claim they are defending free speech
    Popehat (like most real libertarians) have ALWAYS known the difference between defending hate speech ...and defending hate

    Like all unregulated markets, raging cyber-bullies aggregate and grow here, because everyone else ejects their sorry asses.

    One cannot suck up to the spiritual founder of the alt-right, fascist socon Ron Paul, AND defend individual liberty ... while claiming Ron Paul PROVES a Libertarian Moment.

  • Darth Soros||

    "I'm getting a little tired of the 'you're not spending enough breath denouncing stuff that strangers you've never met but claim to be fellow-travelers do'.

    "Does the media follow Democrats around with a microphone, asking them if they denounce self-described Social Justice Seekers such as Pol Pot?"

    That's different because shut up.

  • PacificRimwasAwesome||

    which is even funnier when people say that to Muslims about ISIS

  • ||

    No, but believers in "Free Minds and Free Markets" should be in the forefront of attacking racism, anti-Semitism, and parochialism.

    If we believe in free minds and free markets, shouldn't we covering the entire field rather than just the front? Seems like if you put a bunch of a precious minority like libertarians at the front of an attack that doesn't explicitly contain libertarianism as one of it's aims, you're advocating the attack and sacrificing them for a cause that may not free minds or markets.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I'd say Dems have a bigger alt-left problem, since they continue to expound policies which attract Marxists, but Libertarian policies piss off Nazis, who leave once they become woke.

    Come on, Dems, when are you going to repudiate Marxists like you want the GOP to repudiate Nazis? Your founders are slavers and racists who morphed into murderers last century and continue today. Nazis began and ended within a couple of decades and only murdered one tenth as many.

  • Nuwanda||

    I'd say Dems have a bigger alt-left problem, since they continue to expound policies which attract Marxists, but Libertarian policies piss off Nazis, who leave once they become woke.

    No, they don't. Despite everything, the culture is running in their direction. Even the erstwhile opposition is running in their direction. That broad coalition that wants more government, more control, more safety, is the dominant factor in our age, and I doubt it can be reversed save for a terminal denouement.

    You now have people being interviewed on TV demanding as a matter of civil rights that Jefferson statues be torn down because it's an affront to their sensibilities. That's cancer. That's a body attacking itself. That's stabbing the hand that fed you. That's death, and the very fact that it can be discussed seriously and calmly by normal looking people, well, it tells you that the alt-left haven't gone far enough yet. Not by the longest shot.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    In "The MAGA Mindset" Mike Cernovich briefly discusses his stated drift from Libertarianism to Alt-Right as well, for extra evidence.

    I think the most common thing I see is the sometimes subtle distinction between the extreme individualism of libertarianism and the great man theory of the Alt-Right. Both groups expound that great achievements happen due to the hard work of individuals. Popular media from Atlas Shrugged to 2112 make arguments in this direction. The difference then becomes that Great Man Theorists place these individuals as greater than thou and believe them morally supported to suppress the individuality of others due to their superiority.

    In that way, I think that both groups brush up on one another.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Life is too short.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Neo-Nazis are socialists so that makes them lefties not right wing at all.

  • Zeb||

    You keep saying that, but I'm not sure that makes it so.

    The original Nazis were certainly socialists of some sort. But, at least in teh European sense, not really left wing.

    I don't really know enough about contemporary American neo-Nazis to say whether they are socialists or not. Their adoption of the name "Nazi" is not sufficient to determine whether they are or not. Perhaps you know more than I about that. But their impulse toward preserving some kind of racial purity that they see as essential to their idea of America is certainly a conservative one (and I am by no means saying that conservatism necessarily has any racist component to it, just that it can).

    Maybe you should consider the notion that a binary left-right division of politics is not adequate to describe all political movements.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    But, at least in teh European sense, not really left wing.

    The were clearly right wing. The notion that the weren't is dumb, ahistorical, Jonah Goldberg-tier nonsense.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I saw an interview with a neo-Nazo from Charlottesville who called the antifa "Burgeoise capitalists"

    But I still would classify them as right because regardless of economics because they're an extreme reactionary movement

  • WakaWaka||

    The Left doesn't have reactionary elements? I forgot how forward looking all those socialist regimes were

  • Zeb||

    They were. They were going to create the New Socialist Man. It was all a load of evil shit and never going to work, but it wasn't reactionary. They intended to radically re-shape and re-form society.

  • WakaWaka||

    It depends on what you consider 'reactionary'. Silencing speech, using violence, and ethnic cleansing are rather reactionary concepts. Socialism, in general, is a reactionary concept, as Marx idealized feudalism.

    Fascists considered their movement to be 'on the left', as even Mussolini declared, primarily because they rejected monarchy and religion (hallmarks of the European Right). Either way, it doesn't matter what is the correct classification for fascism, as the perception is already there.

  • Zeb||

    It doesn't matter, I agree.

    Which is why I keep suggesting that perhaps trying to cram everything into the left or right is pointless.

    Right-wing or left-wing tells you nothing useful. Just describe what these movements actually are. The neo-Nazis are some kind of socialists. They are also social/racial reactionaries and dumbass bigots. And don't really fit into the left/right division of American politics very well.

  • Chuckles_the_Snarky_Piggy||

    "Right-wing or left-wing tells you nothing useful."

    Actually they are the only useful descriptors. Socialism is the word being misconstrued, since, even at both extremes, it means control by the state. The Left advocates state ownership of the means of production (USSR), while the Right advocates state control of the means of production (Nazi Germany). The inevitable result of a totalitarian state is the same, but, since the counter-arguements against both wings call for less intervention by the state (less Socialism), advocates for freedom such as Libertarians are constantly lumped in with the opposition by both wings.

    No matter how much those alt-right, racist asshats claim to hate the left, Socialism, not freedom, is what they are advocating. Their lily-white paradise is only possible by severely limiting personal freedom.

    No matter how loudly the leftist bullies scream into their pussy hats that they are anti-Facist, their "safe" spaces are only possible by severely limiting personal freedom.

  • Azathoth!!||

    But the right DOESN'T advocate the state control of the means of production. Doing so MAKES you leftist. It's one of their primary motivators.

    The right DOESN'T value the state over the individual. Doing so makes you leftist. It's another of their primary motivators.

    Even the purging of the unfit--whether you're trying to make the New Soviet Man, or the Perfect Aryan the level of murderyness is pretty much a primary motivator. Another thing the right DOESN'T advocate.

  • Bill||

    And the Nazis believed in the Ubermenschen and the Aryan race. And through the Hitler youth and other organizations for girls were going to create the new super race. Not that different if you ask me.

  • ThomasD||

    Which put them, and their program of eugenics directly at odds with the establishment religions of the traditional European right.

  • ThomasD||

    They were, and remain entirely reactionary.

    A reaction against the individual liberty championed by the early Enlightenment.

  • Longtobefree||

    How far left do you have to go to be socialist in your world?

    The National Socialist German Workers Party took over the entire economy, outlawed opposition parties, gave semi-governmental authority to party members (the SA), and used violence to further suppress and murder opposition leaders.
    From the hard to find reference Wikipedia;
    Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities . . . . .
    Sound right wing to you?

  • Zeb||

    You have to be socialist to be socialist in my world. I explicitly said that the actual Nazis were socialists, so I don't know why you are trying to convince me of that.

    Right/left is inadequate and simplistic when talking about many political movements, especially out-of-the-mainstream ones. That's my main point. When you have two groups, like neo-nazis and antifa who share some socialistic tendencies, but take very different views about the world and history, it's perhaps not unreasonable to call one left and one right. That's my other point.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Then who was the Right in Weimar? The commies?

  • CE||

    The monarchists.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    who all became Nazis

  • Eric||

    The traditional European right/left spectrum cannot be used with regard to today's politics. As someone above mentioned, on the right were the monarchists/aristocracy, on the left the various collectivists/anti-monarchists. Further, the left were called radicals, and the right reactionaries. To me, this binary definition means that the left and right are completely dependent upon which group controls power and influence in society. That group will seek to hold on to power and could be called the right (by traditional terminology), while the out of power group will be the left seeking to overthrow the current regime.

    Thinking about this more, if you want to try and accurately use the binary spectrum, each party today (Dems & Reps) could be seen as having their own right-wing and left wing factions.

  • Headache||

    Someone is getting it. The left/right, rep/dem is the magicians cloth. They are made up terms to divide the citizenry and gain power and wealth. There wasn't anyone using the term alt-right in 2012 or the term alt-left in 2014.

    One group funnels the citizens' property($) through the military industrial complex and the other through government welfare complex(crony capitalist, social welfare, health etc.). Fiat currency prevents market freedom and individual liberty. It controls market pricing and therefore no free market.

  • JuanQPublic||

    "The left/right, rep/dem is the magicians cloth."

    The terms exist for a reason, as they clearly refer to certain sets of principles. The people saying otherwise are part of the problem of this growing deconstructionist horse manure, which includes removing meaning from language in order to avoid counter arguments.

  • ThomasD||

    Fair point.

    What we need to consider is: Who are the authoritarian collectivists? As it would seem they are the sort(s) least amenable to any legitimate form of liberty. It does not matter if they derive from the 'right' or the 'left.' They are the worse threat to the autonomy of pretty much everyone else.

    Racial or religious bigots, so long as they do not advocate state enforcement of their bigotry, would seem a far lesser issue. Particularly to anyone actually dedicated to the principle of free minds.

  • Devastator||

    Nazis took on whatever characteristics they needed at the moment to gain power. That is authoritarianism. It happens with both Left and Right groups, as the real goal is power and not a particular philosophy. If Hitler would have though setting up collectives and moving people to farms would win him a war he would have done it. But he didn't he needed industry and hate and that's what his party went for.

  • Microaggressor||

    As far as I can tell, the left-right binary exists to describe coalitions but doesn't inform you about policy preference at all.

    Classical liberals used to be considered on the left, but they've recently been pushed onto the right as the progressive faction has become one of the most powerful and influential, thus in need of counterbalance. It doesn't matter that we agree with the "far-right" on almost nothing, but that we prioritize the progressive left as our common enemy and tolerate each other in the meantime puts us on the "right". Humans are pretty good at intuitively figuring out which tribe they belong to and fitting in, but that doesn't require sacrificing your principles.

    You can bet that if the progressive left suddenly vanished, the tolerance between the individualist and collectivist "right" would evaporate from the lack of a common existential threat.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    This isn't all that complicated. Left vs. right = egalitarian vs. hierarchical, progress vs. order etc.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Not really.

    It's all relative, subjective and contextual. Even if you could come up with an accurate description of left/right for today, it wouldn't match up with the left/right dynamics of twenty years ago or twenty years in the future.

    Trying to apply such metrics to political parties that are dead and gone is an exercise in trying to buffer your own ego while slandering your enemies, and nothing more.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    It's all relative, subjective and contextual.

    One of the great self-refuting sentences of all time.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah just redundant.

    That said you had me worried for a second and I had to look it up to make sure I hadn't flipped subjective and objective.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    It's self-refuting because it's obviously leftist. It's like someone saying that "extroverted vs. introverted isn't a real thing" to every person he sees.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... that political labels change meaning over time is "obviously leftist"?

  • ThomasD||

    Failing to note that some things never change is indeed leftist.

  • ThomasD||

    "...progress vs. order..."

    That attempt at dichotomy is entirely moronic.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, this is more what I am getting at. Some people here seem a bit too attached to these labels.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Here's the way it works.

    Left=collectivist, Right=individualist
    Left=authoritarian, Right=voluntarist
    Left=managed economy, Right=free market

    There can BE no 'collectivist' right because 'collectivism' is a foundational concept that makes something 'left'

  • ThomasD||

    On a spectrum of liberty individualist, voluntarist, and free marker would all tend to fall on one end of the spectrum. Collectivists, authoritarians, and command economy would all be on the opposite.

    Given that the modern and self identifiedleft very much is collectivist, and command economy oriented (the authoritarianism is more of a mixed sort) then yes libertarianism is "on the right" but only by default.

  • Devastator||

    This wrong on so many levels, I'm not even going to start. There have been plenty of far right fascist regimes. Saying "right" = free market or voluntarist is ludicrous and circle jerkish, and you are completely ignoring the established meaning of right and left.

  • CE||

    Nazi = nationalist socialist
    Libertarians are neither.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    There is nothing in the NAP requiring one to not prefer ones own county/culture to another. I happen to love America, even with all its flaws, and I promote and revere the NAP as well.

    "My country, right or wrong. When right to be kept right, when wrong to be set right."

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Right wing and left wing are silly categories, which have no coherent definition.

    Fascists and socialists both want the State to control your life; they differ only in the rhetoric used to justify this control.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    #boomerposting

  • JuanQPublic||

    Actually, it doesn't. Fascists or Nazis are fundamentally opposed to Communism and Marxism. Just because they called it "National Socialism" doesn't mean that it is "left". Americans always say that, but nobody else who actually lives in Europe say that.

    Tell Germans that the Nazis were "leftist", and watch the puzzled look on their faces.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Germans?

    The people that were led down the garden path to industrialized murder? The people so susceptible to propaganda that they were making board games for children about jew killing are your source?

    As if they couldn't be convinced that 'National Socialism' meant anything anyone wanted.

    National Socialism is to the right of Communism. And nothing else.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    You need to stop dignifying the rantings of idiots who have never even met an actual libertarian nor could describe what we believe in any kind of coherent way.

    All the libertarians I know in real life are about as far from "alt-right" as it is possible to be without spilling over into the statist idiocy of the left.

    I don't know who this Matt Lewis is, but he's about as seriously deluded as the Pope, who not so long ago claimed that libertarians were taking over "all the elite institutions" (Really?! Which ones?).

    These people wouldn't be able to recognize an actual libertarian if one shouted at them to get off their lawn.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, pretty much.

    I thought it was perhaps a good sign when "libertarians" started to get a bit more mainstream attention. But it's mostly just been as you describe. People talking about libertarians who don't seem to have much idea what libertarians actually are.

  • WakaWaka||

    It doesn't help the cause when Gillespie spends half of his time smearing one of the most high profile ones (Ron Paul) after already attacking Walter Block (say what you will about the Mises Institute, but it is still not productive to attack ideological allies in order to appease people at the NYT who agree with you on nothing).

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Yeah, what is this "thick" libertarianism bullshit these days?

    We don't care what you do as long as you leave everyone else alone to enjoy their own rights. What's so hard about that to understand. We. Don't. Fucking. Care. Hate all you want, just don't aggress.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    His own argument shows that these guys left libertarianism because it was too libertarian for them.

  • Lester224||

    Nazis and white Nationalists like to describe themselves as libertarians because they can say "states rights" and "freedom of association" in the same sentence as "don't let the brown people in my store" and "prayer mandated in school".

  • CE||

    The left is freaking out about libertarians because:

    A) libertarian ideas are gaining momentum
    B) libertarian leaning politicians are doing better than expected
    C) young people are being drawn to the libertarian movement
    D) libertarians want to cut government spending, which could end all their leftist dreams of using the power and money of the government to create the perfect leftist society

    The left is trying to link libertarians to the alt-right whackos because:

    E) the average person rightly hates Nazis
    F) the average politician is afraid of being thought a racist or fringe

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'm curious what "libertarian leaning politicians" you have in mind.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Donald Trump campaigned on a foreign policy that is light years closer to a libertarian one than anything seen since the Taft days (on most everything else he's shit). Also to repeal the ACA (Obamacare). This is why the deep state hates him.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... seriously? You guys are counting President Donald Trump as "libertarian-leaning"?

  • David Nolan||

    ... seriously? You guys are counting President Donald Trump as "libertarian-leaning"?

    The same folks who say Ron Paul is "libertarian leaning" -- though he's the spiritual icon of the alt-right.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    C'mon. Anyone that thinks that taxation is theft, wants to End the Fed and keep us out of war in my book is pretty much a libertarian. Ron Paul is certainly more hard core on the NAP than most of the people at C4SS (You're free to do/think how I want!)

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > You guys are counting President Donald Trump as "libertarian-leaning"?

    Read the fucking post. ON FOREIGN POLICY (on most everything else he's shit)

  • Crusty Juggler||

    In that sense, the call by Hot Air's Taylor Millard for libertarians to

    To make fun of his Gizmo face?

    This sentence: In that sense, the call by Hot Air's Taylor Millard for libertarians to purge white supremacists, anti-Semites, and living, breathing Nazis from our movement is misdirected since such people by definition are not libertarian. really nails it, especially coming from a Cosmo-leftist-cuck.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Cosmo-leftist-cuck, a Coleftuck if you will.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I knew it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I knew my lifetime subscription to Cosmopolitan had deeper meaning.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fun fact: tthis is BUCS' go-to move in the bedroom:

    "Sprinkle a little pepper under his nose right before he climaxes. Sneezing can feel similar to an orgasm and amplify the feel-good effects."
  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I can't find a link, but the best tip I ever got was basically, "Grab his penis with both hands, and then twist in opposite directions to add extra friction to the HandiJay."

    The realization that I could give an Indian Burn to a dick really opened the world to me.

  • Zeb||

    27. "One girl took advantage of my morning wood by climbing on top of me when I was asleep." —Joe, 23

    COSMO IS GLORIFYING RAPE!!!

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Not only would she not have been charged, if she got pregnant from his morning sap he would have been on the hook for alimony and 18-21 years of child support.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    "Ten Tricks to Make Him Orgasm With the NAP!!"

  • CE||

    ...everything that the libertarian project stands for—which is cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, individualism vs. group identity, and libertarianism or autonomy versus authoritarianism," Nick Gillespie... tells me....

    Check your cosmo privilege at the door.... Yokeltarians can be libertarian too.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    DId Nick just say that libertarianism is only 1/3 of what the libertarian project stands for?

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Probably.

  • chemjeff||

    "Yokeltarians can be libertarian too."

    But not one who is parochial. That is, almost by definition, a conservative, not a libertarian.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "...we're principled, that no, we're not just trolling," says Gillespie.

    NAP is still suspended when confronted with Nazi wannabes, though, right?

  • Jerryskids||

    There certainly is a direct line between libertarianism and the alt-right, the freedom to do things is the freedom to do things you really shouldn't, things other people don't approve of, things that are generally considered bad or wrong or stupid. Bad or wrong or stupid's got just about everybody covered.

    Present company excepted, of course. /sarc

  • John Thacker||

    There's also a lot of former Ron Paul fans who went Bernie (as Rand, Massie, and others have found). They're probably make up some of the Bernie primary voters who went Trump in the general. People who are antiwar seem to make up a large percentage of the Trump-curious among the Left, even after Trump's latest turns.

    Some people are outsiders, feel like outsiders, and are attracted to outsiders. Rep. Massie's comment about how he found out so many voters didn't really like libertarianism but were just voting for the craziest SOB has some truth to it. Those people bounce from extreme to extreme.

    I don't think that's a good reason to avoid criticizing, e.g., the foreign policy consensus that has us in undeclared war in Yemen along with everything else, but it is a good reason to be wary of tactical alliances.

  • Calidissident||

    I was just thinking that Massie's comment seemed very pertinent here.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    95% of people aren't loyal to abstract philosophical concepts, they're loyal to other people. So when someone says, "I'm a libertarian [conservative/progressive/whatever]" they're not telling you what they believe, but what sort of excuses they use to rationalize their tribalism.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Real libertarians don't have friends, so there's not a lot of tribalism going on. I mean, to meet with my tribe, I'd have to leave the house.

  • ||

    A nice one.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    From people that knew him from his actual libertarian days, Cantwell is just a sad, depressed soul who's not mentally well. His comedy routine from back then was just edgy and offensive, and eventually it spiraled into straight up bigotry that resulted in people not wanting him around

    I think that's a real indicator of what happened: Ron Paul was the edgy candidate because of how much hate he inspired from everyone else, but he himself wasn't that edgy a guy, and so I don't think he deserves much blame. He was mild-mannered when he spoke about immigrants. He never used insults. He was religious. He admitted the newsletters were wrong and took responsibility even though Lew Rockwell was almost definitely the guy who let them be published. So these people who were just looking for edgy all jumped ship, but not before they read the worst parts of Hoppe and start posting helicopter memes. There were true believers who stayed, but I think the moment was smaller than we realized

    Also shut up with the cosmopolitanism shit Nick, you leather jacket-wearing low tax liberal. Real libertarians wear white New Balances

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I wear leather work boots. What does that make me?

  • Longtobefree||

    A redneck libertarian?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    But I work at a major tech company?

  • ||

    A nerd libertarian who cosplays a redneck libertarian?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The correct answer was that I'm just a drunk.

  • NEET||

    Is the leather from crocodiles?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Snakeskin. I'm from Arizona.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Snakeskin work boots? I don't think I've ever seen a work boot made from exotic leathers/materials. Cowboy boots and weird "designer" shoes, yeah. But not work boots.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Some times I wear black New Balances because they look nicer.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I do have black New Balances as well. Just not white ones. As we know from my sexual preferences, I do not like white things.

  • Calidissident||

    I think Paul's blame here lies more on his actions prior to his presidential runs, most of which he did apologize for, though that didn't necessarily eliminate his appeal to these types. I do think he's always maintained too much proximity to the conspiratorial nutjobs on the right like Alex Jones.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I was lucky enough not to come in on the Paul wave, but a year or two after so I have no real attachment to the man. He does occasionally throw out a comment that leaves me scratching my head. But I don't think that's necessarily his entire appeal to them. I just think there's a lot more overlap to paleoconservatism and libertarianism than someone like Nick is willing to acknowledge

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Say what you want about Alex Jones's ranting, I've not yet found him to be factually incorrect.

  • Calidissident||

    Are you joking? The guy spreading baseless BS about Sandy Hook, Pizzagate, Satanists taking over, etc?

  • SIV||

    Alex Jones is a threat to your harem of gay frogs?

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Nothing "baseless" about it.

    Clearly you have not seen the Instagram photos of Podesta, Comet Ping-Pong patrons and vendors/performers. You are talking out of your ass, because you have assumed your conclusion. Sandy Hook Elementary School had been closed for over five years as evidenced by utility records. Read Jim Fetzer's book "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" - it's online (free). Have you heard of Marina Abromovich and the "Spirit Cooking" parties she performs for high level Dems?

    You are talking out of your ass and have assumed your conclusion.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Come to think of it, both of those frogs were male...

  • Brandybuck||

    Libertarianism has a problem with the alt-right because libertarianism as a movement absolutely refuses to kick anyone out of the movement. "We're too small! If you kick out the pond scum out we won't have a quorum for our meetups! Wah!"

    I am against the sort of purity pogroms that some libertarians seem to want every four years at the national LP convention. I don't insist on signing the NAP pledge. But dammit, when someone is advocating the an expansion of institutional coercion and the scope of the state, then maybe, just maybe, they aren't a libertarian.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    When some people say "Government is too big", they mean "because it's presently capable of deterring me from getting violent toward people who disagree with me".

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's probably true. However, the exact opposite is also true. When I hear people say "Government is too small" they often mean "because it's presently incapable of getting violent towards the people who disagree with me".

  • Tony||

    You're the only ones who treat government size (proportion of GDP, I guess?) as the be-all, end-all of everything. Nobody says "government is too small." That's dumb. Any liberal will say it's too intrusive in some ways and not involved enough in others.

  • Eric||

    "Any liberal will say it's too intrusive in some ways and not involved enough in others."

    Conservatives say that too, but about different things.

    Both, start with the premise that pretty much EVERYTHING is within the realm of government responsibility. And once you go down that route, government intrusion is ALWAYS justified if the issue is popular enough.

  • Tony||

    You're right about conservatives, but I don't think libertarians are on some other plane. It's just that our conversations are always about public policy (which ones to create, which ones to eliminate). If we were talking about tits and football, government would scarcely come into it.

  • Chuckles_the_Snarky_Piggy||

    While he has had no success in shrinking government, I am sure that Trump believes that tits and footballs can be too big. They make his hands appear even tinier.

    See, tits, football, and government.

  • Tony||

    Well, obviously should tell him government is so big it makes his hands look small.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    No liberal ever says the government is too small!

  • Dariush||

    Well played.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    How does a movement kick someone out of itself? The LP doesn't trademark the word libertarian as far as I know, so anybody can call themselves that whether we like it or not.

  • BostonStrong||

  • David Nolan||

    Well then, be enlightened

    Allow me to enlighten you.
    That's the trademark registration for "Libertarian Party" ... not "libertarian"

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Paradoxically our inclusiveness keeps us small, that's for sure. But that's the nature of the movement IMO: you need to respect property rights and have positions at least kinda consistent with the NAP, and you're in (which actually excludes a lot of people who use the label, bye bye Stefan Molyneaux!). If you have opinions on anything beyond that, you don't hold them as a libertarian, they're simply supplemental. Of course these supplemental views are crucial towards creating the type of society we want to live in, and we can debate them but I just don't think we do so as libertarians

    I also blame Hoppe. He has some good ideas but he also has some horrific ones that can take you down the alt-right direction

  • GILMORE™||

    You could have just stopped at "no".

    What's that thing they always say? "Everything before the word "but" is bullshit"?

    i don't think anyone - least of all 'libertarians', en masse - should be in the 'forefront of attacking' anything.

    I think its far more important to not *be* a dick than it is to devote oneself to the eradication of people labeled 'dicks' by some popular consensus. I'm comfortable with the idea that there are and always will be dicks in the world. as long as they don't try to impose their bullshit on me, i don't see the point of trying to rectify their shitty ideas. If i'm forced into conversation with someone with stupid racist beliefs, i'd certainly tell them what i think of it. But why would i get into that conversation in the first place? i don't need to waste my time with fools, and pretending it should be a collective libertarian priority to 'end racism' sounds like stupid crusade, only being called for because its the current fad-du-jour to denounce "nazis"... never mind that said "nazis" are a teeny tiny minority of morons who can barely fill a hotel convention center. How brave! how noble! how socially-conscious of you to insist upon a jihad against these inconsequential idiots who'd otherwise get no attention from anyone if you weren't constantly pear-clutching about them.

  • Zeb||

    I think its far more important to not *be* a dick than it is to devote oneself to the eradication of people labeled 'dicks' by some popular consensus

    Yes.

    Just ignore the racist assholes. "Attacking" them just gets them more attention, which is what they want.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "I'm comfortable with the idea that there are and always will be dicks in the world. as long as they don't try to impose their bullshit on me, i don't see the point of trying to rectify their shitty ideas."
    ... good on you.

    But can I make a suggestion?

    Just because you don't feel that the "dicks in the world" are trying to "impose their bullshit on [you]" doesn't mean they aren't trying to "impose their bullshit on [other people]". So when you don't condemn the "dicks in the world", but you do actively condemn the people the "dicks in the world" are actively imposing their bullshit on, it sure looks like you're supporting the "dicks in the world", and not just comfortably neutral.

  • GILMORE™||

    it sure looks like

    I don't give a shit what you think it looks like, you sanctimonious cunt

  • Arizona_Guy||

    See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Isn't there a movement of commies that call themselves Libertarians?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    AMSOC and Tony? That's a conspiracy, not a movement. You need a third person.

  • Microaggressor||

    Communism is, in theory, stateless. I think that's where the "libertarian" part comes from.
    Just because it's impossible doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people stupid enough to assume that label.

  • GILMORE™||

    "" in theory""

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I don't know if he still does, but Chomsky definitely threw the word around a little

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Chomsky did, and he also dithered the fuck out of his 'anarchism'.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    "I want my anarchy well-regulated"

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Well, they got a 94% on the libertarian purity test, or so I've heard.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    You're thinking of Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS). Lot's of good anarchist stuff, especially about ignoring the State, but PC as FUCK.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    A lot of this nonsense could be avoided if left and right libertarians would admit that they aren't actually that similar. For example, this article would be reduced to "Some people on the right, particularly the fringier right, drift between right wing movements."

    everything that the libertarian project stands for—which is cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, individualism vs. group identity, and libertarianism or autonomy versus authoritarianism

    This is just straight up leftism. None of this logically follows the NAP.

  • GILMORE™||

    this article would be reduced to "Some people on the right, particularly the fringier right, drift between right wing movements."

    true

    also true on the latter point. there is no added "cultural libertarianism" required. Cosmopolitanism might be popular with many, but that doesn't make it the sine qua non of being "libertarian",

  • Calidissident||

    I can see that for the cosmopolitan line, but I don't see how individualism or libertarianism are leftist ideas.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Individualism, in the sense Nick means it, is almost always a product of the left. I'm pretty sure he's not thinking of the freedom of the individual to go live in Orania.

    Libertarianism is doing no work in that sentence.

    the libertarian project stands for— ... libertarianism

    Read this instead.

    autonomy versus authoritarianism

    If you don't see how that's leftist, try this "chaos vs. order"

    And I just realized that everything he prefers is literally on the left. I kept the convention in the line above.

  • Calidissident||

    I think you're viewing it the way you want to think Nick is saying it. I mean, you had to actually change the words in the last example to make your point. You're really stretching if you think a libertarian preferring autonomy to authoritarianism is indicative of being of a leftist.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I mean, you had to actually change the words in the last example to make your point.

    Go fuck yourself. I took out one word that was tautological. Or do you actually think "the libertarian project is libertarianism" is a meaningful statement?

    You're really stretching if you think a libertarian preferring autonomy to authoritarianism is indicative of being of a leftist.

    Are you joking? The fucking Frankfurt School isn't even the left anymore.

    Is there any conceivable way to convince you that anyone Reason publishes is a leftist? Is Richman a leftist? Are the Mises people mostly on the right?

  • Calidissident||

    I was talking about changing autonomy and authoritarianism to chaos and order, Jesus Christ calm your titties.

    So because some leftists wrote that book, that means a libertarian who prefers autonomy to authoritarianism must be a leftist? Leftists don't have a monopoly on being anti-authoritarian, that's a pretty central component of libertarianism. And many leftists are themselves authoritarian.

    Does Richman even get published here any more? And weren't we talking about Gillespie? In general I'd say Reason is on the right when it comes to economic issues, and generally on the left on the social and cultural side, but with a libertarian bent all around, which is why they take stances on stuff like gun control and hate speech that aren't popular on the left. They do publish a variety of people with varying places on the spectrum. I think very few people who identify as leftist would agree that Reason is left-wing. They generally call free market capitalist libertarians "right libertarians" regardless of social/cultural beliefs, and they consider left-wing anarchists and the like "left libertarians." I would agree Mises people are generally solidly on the right.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    "chaos vs. order" is an example of a strawman dichotomy from the right to help you see that "autonomy..." is a strawman from the left.

    So because some leftists wrote that book

    That book is what defines authoritarianism outside of the Junta sense. Remember Reason citing several papers showing that Trump voters were authoritarian? Those were all explicitly based on Adorno's half-baked methodology for proto-Nazi hunting.

    And many leftists are themselves authoritarian.

    Many leftists support authoritarian governments but very few qualify as authoritarians. No, that doesn't make sense. It's why you'll almost never see a right intellectual use the term.

    Does Richman even get published here any more?

    Yes. Why can't you just say that the guy who runs a "left yada yada think tank" is a leftist?

    which is why they take stances on stuff like gun control and hate speech that aren't popular on the left

    We've got Reason writers excusing violent mobs and trying to use government anti-discrimination laws to make a college kid unemployable. Cuz Reason is left libertarian.

    They do publish a variety of people with varying places on the spectrum.

    Name one thing they've ever published that's obviously on the right.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    They generally call free market capitalist libertarians "right libertarians"

    Then "right" adds nothing to "libertarian."

    consider left-wing anarchists and the like "left libertarians."

    The 'markets not capitalism' crowd is around antifa on the left - right spectrum. Surely left side of libertarianism is more expansive than that.

    I would agree Mises people are generally solidly on the right.

    Whoa whoa whoa. Hol' up. Then why the fuck won't you say the opposite about Reason?

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Well, the last one certainly does, and a good case could be made for the 2nd one, too. You're absolutely right about cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, though.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    No

  • Brother Kyfho||

    How so?

  • Longtobefree||

    Just for the record;
    Antifa stands for "anti free Americans"

    Not what they say, what they do.

  • ATXChappy||

    "He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants."

    I'm not sure I would say that these goals are alt-right. There is some overlap there for sure. But, support of these goals doesn't mean you are anti immigration. I can support free immigration and still support tougher border enforcement. Also, I'm not sure that Paul supported a border wall. Granted, the quote below is from 2011, which is after Doherty wrote the article that was quoted. But, this is what Paul said in the 2012 debates about a border wall.

    "The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border, A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I don't believe that is what America is all about. Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it's a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there's capital controls and there's people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in."

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think Nick was saying those views are only held by the alt-right, just that they're really popular among the alt-right, and some of their top priorities.

    I also recalled Paul's opposition to the wall in 2012, I'm not sure if had a different stance in 2008 when Doherty wrote that article.

  • CE||

    +1 for checking what Ron Paul actually said.

  • Calidissident||

    I looked into it. Doherty probably based it off of Paul's vote for a 2007 Secure Fence Act. Paul did tell Stossel in a 2008 interview that he didn't actually support the fence, but he voted for the bill because it was anti-amnesty.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    The Deep State wants border control to keep people IN, not out. And the whole issue is a stalking horse for REAL ID, and further individual tracking, more internal checkpoints, etc.

  • IceTrey||

    As a libertarian I couldn't care less what others believe as long as they do initiate the use of force, threats of force or fraud. Want to be a Nazi, be a Nazi. Want to be a trans attack helicopter, be a trans attack helicopter. My disinterest is universal.

  • IceTrey||

    *do NOT initiate

    Damn no edit button. Go to Disqus Reason. Fuck.

  • ||

    Go to Disqus Reason.

    I second the motion.

  • NEET||

    Fuck that. They just need to stop being lazy and put an hour into updating the commenting functionality.

  • Gene||

    I thought they announced a change in the commenting format back in the winter?

  • CE||

    But some of us libertarians have also studied history and have no problem denouncing nazism along with socialism.

  • IceTrey||

    Well we think anything short of radical capitalism is wrong. Should we spend our time denouncing everything else or promoting capitalism?

  • Juice||

    No. Some people think they are libertarian for a while because it sounds better than being a reactionary conservative asshat. But eventually they talk to enough real libertarians and it makes them feel icky so they just move on to their natural habitat, the right wing.

  • GILMORE™||

    But eventually they talk to enough real libertarians

    And where do you find this rare, elusive breed?

    here?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I meet everyone in one-on-one meetings 3 times a week.

  • GILMORE™||

    I was asking where one locates and identifies the "Real Libertarian™"

  • Walter Peck||

    Since when is Milo Yiannopoulis alt-right?

  • NEET||

    Since never. The dude's your typical conservative who happens to be loud, edgy, and very, very gay. How people conflate him and his ideas with the alt-right is beyond me considering how much Milo loves black cocks.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    He likes Rudy Giuliani. So alt-right

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Those people are white now? SMH

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Alt right has two definitons

    1. Anti-establishment conservative
    2. White nationalist/racist

    When determining whether a conservative is alt-right you use definition 1. When explaining why they deserve to be silenced, you use definition 2.

  • ||

    As far as right & left goes:

    See the political compass.

    Anyone advocating for economic freedom is right-wing. Anyone advocating for statism-collectivism is left wing.

    The other axis is authoritarianism & libertarianism: non-economic freedoms.

    I'm not claiming that the full 2D spectrum can be populated (hard to imagine a very authoritarian system which provides full economic freedom to people), but I think it is important to think in these two dimensions: then it makes sense why the Third Reich was so close to Stalinist Russia (they did have the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, after all).

  • Calidissident||

    I think that chart is still better than the 2D model, but it's still kind of simplistic, especially from a historical POV. The original right-wing were monarchists who were generally not at all supportive of economic freedom even if they also opposed socialism. The original classical liberals were considered to be on the left.

  • SIV||

    That's Euroshit.

  • Tony||

    Haha, it's not that we're a gateway to Nazism, it's just that we love freedom too much.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Damn nice snarky comment. You really absorbed the article and all the comments on it, because you "get" libertarianism so much after all your years here. Great job!

  • Tony||

    What if my only goal was to get people to reply to me? I can count on maybe two hands the times I've failed in all that time.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    You accuse us of being Nazis, or being sympathetic to Nazis, or of having a worldview that only works for able-bodied white men pretty often. I assume you believe it at this point and it's a pretty vile smear

    You probably don't get that this entire article is another manifestation of the fight between the Koch/Cato/Reason/LP and Rothbard/Mises/LRC branches of libertarianism. Nick probably knows damn well we didn't lose anyone who actually believed in the message. It's just infighting to purge the LP of the more dogmatic libertarians who tend to scare off the progs. But then again it's probably news to you that the Kochs don't represent all of libertarianism

  • Tony||

    There is indeed a limit to how much thought I can give to a topic that is at best a diverting curiosity.

    And I only call people Nazi sympathizers if they make comments that are sympathetic to Nazis. As in "the real villains were the Antifa!" That is by definition sympathetic to the Nazis. Sorry, but that sentiment has popped up a lot here.

    Since we're discussing nuance, please note that my every comment is not directed at everyone here or all libertarians. Often it's just the right-wing asshole I'm talking to.

  • ||

    Elias Fakaname|8.23.17 @ 3:43PM|#

    Tony, you commie scum don't have to die. Even though you have no right to exist, have no soul, and therefore aren't even eal people, it would be perfectly acceptable to have all of you leave forever, and go someplace like Venezuela, or Antarctica. we just don't want you polluting our good country with your evil Marxist bullshit.

    reply to this report spam


    Tony|8.23.17 @ 4:59PM|#

    I'll assume you speak for all libertarians here until one of them calls you out.

  • Tony||

    Did anyone end up doing that? Or were they busy arguing with the guy who wants slightly higher marginal tax rates?

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I thought you always got a response?

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Yet you make pretty sweeping characterizations of libertarianism, like the idea that we sprang up to fight the Civil Rights movement (actually it was to fight the New Deal), or that we're all Koch stooges. Pretty bold move for something you don't give much thought to (yet you invest lots of time commenting)

    You once asked in these comments why our ideology only works for able-bodied white men and alluded to us following what I assume was Mein Kampf, if not the far more insidious how-to manual the Nazis use for their race war (I won't name it if you don't know because you're better off not checking that Wikipedia). It stuck out to me for how horrible an accusation it was, especially when I'm not even entirely white yet am being told my ideology is for white supremacists, so apparently I was hoodwinked by rich white capitalists and am incapable of my own rational thought (you throw this accusation around frequently too, that we're dupes with a false consciousness)

  • Tony||

    I have a lot of complicated thoughts on libertarianism and race, but I will tend to leave you with one thought, if I may: consider why you're in a political cohort that's almost all white and male. Just, like, think about it a little. Seriously. Not innuendoing anything.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    They're too white to be right!

    Write it down, children!

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Just like you didn't use any innuendo when you implied we follow Mein Kampf?

    Classic left-wing paternalist racism. You are a racist Tony. Let me repeat that: you are racist. I will safely say now that you're a garbage human being for denying my sense of agency because I wandered off the ideological plantation for my in-group. I probably know more than you what some people who are ostensibly libertarian have said about race. I don't like those people. It's a good thing then that libertarianism has literally nothing to do with race

    You're that guy who calls Kmele Foster an Uncle Tom, or implies Ann Coulter has a dick

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I am serious here Tony: I find what you just said to be racist. A great deal of why I jumped ship from the left was because I found their approach to race to be incredibly off-putting and largely insincere. That and Obama murdering people with sky robots. I actually find that more offensive than racial slurs

  • ||

    It can be quite shocking how racist Tony can be, and with a complete lack of self-awareness.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Tony is yet again a parody of every leftist I know. There are unsavory elements on the right, but in general they're more likely to simply make an ignorant comment or off-color joke. They usually don't doubt someone's ability based on race or ethnicity. Perhaps they have an opinion on immigration, crime, or terrorism that I disagree with but the argument isn't usually steeped in race (it gets murky on terrorism I admit). So the assumption would be they're either not racist or they're too polite to say anything

    On the left, many if not most people are fine, but more common than any blatant racism on the right is that they will walk on eggshells to not offend, signify that they're an ally because they're leftist, assume you agree with them, and subtly talk down to you because they doubt your ability (see Tony for that last one)

  • Tony||

    Allow me to try to spell it out before you have a hernia whining about your racism victim status.

    If your political cohort is extremely white and male relative to the general population, then one implication or another follows. Either white males are an especially intelligent demographic, having chosen your brilliant truth in greater numbers than all other races and sexes, or your worldview turns off other races and sexes because your worldview benefits you at their expense.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    If your political cohort is extremely white and male relative to the general population, then one implication or another follows.

    Nice of Tony's big white dude brain to share all two possible explanations.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    There's actually a moderately large libertarian movement in the region of the world where my grandparents are from. Who would have guessed? But that's irrelevant anyway because I'm not a collectivist. I also wasn't actually offended, but watching you go from doubting my character for being white to doubting my intelligence for being a minority was just too good an opportunity to pass up. And that sort of patronizing racism from the left is what I deal with more than Nazis. I'm glad you're back to doubting my character and assuming I believe myself superior to other members of my in-group though

    It's clear that you believe your ideology makes you superior to other people because you have Logic, Evidence, and Decency on your side. And you likely think that Logic, Evidence, and Decency were what brought you over in the first place. But like literally everyone else, either you were raised in it, or you had an emotional response to it when you discovered it, and then built an internal logic to justify it after the fact. I do believe I'm right, but unlike you I have no delusion about my beliefs being the only conclusion a smart person could reach

  • ||

    Either white males are an especially intelligent demographic, having chosen your brilliant truth in greater numbers than all other races and sexes, or your worldview turns off other races and sexes because your worldview benefits you at their expense.

    Tony once again shows off his skill at non-binary thinking.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > Either white males are an especially intelligent demographic, having chosen your brilliant truth in greater numbers than all other races and sexes, or your worldview turns off other races and sexes because your worldview benefits you at their expense.

    Or my worldview turns off other races because its reality threatens their ability to morally rationalize some of their members' criminal behavior against me. But I suppose that you would rationalize that as "benefits you at their expense", just like you think that keeping someone from robbing me is harming *them*.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Ann Coulter does have a dick. His name is Bill Maher.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    consider why you're in a political cohort that's almost all white and male. Just, like

    NASA?

  • ||

    I have a lot of complicated thoughts on libertarianism and race, but I will tend to leave you with one thought, if I may: consider why you're in a political cohort that's almost all white and male.

    Whoa. Dude, that's pretty heavy. I don't think the average cousin-fucking libertarian can grasp the subtleties of an argument like "Herp! Derp! Liberartarianoids are racists! Herp! Derp!" Who has ever attacked from such a subtle angle before?

    By the way, Tony - you never answered my question from when you brought this up before -

    How many black people have to believe something before it's true? I think you asserted that it's more than four, right? But what's the actual number?

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Tony's probably going to avoid this comment so he doesn't dig himself any further, but his paternalist racism endures forever

  • Tony||

    This is really not my problem to deal with. You have to explain for yourself why brown people and women are too stupid to know the truth of libertarianism.

  • Brian||

    The answer is "years of slavery and oppression", right?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Solved problem: mutational load

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I don't have to answer that question because I've never posed it. Most people aren't libertarian regardless of race or gender. This is a thing we accept

  • ||

    You have to explain for yourself why brown people and women are too stupid to know the truth of libertarianism.

    The thing that you fail to realize is that there are, in fact, plenty of brown people and women (why that's the same category I don't know) who are libertarians.

    Many of the commenters here are "non-white." They just don't harp on it constantly, and you would never know because you don't actually have any interest in anyone other than that charming fellow in the mirror.

    Oh - and because you're super racist.

  • IceTrey||

    Denouncing commies supports Nazis?

  • Tony||

    The difference is commies don't have killing millions of people actually on their political platform.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    What's the difference between Nazis and Communists?

    Nazis kill a million people who aren't in the master race.

    Communists kill a million people because they suck at economics.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Ask a commie what happens when you refuse to give up your private property during the revolution

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    The difference is commies don't have killing millions of people actually on their political platform.

    "Sure, we have no problem with executing millions of people and throwing them into gulags, but at least we're not explicitly claiming we're going to do it!"

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    " when we do it, it's not racism: it's utopia! "

  • Brother Kyfho||

    It's just a bonus?

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > And I only call people Nazi sympathizers if they make comments that are sympathetic to Nazis. As in "the real villains were the Antifa!" That is by definition sympathetic to the Nazis.

    No, it most certainly is NOT. The Nazis Charlottesville were PEACEFUL, until they got attacked. The so called "anti-fascists" most certainly were violent. No libertarian that supports the NAP can support anyone with the word "Socialist" in their own name, except to support their right, the universal human right, to speak freely.

    You seem to think that racism/Nazism is the worst thing in the world. Marxism, which is what the so called "anti-fascists" follow has murdered 10x as many.

    Keeping hatred in your heart is no where near as bad as showing hatred with your fists.

  • Tony||

    "The Nazis Charlottesville were PEACEFUL"

    Oh, fantastic, Nazis who lack for follow-through. I suppose that is indeed an improvement on the real thing.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > Nazis who lack for follow-through. I suppose that is indeed an improvement on the real thing.

    Of COURSE it's an improvement. A very significant one, in fact. It's the difference between words and deeds, something that you socialist can't seem to grasp.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think Nick would even disagree with your comment about losing anyone who believed in the message. His quotes from the article seem to indicate he feels the same way.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Perhaps I didn't get into it enough: I think that Nick is not-so-subtly saying that the Mises guys aren't even libertarian, they're paleoconservatives (it's clear Nick thinks it's impossible to be socially conservative and libertarian, to say nothing of the endless border debate). Just look at who was talked to for the original article: guys like David Boaz who despise the Rothbard branch

    So I think Nick is saying that some of the people who didn't jump ship still aren't libertarians. Maybe I'm projecting too much of the historical conflict onto this article, but the chairman of the LP has recently gone out of his way to snipe at Mises guys on Twitter for being Nazis. It just looks like post-Charlottesville virtue signalling reigniting the old LP split

    Man, I wish we'd all just get along

  • CE||

    Nah, it's just residual cosmo horror at how popular Ron Paul was, even though he was pro-life.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    I love attention, too!

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Damn, Gillespie found one hell of a rare Pepe.

  • NEET||

    cosmopolitanism
    I'm going to start calling Nick and his fellow cockmonglers cosmopolitan libertarians.
    Also fuck the frog. (Figuratively of course since toads are built for sex whereas frogs are less enjoyable.)

  • JeremyR||

    They've actually been called cosmos for quite some time.

    More the magazine than the adjective. But still...

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    No, but believers in "Free Minds and Free Markets" should be in the forefront of attacking racism, anti-Semitism, and parochialism.

    Libertarians should at the forefront of stopping government from trampling on individual liberty. Scope creep is only going to make libertarianism weaker.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    ^^^THIS!!^^^

    Reis and Trout (Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind) point out the catastrophe of line extending your brand. Focus, focus, and then focus some more.

  • Eman||

    Its so strange to see members of the mainstream media misrepresenting libertarianism. I hope they don't make it unpopular.

  • NEET||

    Libertarians misrepresent libertarianism. There's no hope for us.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The LP platform takes less than a half-hour to read. Circulating more mp3 versions of it in different languages would frustrate the looter media bigtime.

  • Acton||

    "In that sense, the call by Hot Air's Taylor Millard for libertarians to purge white supremacists, anti-Semites, and living, breathing Nazis from our movement is misdirected since such people by definition are not libertarian".

    No True Scotsman fallacy. Maybe they are not Nick's type of libertarian, or mine for that matter.

    But I suspect most posters at Reason are not Nick's sort of SJW libertarian that has never met a SoCon he doesn't loathe.

  • JeremyR||

    There's a practical side to the matter though. Libertarian ideas are not particularly welcome in a society that value freedom (for lack of a better word), at least in name.

    What chances do those ideas have in societies that don't value freedom? Such as under an Islamic theocracy or Latin American Marxist dictatorship?

    The idea of free borders and immigration is one thing. But if you import those that do not believe in freedom, they are going to be bringing their governments with them.

    Even Poul Anderson finally recognized this (and didn't really have an answer to it)

  • Tony||

    So we can't actually allow for freedom because it might result in people freely choosing things differently than you.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Which is totes different from the democrat position, i.e., the one, true freedom.

  • Tony||

    Why don't you ask JeremyR what other principles we have to sacrifice in order to ensure a voting population that tends to agree with him.

    Simple calculation. Which principles are less important than that goal? Are the ones who get to decide also the gun nuts? Just curious.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    The only think above votes is voting!

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Sorry, Tony. AnCaps don't believe in voting.

    In JeremyR's defense, even if we had a free AnCapistan society, i.e., no democracy (three wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner), with open borders, there will be those that immigrate with the intent of establishing their own x-ocracy - witness the "no-go" zones in parts of France and Sweden with large concentrations of muslims.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    We're not restricting their freedom by having borders. They can be as free as they want wherever they are as far as we're concerned.

  • chemjeff||

    You are restricting the freedom of CITIZENS by restricting whom they choose to associate with on their own property.

  • chemjeff||

    I am in favor of the freedom of association for:

    1. Bakers and florists who choose not to associate with gay couples
    2. White supremacists who choose not to associate with blacks and Jews
    3. ISPs who choose not to associate with white supremacists
    4. American citizens who choose to associate with anyone they choose with their own property

    Are you?

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > The idea of free borders and immigration is one thing. But if you import those that do not believe in freedom, they are going to be bringing their governments with them.

    This is the essence of Hoppe's argument against democracy. Even as a Rothbardian AnCap, I sure hope that the borders are NOT opened until there's no more "majority rule" or at least a free market in money, otherwise there will be massive rioting and violence when the whole thing collapses. We're going to get that anyway, but more unacculturated poor people won't make it any better.

    This is also the reason that northern Somalia (Puntland and Somalialand) are pretty much violence free, while Mogadishu is approaching Chicago-like levels of violence - everyone there remembers the central government and is fighting over what ever it is that's "going to take its place." (It's been 20 years, guys, wake up, it's not coming back)

  • chemjeff||

    "But if you import those that do not believe in freedom, they are going to be bringing their governments with them."

    Because as we all know, people never ever ever ever ever ever change and are pre-destined products of their culture and their upbringings.

  • chemjeff||

    "But if you import those that do not believe in freedom, they are going to be bringing their governments with them."

    And speaking of which, why would immigrants who "do not believe in freedom" even want to come to a relatively free place like the US in the first place? Why would they leave their familiar surroundings and familiar culture in an unfree third-world shithole, leave it all behind, and move to a place with an unfamiliar culture and this horrible concept of "freedom" that they hate? ONLY for money? Tell me, would you uproot your entire family and move to China or Africa, or even Europe for that matter, for a higher-paying job? How much higher-paying would the job have to be in order for you to leave your entire life behind? My guess is, quite a bit much. And no amount of a European welfare state would cause you to do that.

    According to the restrictionist crowd, the incoming immigrants are basically card-carrying Marxist-Leninists who come to this country in pursuit of capitalism and freedom. Really? Can no one see the inherent contradiction here?

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > And speaking of which, why would immigrants who "do not believe in freedom" even want to come to a relatively free place like the US in the first place? Why would they leave their familiar surroundings and familiar culture in an unfree third-world shithole, leave it all behind, and move to a place with an unfamiliar culture and this horrible concept of "freedom" that they hate? ONLY for money? Tell me, would you uproot your entire family and move to China or Africa, or even Europe for that matter, for a higher-paying job? How much higher-paying would the job have to be in order for you to leave your entire life behind? My guess is, quite a bit much. And no amount of a European welfare state would cause you to do that.

    You'd be wrong. Look at the muslims in Europe attempting to establish their own theocracy.

    Ever heard of "freedom for me but not for thee"?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

  • chemjeff||

    First, even according to your own link, when immigrants migrate, they become a little more like their new country, and citizens in the new country become a little bit more like the new immigrants. It is a process of mutual assimilation. Immigrants are not just immutable products of their culture and heritage. They have free will and the ability to change and adapt to their new surroundings, just like every other human being on the planet, including yourself.

    Second, answer my question above. Why do you think immigrants migrate? JUST for welfare bennies? That is an absurd answer quite frankly. Would you uproot your life and your family and everything that is familiar to you just to go on the dole in some completely strange and alien foreign nation? They are not card-carrying Marxists seeking capitalism and freedom. That is absurd. They are hard-working people, just like you, seeking a better life for themselves and their family through their work, just like you.

    Third, there is a difference between free migration and universal suffrage. Free migration is an affirmation of freedom of association. The right to vote is not. I don't favor granting the right to vote to every visitor who comes here. But I do insist that if someone wants to work here, and there is an employer willing to hire that person, that the government not stand in the way of that employer-employee relationship. Do you?

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > But I do insist that if someone wants to work here, and there is an employer willing to hire that person, that the government not stand in the way of that employer-employee relationship. Do you?

    Absolutely not.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > people never ever ever ever ever ever change and are pre-destined products of their culture and their upbringings.

    Yep. Just ask the muslim immigrants in France and Sweden.

  • ranrod||

    Charlottesville Racist Leader Was Former Occupy Activist, Obama Supporter..
    Jason Kessler(scam artist), the organizer of last Saturday's white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is rumored to be a former Occupy Wall Street activist and supporter of Barack Obama.
    James Alex Fields, Jr., the 20-year-old who plowed his car into a left-wing counter-demonstration in Charlottesville, killing one and injuring several others, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia as a boy and had been given antipsychotic drugs. It is not clear if he is still taking them.
    Occupy Wall Street was a radical left-wing movement that began in 2011 in Manhattan and spread throughout the globe. It was committed to the destruction of the capitalist system, and included violent and extremist elements that waged confrontations with police in the fall and winter of 2011-2. President Barack Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Media Matters for America, and other Democrats nevertheless embraced the Occupy movement.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g.....n-kessler/

  • ranrod||

    White Nationalist term is a media created term bringing up thoughts of the KKK..
    White Nationalist: the term itself, as in anything with the word White before it is a racist term bringing up thoughts of the KKK. how about his, American nationalist? the media would also call this a cover name for the KKK... and the thought process, if you are white, voted for Trump, support a Constitutional Republic then you are by that alone a KKK supporter, racist, and of course privileged,
    I checked out the White Nationalist site. They are not White Supremacy or the KKK.
    Nationalism is the support of the Constitution, the equality of law, upholding of the law, and support of individual God-given rights. One can be a nationalist and be of any race.
    It is the farthest thing from "white supremacy" as can be and certainly is not criminal.

  • OGREtheTroll||

    shhhh don't let the secret out about all that. If Reason can't point to Trump supporters=Alt-right=white nationalist=white supremacist=KKK=Nazi then how on earth are they going to score brownie points with liberals at DC cocktail parties by denouncing the racist alt-right KKK murder-terrorists? Who apparently have surged in popularity in the past 12 months out of nowhere, to the point we have to endure an anti-Nazi article every day, when there probably wasn't but a handful of Nazi related articles in the entire time of Reason's existence prior hereto. Its like Trump is the Emperor Palpatine of the KKK, maintaining his stealth power base all these years without any hint of outward racism, only to manipulate his way to ultimate power so he can unleash his white supremacy on the country, letting racism drip out of every word he speaks and every orifice of his body.

  • David Nolan||

    Libertarians have been socially liberal since the late 60s.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Libertarians have been libertarian since the late 60s. While some libertarian goals appear, on the surface to resemble socially liberal goals, the fact is that libertarians and liberals come at them from different perspectives.

    The social liberals have permissions being granted by the State to enact these goals.

    The libertarians have the State having no power in such matters.

    Similar appearance--vastly different mechanism..

  • ranrod||

    The Alt-Right is Not Right - It's Left.....The alt-right is myth
    One of the pillars of conservatism is "The Golden Rule," which automatically precludes white nationalism or racial supremacy of any kind.
    According to McPaper, the white nationalist/supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2008. If he uses the term alt-right to identify himself and his fellow believers – this begs a question?
    Was President Woodrow Wilson a member of the alt-right? He was a racist white supremacist.
    So were President Lyndon Johnson and the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd.
    Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to halt the spread of the black race. I'd call that white supremacism.
    The KKK was the enforcers of the white supremacist Southern Democrat Party, the Dixiecrats.
    Alt-right demonstrators hit the streets adorned with Nazi paraphernalia and Confederate flags.
    Neither of those symbols represents American conservatism.

  • ranrod||

    In fact, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which these nuts appear to be so fond of, was a tale of combat between two competing leftist ideologies – fascism and communism.
    Neither faction incidentally resembled conservatism or what we've come to know as "the right."
    The German KPD was the largest communist party outside the Soviet Union during the 1920s.
    It was the Trotsky-inspired KPD or German Communist Party vs. the Hitler led fascist "National Socialist German Workers Party" (Nazis).
    There were no "right-wingers" involved at all.
    And did I see the word socialist?
    By cracky, I did.
    I don't know of anyone who would confuse conservatism with socialism.
    The alt-right is myth.
    It's a name crafted to confuse the public into thinking these loons were spawned out of the conservative movement.
    It should actually be relabeled, or labeled properly as the National Socialist American Party, because they are in fact fascists - not of the right and certainly not conservative.
    But because of our woefully inept education system in this country, most believe fascism and Hitler were right wing.
    They couldn't be more wrong.
    The fascists were leftists who had/have a lot more in common with communists than with free market conservative capitalists.
    The major difference between fascists and communists is that the former is nationalistic and the latter, internationalistic.

    http://freedomoutpost.com/alt-.....ight-left/

  • Lester224||

    Why are these self-labeled libertarians. I think it's obvious.

    The Nazis branded themselves socialists to gain support. They were facists through and through. You can say that Nazis were socialists but you still won't get a lot of people who call themselves socialists nowadays pursuing the superiority of the 'white race' and 'white culture', wanting to restrict immigration to white people or wanting to forbid intermarriage.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybsb73a9

  • Lester224||

    No edit button! What I meant was "Why are these self-labeled libertarians so worried about defending the term "right wing"?

  • ThomasD||

    "They were facists through and through"

    As in "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" sort of fascists?

    You cannot be that without being socialist. Totalitarianism is always and everywhere socialist, if only by having excluded every other possibility. By design or by default, it does not matter.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The Nazis branded themselves socialist to gain support from.............? Socialists. Who joined the national Socialist party.

    You don't brand yourself 'socialist' to get support from people who believe in liberty.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Confederacy sought to get rid of protective tariffs. The first, the Tariff of Abominations, was met by State force laws prohibiting all customs collection. The reprieve was only temporary, and to make up for British capital being drawn off into another Opium War, another such tariff was written by Morrill and passed one House BEFORE Abe the Whig was elected. Violent seizures and confiscations began during the writing of the Morrill Tariff and way before Abe was elected, much less sworn in. Morrill himself referred to a revenue-only tariff as "free trade" the way christianofascists refer to anything short of a Berlin Wall as "open borders."

  • David Nolan||

    The south was for free trade because they did essentially all our exports.
    The north was almost entirely domestic, so no risk to them of a trade war.

  • ranrod||

    Why Was This 'Crowd Hire' Company Recruiting $25 An Hour 'Political Activists' In Charlotte Last Week?
    Now, the discovery of a craigslist ad posted last Monday, almost a full week before the Charlottesville protests, is raising new questions over whether paid protesters were sourced by a Los Angeles based "public relations firm specializing in innovative events" to serve as agitators in counterprotests.

    The ad was posted by a company called "Crowds on Demand" and offered $25 per hour to "actors and photographers" to participate in events in the "Charlotte, NC area." While the ad didn't explicitly define a role to be filled by its crowd of "actors and photographers" it did ask applicants to comment on whether they were "ok with participating in peaceful protests." Here is the text from the ad:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....e-last-wee

  • CE||

    three things he doesn't want to do that sum up the Ron Paul message. First: "I don't want to run your life. We all have different values. I wouldn't know how to do it, I don't have the authority under the Constitution, and I don't have the moral right." Second: "I don't want to run the economy. People run the economy in a free society." And third: "I don't want to run the world....We don't need to be imposing ourselves around the world."

    Yup, if you bleach out the libertarian part, that's pure Nazism.

  • Gezzer||

    I self identify as Libertarian, but more towards the social then the economic part of pack.

    As for any other political leanings I'm all over the map. I can see validity in any of the major schools, yes even the dreaded socialism/communism. To me every school has it's strengths due to the major aims it attempts to address, but always has weaknesses that come with it. Mostly due to the fact that there are people involved, and we always seem to find ways to undermine the system, any system, to our own benefit. So instead of one school I prefer the most effective and efficient (without abandoning our humanity) to achieve goals regardless of where it falls on the political spectrum. One of the reasons I'm a UBI backer for example.

    To me Libertarian isn't a political school, but more a philosophy. That everyone is a free agent with the fundamental right to exercise their agency. That no one has the right to impose their viewpoint on another, but we all have to respect each other's viewpoints. That we all have the fundamental right to exist. That everyone's "home" is indeed their "castle" and is sacrosanct. You want to smoke pot or walk around nude in your own home, go for it. I won't join you or even approve, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it.

    Libertarianism transcends politics IMHO.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Probably. And single payer healthcare is real, just like manbearpig. Time to bug out.

  • Rockabilly||

    Will I forever have to virtue signal on everything I do?

    Say something like this on a t-shirt or what have you?

    "I denounce communism, fascism, and socialism."

    Or will it have to be more specific ?

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Gotta denounce cancer too. Also poverty

  • Brother Kyfho||

    You didn't denounce raaaaayyyyyysssssssmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!

    You're a RRAAAAAAAAYYYYYSSSSSSSIIISSSSSSS!!!!!!

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    You stupid fucking retarded libertarians are obviously Nazis because if you were nice people you'd be Democrats like me.

  • AngelaM||

    The contradictions inherent in Paul's ideas about abortion etc are as convoluted as the contradictions in the liberal views of hate speech and pornography. No one is pure. The Human brain allows individuals to entertain contradictory and passionately held ideas at the same time. If anything this article highlights the dangers of labelling. There are gun loving advocates of free speech and women's right to choose and there are devout conservatives who believe that the government must step in to save the fetus. But recognizing these contradictions makes it impossible to label people and then how will we know who is us and who is them so that we can continue these culture wars?

  • PacificRimwasAwesome||

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Snowflakes are white
    So's the alt-right

  • Petie Cue||

    Thank you, Nick Gillespie! I have watched in dismay as libertarians embraced the "strong borders" BS, wondering how they could imagine that they were espousing anything but sheer militarist collectivism. Then watched in greater dismay yet as libertarians said nothing while racialists appealed to the almighty state to rescue white men in the name of libertarianism. The borders nonsense I could excuse coming from Ron Paul as a congressman from Texas and as long as he inserted the caveat that the welfare state needs to go but until then it's an enticement to migration. But when otherwise libertarian people like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods started comparing a collectivist imaginary entity like a political nation to a real-world household, I was disgusted. Stefan Molyneux drifted into Misogynyland and I started thinking it was sad and pathetic. Then when alt-right catchphrases like "cucks" started appearing in this forum and others. I started calling myself a voluntarist instead. Here's hoping the libertarian movement can shake off the slime and get back to its freedom-loving, war-hating, live-and-let-live foundations.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > Stefan Molyneux drifted into Misogynyland

    Yep. Acknowledging that the sexes are different is clearly misogyny. Describing those differences, especially so.

  • SIV||

    Then when alt-right catchphrases like "cucks" started appearing in this forum

    You're welcome

  • Africanis||

    Instead of watching Democrats wander in the wilderness and Republican fakers get slapped around for backstabbing you are contemplating your nazi racist roots according to Dem Libs. You should be passing the popcorn! You should be jumping up and down as the scumbag media is exposed for who they are.

    Everyone knows that libertarians would be on the chopping block, you are prime candidates for the re-education camps. Nothing short of converting to their way of thinking will do. Try and understand that and if you can't you aren't nearly as smart as you give yourself credit!!!

  • RoninX||

    There is a perfectly rational, self-interested reason why you should shake off loathsome parasites who are leeching off your ideology and brand. It has nothing to due with whether Stalin was worse than Hitler.

    We need to make it clear that racist, authoritarian, fascist alt-right types are NOT libertarian, even if they claim to be libertarian. If we don't, we will lose potential libertarians, whose basic values favor freedom even if they don't have a well-developed personal ideology. We will lose them to the left, who, if they're smart, will emphasize the "I'm OK, You're OK" side of hippie liberalism, before moving them on to the more constrained views of political correctness.

    Once a leftist implants the "libertarianism = racism" meme in someone's mind (often with the aid of the alt-right troll army), that person won't respond to anything you say about any issue until you can remove that meme.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    In the 90s progressive-leaning students would show up at the meetings of my college libertarian group. It was usually the drug issue that attracted them.

    When they found out that it wasn't about the drugs themselves but rather about the freedom, they quit showing up despite our best efforts to convert them! :-)

    I'm not sure what initially attracts the alt-righters, but the same happens with them. It's about the freedom, stupid. On all issues. For all people. At all times.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm not sure what initially attracts the alt-righters

    Their spiritual mentor, Ron Paul. They stay and pollute the movement. Most obvious, the ones who are extreme socons, influenced by Ron Paul, have never heard of the Nolan Quiz or Chart and have no idea that fiscally conservative and socially liberal has defined libertarian since the late 60s

    Many cannot begin to grasp how anyone can be socially liberal and also fiscally conservative. Ir doesn't fit their hatred matrix.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    You obviously know little about Ron Paul supporters, and even less about the man himself.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You obviously know little about Ron Paul supporters, and even less about the man himself.

    Pay attention..
    He lies about the 10th Amendment. The 9th forbids his bullshit. His bogus "federalism" is actually the "states rights" of the KKK and southern racists.

    He brags of sponsoring a bill to forbid SCOTUS from even considering any appeals to DOMA. Do YOU support gays being the first group denied defense of constitutional rights since slavery?

    When that failed, he said "rogue judges" struck down DOMA, which is bat-shit crazy, but his cult swallowed it. Do YOU deny separation of powers, three co-equal branches, balance of power and checks and balances? Do YOU agree with Ron, that SCOTUS has NO power to defend constitutional rights ... that we're literally defenseless against abuses of state power? That states have powers NEVER delegated?

    Do YOU know the 9th Amendment and what it does?

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    It forbids ALL levels of government to deny or disparage Jefferson's unalienable rights. Do YOU know what those rights are?

    The 10th Amendment reserves unenumerated POWERS to states ... AFTER the 9th reserves unenumerated RIGHTS to the people. Do YOU agree with Ron that ours is NOT a government of delegated powers?

    So, WHO doesn't know about Ron Paul and his followers?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Is There Really an 'Insidious Libertarian-To-Alt-Right Pipeline'?

    Other direcition. Alt-right to libertarian. A large percentage of their leaders say they are libertarian. The better known ones incliude lAlex Jones. Sfeve Bannon and Rand Paul. Annd several times each week among the rank and feat two (that I heard or read) from Charlottesvile

    For topics like this, often the majority of commenters.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    And take note: when a scammer wants to counterfeit a watch, he doesn't try to sell you a fake TIMEX. Libertarianism isn't the counterfeit, it's the real thing, that's why people want to claim that they're "libertarian."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Agree. Ron Paul's cult are counterfeit libertarians, just like Ron is.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Alex Jones is a christianofascist national socialist who, during my exasperated monitoring, has never talked anything but trash about the LP. Even his own buddies leading crusades of extermination against Saracens on the other side of the planet hate his guts.

  • David Nolan||

    Alex Jones calls himself libertarian and is quite close to Ron Paul, who may spend more time on Infowars than anywhere else. They're both suckups to the christianofascists. Ron is the philosophical base and enabler of the alt-right. A google search of both names, Ron's and Alex's, may surprise you with so many listings.

  • MyCroftxXx||

    found this on the WIKI. about Rush's 2112;
    Peart credits "the genius of Ayn Rand" in the liner notes. Rand, a Russian-born, Jewish-American novelist and inventor of the philosophy of Objectivism, wrote a novella titled Anthem, the plot of which bears several similarities to 2112; Peart added the credit to avoid any legal action from Rand. This credit caused the band significant negative publicity, with some even labelling them right-wing extremists. The British musical paper NME even made allusions to Nazism, which particularly offended lead singer and bassist Geddy Lee, whose parents were Holocaust survivors.[7]

  • Gene||

    Alex Lifeson was quoted as a being bleeding heart libertarian, it was the first time I'd heard the phrase. It's less counter-intuitive now than it originally was to me.

  • Gene||

    Ugh, Peart that is.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Ayn Rand penned the non-aggression principle in 1947, while Christian National Socialists were bring rounded up and hanged for altruistic genocide. French participants at the Nuremberg trials were absolutely baffled by the inconvenient concept of "aggressive" war. To this day, the closest Englishmen have come to understanding the concept is in Flanders & Swann's "The Reluctant Cannibal."

  • David Nolan||

    John Locke, 1689
    "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

    Thomas Jefferson, 1816
    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

    Ayn Rand, 1961
    "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."

    Paleo libertarians and Ron Paul (alt-right spiritual icon) reject the Nolan definition, to their "populist" statism -- like Ron Paul's "passive aggression" which sought to ban any SCOTUS hearings on DOMA. It takes no force to exclude rights. It took no force to deny women;s suffrage. Enforcing slavery required no force, but little for Jim Crow or any racist laws prior to the Civil Rights Act.

    The NAPsters lie when they say NAP is the ONLY "rule" for libertarians, The Nolan Chart is far more defensive of individual liberty and (gasp) equal rights. Paul's early racism us well know, like his current homophobia (shared by Mises Institute and others)

  • m.EK||

    Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with Alt-Right, Alt-Left, or any Alt. It is the political belief in "Live and Let Live".
    That some might bump into the concept and then realize that they would not be able to "assume power" with the followers of the movement is why they flirt with it and then leave.
    A Libertarian wants to control no one. He/she simply does not want to be controlled.
    I'm probably more an Anarchist since I believe in LAW, ie: "do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property". All the legislation, decree, and "rulings" are simply RULEs called "laws". They are like saying "I am going to suspend gravity by 20% so I can jump higher" and legislating this.
    You can NOT make a rule that violates LAW without harming someone or many. Politics is the "art" of using force on others. The few over the many or the many over the few.
    A Libertarian would oppose both of those camps. How a political party with a label called "Libertarian Party" behaves is another thing.
    Ron Paul inspired many to junk the two "main" parties. Sadly, he and his group still like to play politics with the NWO. A waste of time and treasure if there ever was one.
    If your really interested in Liberty both Individual and National, read a little book called "Whatever Happened to Justice" by Richard J Maybury. Don't fixate on the example's given. Listen to your heart on the message, not the examples.

  • Marc B. (Demontage2000)||

    Empirical numbers, numbers, numbers. Look at the empirical data on who identifies with true blue libertarianism. What you'll find is that the clear majority are white men (even if 'No True Scotsman, er, Libertarian, would ever be drawn to the 'Alt Right'). Why is that? Any way you look at it, Classical Liberalism was formulated by and arose to prominence among European men, especially those of English and northern Germanic backgrounds. One can claim from now until hell freezes over that it's about Universal Individualism and so it's open to everyone. But that is an abstract, philosophical principle. In empirical reality, the philosophy *attracts* mainly white men. If one puts aside idealism, to take a hard, cold, realistic look at all the relevant common and scientific data, it will become increasingly difficult for libertarians to deny that a genetic component is strongly suggested to explain why some people are attracted to a certain way of thinking and not others. A mature, thinking person today needs to educate and prepare themselves for the hard sciences of human nature, like behavioral genetics, to establish that there are genetic differences which strongly affect how different people think and behave.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Some guy in the "manosphere" wrote an interesting article on personal political preferences and r/K selection. I think that the guy went by The Private Man. Can't find it in my bookmarks.

  • J Neil Schulman||

    Nick, the problem is not just that libertarianism is a watering hole for the alt-right. It's just as much an oasis for elements on the left, and in my experience that intermingling -- leading to a cowardice of not wanting to be seen as politically incorrect -- is far more insidious.

    Core libertarianism is independent of both left and right. It has to be in that its insistence on respect for an individual's self-determination by protecting the individual's property rights alienates the political schemes of both social safety nets and militaristic foreign exercise. Libertarians seek out the Doctor No's like Ron Paul since the walls we want are against our own power elites, updating Eisenhower's warning against the Military Industrial Complex to our current Goldman Sachs -- Homeland Security - Post Industrial - Pentagon -- NSA Complex.

    What I liked about Trump's tirade against the establishment media is that Trump refused to condemn only the pond-scum coming from the right. "Both sides" -- from a libertarian viewpoint -- has to see the fascists on the left as equally putrid.

    Then Trump had to ruin it all by cloning the George W. Bush - Barack Obama speech on Afghanistan.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Concur. I really like(d) Trump, not for his platform, which pretty much sucks (now, not his campaign on foreign policy which leans libertarian) but for the way the far left shits their collective diapers over him.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    BTW, when's the next book, and what's it about?

  • ||

    Thanks, Nick, for the link to that article in The Daily Beast. I'm always suspicious when an author uses subtle dog whistles such as the
    adjective "gateway" which is up there with "un-American." The article was rather disingenuous and intellectually flawed. There's another article on the same topic in The National Review though it deals with religion. That article was even more biased that the one in The Daily Beast. What disguises these converts to the alt-right was identified and called by Richard Hofstadter "the paranoid style in American politics." That's the framework in which I view these conversions to political extremism. Blaming the libertarian movement for this long, American grown paranoid style is a bit paranoid. Which is ironic.

  • ThomasD||

    Nick Gillespie thinks the path to libertarianism is paved by policing other people's thoughts.

    Let that sink in for a minute.

  • senglord draconis||

    Either the 13th and 14th amendments are the redemption of the US Constitution or the most evil thing done in American history.

    I side with actual freedom and choice, not empty lies to control all aspects of life until...the 1990s. When the state can control most aspects of my life.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    I know the Reason crowd isn't going to agree with me but I don't care because it is the truth, as long as there is a welfare state in place we shouldn't and can't let everybody into this country. Sorry, it is a fact its a drain on the system, makes government grow and raises taxes, not to mention most immigrants do vote for more government. Sorry but NAFTA isn't fucking free trade, its a 1000 page monstrosity of regulations and cronyism, I am frankly sick of a publication that calls themselves "libertarian" defending it as "free trade". Now you get rid of the welfare state and have sacrosanct private property rights then I'll say "Borders be damned!" But that hasn't happened, and real free trade is when the government gets out of the way completely and lets people trade from the biggest company to the individual wanting to trade goods with anybody around the world.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Immigrants are less likely to be on welfare than the native born.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Michael is right, but the important thing is to understand that the fascist sockpuppet's message is--as in 1933--that coercion is the only real option in this sinful vale of tears. Appeals to "the system" and "The Truth" are still the leper's bell of the approaching looter.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Matt Lewis is Adolf and Eva's love child. How's that for hard-hitting modern punditry?

  • David Nolan||

    Quite accurate.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Alt-Right is just a fancy way of saying Ku-klux conservative. The lot of them spout the same national socialist homilies larded up with quotations from Jesus and references to Gott being Mitt Uns. Communists fall upon their superficial imitation of some libertarian tropes with whoops of joy, thrilled to finally have solid proof that the "Libertarian Party" is exactly the same nest of superstitious prohibitionists as the Tea, Consta2shun, Prohibition and God's Own Party fanatics.

  • Bob Armstrong||

    Any article which mentions "anti-semitism" in the context of belief in equality must also condemn zionism , an explicit philosophy of racial superior rights -- over indigenous semites -- which has caused so much chaos since imposed on the MidEast by the UN and the US .

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Thanks for the good work, Bob. We must all work together, as the world can only be safe when Jews are wiped from the face of the earth. Zionism, support for a Jewish Homeland in modern times, seeks to restore a Jewish states on land the Jews ruled for less than 300 years, over 2000 years ago, after taking the land by the committing mass genocide of the Canaanites, a slaughter admitted in the Torah and Old Testament.

  • Alt-Right||

    If you let the ruling class elites define you, you'll never have a chance. That's what they did to the Tea Party, and that's what they're trying to do to the Alt-Right now. I am Alt-Right---i.e. not libertarian and not "conservative"---and the number of attitudes and positions I don't hold are amazing: I don' t think white people are or should be supreme; I don't hate black people or any other ethnic subgroup; I'm not anti-Semitic...it just goes on and on. Amazing, no? But we live in a world of Big Lies purveyed by the elite, rich, globalist ruling classes and their media servants (consult your libertarian class analysis to learn more), and I can't be a libertarian anymore, just as I can't support Conservatism, Inc. What remains to oppose the statist autocrats of the Left? The ruling classes insist "nothing". They all lie. The Alt-Right is now the place to be. Are there unsavory people on the Alt-Right? Yep, there are some. Are such people on the Left? Yep, and they're far more numerous, more dangerous, and more murderous than almost anyone on the Right. So is there a libertarian-to-Alt-Right pipeline? There certainly is. And that's a good thing: It's a feature, not a bug.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online