• Keep the updates coming.

    Keep the updates coming.

  • Censorship is a very common

    Censorship is a very common thing with facebook, google, youtube etc. Their revenue comes from ads (not directly from subscribers) so they could care less about customer service. Paid subscription hosts that are accountable to their customers will not censor.

  • A new

    A new Reagan....yaaaayyyyyyy!! we found someone else that give great speeches about reducing government yet will blow up the budget and triple the national debt.

  • It would be great if the old

    It would be great if the old guard lost a lot of their seats. McConell and Cochran would be a great start.

  • How true. Sadly, even so

    How true. Sadly, even so called 'small government republicans' hate tax competition from overseas. FATCA was a bipartisan bill. If you really want to reduce the government's power, put it on a diet ie do everything possible to give less money. The best way to do that is to allow free movement of capital overseas. It works much better than voting or balanced budget amendments. Unfortunately the US and other western European countries are working diligently to prevent movement of capital. You can't even send a couple of thousand dollars overseas without answering intrusive government questionnaires.

  • Rick Snyder....another 'small

    Rick Snyder....another 'small government' republican. I guess if Michigan residents want to buy a Tesla directly they will have to come here to Massachusetts.

  • Gary Johnson is pro pot, but

    Gary Johnson is pro pot, but pro prohibition on other drugs. He is a phony.

  • 'We can't even get Ron Paul

    'We can't even get Ron Paul elected. Given your own comment, do you really think anarchy is a practical solution to our problems today? Additionally, do you not think that those in power would violently resist the transition?'

    We couldn't get him elected so we go in search of our next savior (Rand Paul). And when he doesn't win we will search for the next savior and on and on it goes. Conservatives and libertarians have been searching for the rulers that will reduce government. How's that going? Anarchy is the only solution for those who are sick of government. I understand it sounds idealistic, but the idea of 'limited government' is even more idealistic and has never existed.

    'Additionally, do you not think that those in power would violently resist the transition?'

    If enough people withdrew consent to be governed, any suppressing act by the state would be seen as tyrannical and be doomed to fail.

    'Aside from the philosophical & pragmatic issues I have with anarchism, I just don't see it as a viable solution to any of our problems.'

    Fair enough, I respect your opinion. I just shake my head when people want a government and then complain about the shape it takes. If you want the government to do x, then a socialist has every right to want the government to y and z. If you want Ron Paul, then someone else has every right to want Barack Obama and may the best ruler win as determined by elections.

  • Another israeli propagandist.

    Another israeli propagandist. If he was so concerned about 'radical muslims' he would be criticizing our government for destabilizing every secular government from Libya to Iraq and Syria and arming the radical muslims.

  • 'That's all you've got. I'm

    'That's all you've got. I'm asking a practical question. How does it come about?'

    It comes about when people withdraw their consent to be governed. When enough people refuse to pay taxes, vote, and bend to the government's purported authority, you will have anarchy. No violent revolution is necessary.

    'But it's human nature to try. It's the rare, rare person who can resist the urge to power. It's the central problem of human history. You anarchists argue like the central problem doesn't exist'

    Indeed....power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thanks for arguing in favor of anarchy. Its human nature, therefore we should not allow any rulers. No presidents, congresses or even city halls. NAP should be the universal rule.

    'Why is Ron Paul extraordinary? He's like George Washington.'

    Ron Paul is nothing like the federalist, founding statist tyrant George Washington. Barely 2 years after he took office we had the whiskey rebellion because he raised taxes. As much as I like Ron Paul, I would still prefer anarchy than have faith that he will be a benevolent ruler. You said it yourself...'It's the rare, rare person who can resist the urge to power.'

  • The only benefit of

    The only benefit of citizenship is the government recognizes your existence so it can give you the permits to work, drive, buy a home, travel to other tax farms (countries) etc. In many ways it shows you how unfree you are. I envy 'Illegals' a little because they don't wait for government permits to do what they need to do. They are the anarchocapitalists of today. I remain a citizen cause the alternative is difficult. I am working on a second passport though.

    What if the immigrant is leasing? What if they have been allowed indefinite stay in the private property of someone else. None of those are invasions of private property.

  • Anarchists abandoned the

    Anarchists abandoned the delusion of 'limited' or 'constitutional' government. You cannot fathom a world without rulers, so instead you want your rulers to be restrained. Where do you get the faith that your rulers will restrain themselves? When in history has there ever existed a good government? What good is your constitution if it has led to what we have now? A different revolution to reassert the bill of rights will simply repeat the process.

    'Who enforces property rights? Who handles violence and lawlessness? From whence flows respect for contracts?'

    These are the questions liberals ask that have been explained a million times. It may not be perfect, but it would be a heck of a lot better than the government monopoly we are dealing with today.

    'What revolution ends in victory, where no victor rushes in to fill the vacuum of power? Every individual would need to be George Washington. That is the height of unrealism'

    Why does there have to be a vacuum of power? Why does anyone have to fill it? If people are really fighting for the right to govern themselves (as individuals) they wouldn't need rulers, a government or a constitution.

  • I obviously disagree, but

    I obviously disagree, but whats so great about citizenship anyway? That you get to vote or run for office? That you get to be taxed? That our masters can furnish us with the government documents necessary to conduct in commerce? Think outside the government.

  • You are right i seek to

    You are right i seek to destroy all 'sovereign nation states'.I believe in private property and not sovereignty. Property owners maintain their property and therefore have a right to discriminate. Their rights to discriminate are confined to their properties alone and nowhere else. Sovereignty is a state issue. The only difference Sovereign republics, socialist democracies, communist dictatorships, absolute monarchies etc is the level of state involvement in people's lives. If you could live in a world where there was absolutely no government, but on the flip side there was no national sovereignty which would you prefer?

    As much as I love Ron Paul, I disagree with him if he believes that government should control immigration. If he wants the government to control immigration, whats wrong with socialists wanting government to control education, healthcare, economy etc? Why is everyone so selective on the role they want the government to play? People want the state to do only what they want based on their political or moral persuasions.

  • There are alot of folks on

    There are alot of folks on lewrockwell that are on the money on things like foreign policy, economy etc but then some of them have terrible nationalist and protectionist views.
    Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts are good on foreign policy and minding our own business but are protectionist on economic policies.
    Hoppe is good on the economy, but we can see how much of a statist nationalist he is when it comes to immigration, especially 3rd world immigration.

    The problem with people all across the political spectrum, from communist to libertarian is that they all have a role for the state. Communists want a massive government role while Libertarians want a small one. My question is if libertarians (like Hoppe and Stossel) want the state to do some things (like immigration and national defense), doesn't a communist have the same right to demand the state to do more?

  • He's in full campaign mode at

    He's in full campaign mode at this point.


    In the final stanza, Hoppe bears his fangs:
    Contrary to their own anti-statist pronouncements and pretensions, then, the peculiar left-libertarian victimology and its demand for undiscriminating niceness and inclusiveness vis-a-vis the long, familiar list of historical “victims,” including in particular also all foreigners qua potential immigrants, actually turns out to be a recipe for the further growth of State power. The cultural Marxists know this, and that is the reason why they adopted the very same victimology. The left-libertarians do apparently not know this and are thus the cultural Marxists’ useful idiots on their march toward totalitarian social control.

    The only one with pretensions here is Hoppe. Let us count the ways.
    1. He doesn't want open borders yet he never tells us how and whom will keep them out.
    2. When faced with the choice of either open borders or a stateless society he implicitly elects the state.
    3. He presents the ridiculous argument that the government and its institutions will protect us from bigger government in an open border society.
    4. All his arguments are propagated by the existence of a government and are null and void in the absence of it.
    5. He claims to be against the welfare state, yet opposes the easiest and fastest way to destroy it.
    6. He is utterly blind to the freedoms open borders will avail to 1st world populations seeking greener pastures.
    7. He does not acknowledge the effect people voting with their feet will have on prompting governments around the world to change for the better to attract immigrants and their skills and capital.
    8. He is a homogeneist, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but is not a trait of anarcho capitalists.
    9. In the article he used the word 'public' 17 times, 'individual' 6 times and not once was 'free market' used.

    So folks if you could choose one which would it be? A government or open borders?

  • PART 4

    More collectivist arguments in the 17th.
    A “free immigration” policy would add another, enormous dose of non-discriminatory “multiculturalism.” It would further strengthen the tendency toward social de-homogenization, division and fragmentation, and it would further weaken the traditional, white, heterosexual male dominated ‘bourgeois’ social order and culture associated with the “West.”

    That paragraph belongs in stormfront. As much as I disagree with nationalists, I totally respect their views because they are at least consistent and its universally understood that big government will play a big role in implementing their goals. Hearing a self described anarcho capitalist talk about 'social de-homogenization', 'multiculturalism' and 'social order' staggers me. True anarcho capitalists are ruthless individualists who reject homogeneity. They are not captive to the environment they were born into. America exists because whites, and other peoples (except slaves) rejected the environment and cultures they were born into in Europe and elsewhere and came to America to become Americans. Furthermore, that sentiment betrays Hoppe's, dare I say, racist streak because it has absolutely nothing to do with private property and immigration. If a white property owner wants to invite 3rd worlders onto his property then it's none of his business.

    In the 18th paragraph Hoppe complains that foreigners will join the political class. This argument rings hollow for true anarcho capitalist because rulers are tyrants and illegitimate be they natives or foreigners. I already hate American politicians so why are foreign politicians any more or less tolerable?

  • PART 3

    More unfounded hysteria in the 15th.
    True enough, the tax-funded public welfare system should be eliminated, root and branch. But the inevitable crisis that a “free” immigration policy would bring about does not produce this result. To the contrary: Crises, as everyone vaguely familiar with history would know, are typically used and often purposefully fabricated by States in order to further increase their own power. And surely the crisis produced by a “free” immigration policy would be an extraordinary one.

    Who is your true enemy here Hoppe? The state, or the effects of open borders on the state?

    PART 3

    In a lengthy 16th, he dismisses open border proponents as egalitarians (Which as anarcho capitalists we are not). Then there is this gem:
    A million more Nigerians or Arabs living in Germany or a million more Mexicans or Hutus or Tutsis residing in the US is quite a different thing than a million more home-grown Germans or Americans.

    What point is he trying to make here? His repeated mentioning of 3rd world immigration sounds to me like a demagogic appeal to nationalist fervor? The EU has an open border policy but he hasn't criticized it as much as 3rd world immigration. This argument also harkens back to America's infancy when ignorant natives were fearful of Irish, Germans, Poles etc. Yes the country would be different if a million more Nigerians were living here. It would also be different if a million more Chinese or a million less Germans were living here etc. So what? What does that have to do with advancing liberty now?

    He continues.
    With millions of third- and second-world immigrants present when the crisis hits and the paychecks stop coming in, it is highly unlikely that a peaceful outcome will result and a natural, private-property-based social order emerge.

    He means the impending crisis that was simply accelerated by 3rd world immigrants. The crisis that is the destiny of every welfare state whether it has a large 3rd world immigrant population or not. But hey, lets ignore the gorilla in the room (the welfare state) and focus on the flies (immigrants and their effect on the welfare state). Why allow common sense when demagoguery works so well?

    Still on the 16th
    Rather, it is far more likely and indeed almost certain that civil war, looting, vandalism, and tribal or ethnic gang warfare will break out instead – and the call for a strong-man-State will become increasingly unmistakable.

    Indeed, so we should have a government to monitor immigration and preserve our precious welfare state, otherwise anarchy will ensue and and even bigger government will take the reins. We should have government to protect us from bigger government...sarc off.

  • PART 2

    6th paragraph; What would immigration policies be like if the State would, as it is supposed to do, act as a trustee of the taxpayer-owners’ public property? What about immigration if the State acted like the manager of the community property jointly owned and funded by the members of a housing association or gated community?

    Right after that he goes into his 'full cost' principle (immigrants and their hosts should pay their way 100%). In a stateless society, this goes without saying, but with government this delineation has to be made. Hoppe can't help but incorporating the state to propagate his anti immigration opinions. This is very surprising coming from a self described anarcho capitalist and fellow at the mises institute. Would he prefer the state or open borders?

    In the 8th, 9th and 10th paragraphs, we see more of Hoppe's statist arguments when he talks about immigration pressures. Hoppe suggests that if the immigration pressure is low, then the magnanimous natives may allow the unwashed immigrants to use their hallowed public services, and when the pressure is high they should restrict them. He complains that because governments don't follow the 'full cost' principle then natives are unfairly subsidizing immigrants.

    True anarcho capitalists are not happy with subsidizing ANYONE, including natives. I don't like my tax dollars being used on Americans, so why should it bother me anymore when they're used on immigrants? Is Hoppe Ok with taxation provided only the natives benefit from it? Which one is more outrageous? Taxation or misuse of tax dollars? Our attention and wrath should be on our true enemy; the thieving state. Furthermore, this argument, like all its priors is dead in the absence of the state. The immigration 'pressures' are sorted out by the free market and private companies will step in and dispense the necessary public services. If these services become too costly because of 'high pressures' then the high cost of living will prompt people to *gasp* EMIGRATE.

    In the 11th and 12th he argues that the state is doing a bad job on immigration, restricting admission to some people while relaxing it for others. Alas, we already know the state fails miserably in every endeavor. What is his solution though? He offers none. #freemarket.

    His state derived arguments continue in the 14th. Which i just had to quote.
    Absent any other, internal or local entry restrictions concerning the use of domestic public properties and services and increasingly absent also all entry restrictions regarding the use of domestic private property (owing to countless anti-discrimination laws), the predictable result would be a massive inflow of immigrants from the third and second world into the US and Western Europe and the quick collapse of the current domestic ‘public welfare’ system. Taxes would have to be sharply increased (further shrinking the productive economy) and public property and services would dramatically deteriorate. A financial crisis of unparalleled magnitude would result.

    I'll tackle this in numbered form
    1. If private property rights are being eroded by anti discriminatory laws, then Hoppe should blame the natives who implemented them.
    2. Even though 2nd and 3rd world immigrants will come, they bring different labor skill sets into the economy and complement it.
    3. Does it occur to Hoppe that millions of 1st worlders live and are emigrating to 2nd and 3rd world countries? America and Western Europe are not the only places one can find happiness. Open borders is as much about people coming in, as it is about people leaving.
    4. Like I said before, to hell with your welfare state. If immigrants will expedite its destruction, then that alone is reason enough for me to support them coming.
    5. Taxes were implemented by natives. Natives are the strongest supporters and beneficiaries of taxes. Immigrants can't vote and those who are naturalized adapt to the conditions they found in the country. Taxation is the main evil that should be confronted. Without taxation, there will be no opportunities for taxes being raised for any reason.
    6. The final sentences were nothing but demagogic hysteria. We have already seen catastrophic economic collapses and they all happened to big governments. None of the reasons for collapse were attributed to an influx of immigrants. On the contrary, they are always attributed to native demands.