Tag: murray rothbard

How to Win Any Argument in Politics: A Complete Guide

Ian Brzeski | @ianbrzeski

Are you struggling to convince your friend on why Donald Trump is the worst and most racist president alive? Or maybe you want to convince them on why he is our Lord and Savior. Whatever the case, this article will prepare you on how you can win those arguments and convince all your close family and friends to see things from your point of view. No more stupid liberals blowing up your twitter feeds, no more Hitler-esque MAGA supporters walking around the streets. With these tips on how to beat any political opponent across the spectrum, you will become unstoppable.

How to Win Any Argument as a Conservative

Preparation

To beat somebody in an argument, you are going to need a couple of weeks to prepare. The first step when preparing to argue with somebody who is not conservative is to look in your mirror every morning and tell yourself that everybody else is a liberal snowflake. When arguing with a liberal snowflake, they are going to cry 100% of the time. It is pretty much guaranteed. Doing this will give you the motivation and confidence you need to destroy that liberal.

Furthermore, to continue your preparation, you have to listen to Ben Shapiro every night before you go to bed. Make sure to memorize every single one of his lines in every video you watch. I recommend watching the videos titled “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Crazy Libtard” or similar.

In the Debate

Now that you have prepared for your argument, you are ready to seek out somebody to destroy. Upon finding a person, make sure the first thing you mention is how great of a president Donald Trump is. This is going to trigger and shock them. To illustrate this, their hands will be sweating, they will be profusely shaking, and their first reaction will be to call you a racist. This is precisely the kind of response you want. You now have the upper hand and are ready to obliterate them in any argument.

Some other things you may want to mention:

  • Liberalism is a disease.
  • If you are pro-choice, you are a baby killer. Therefore, any other argument you make is invalid.
  • If you do not support Israel, you hate the United States. Oh, and you also hate Jews too.
  • ISIS will take over the United States if we do not relentlessly bomb the Middle East to find our freedom.
  • If you do not stand for the flag, you are quite literally the worst person in the world and deserve to die.
  • Facts don’t care about your feelings.
  • Back the blue.
  • If you aren’t with us, you are against us.
  • It is your duty to die for your country.
  • Transgender people are mentally ill.
  • Illegal immigrants are murderers and rapists.
  • Allowing refugees into the country is the same as allowing Isis into the country.
  • The Confederate flag is not racist.
  • If you hate the government so much, why don’t you just leave?
  • Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

Closing the Debate

After presenting all of these facts, you want to hit them with the “libtard.” There is no recovery for them once you call them a “libtard.” After calling them that, walk away and do not pay attention to any single word they say. You have won. Congratulations. Go home and celebrate by grabbing a beer and putting on some Fox News in your trailer home.

How to Win Any Argument as a Liberal

Preparation

First, educate yourself, learning that both conservatives and libertarians are two sides of the same coin. After all, libertarianism and conservatism are both alt-right political ideologies that resemble fascism. Once you recognize this, it is easily assumed at this point that you are morally a better person than everybody else. Libertarians and conservatives are the most hateful and racist people out there. To make it even worse, they hate poor people. You want people to have affordable healthcare and a stable social safety net; they don’t. They honestly do not even exist outside of the internet. How could they? You have never associated with them in your life.

After you realize that you are better than everybody else is when you can start listening to comedians reuse the same Donald Trump jokes over and over again. God damn, those jokes are so funny. They never get old. When you are around your buddies, make sure to repeat those jokes because they are so damn hilarious. It is not like they watched the same John Oliver episode you watched last night.

In the Debate

Things to say in a debate:

  • Climate change will kill everybody within the next 36 hours.
  • Donald Trump is racist.
  • Hillary won the popular vote so she should be president.
  • Donald Trump is orange.
  • Russia hacked the elections.
  • Donald Trump is sexist.
  • Kavanaugh is a rapist.
  • Donald Trump is misogynistic.
  • End the wars except when Donald Trump wants to, then blow up Muslims.
  • Donald Trump is a murderer.
  • Abolish the electoral college.
  • Donald Trump is literally Hitler.
  • Making at least $30 an hour is a fundamental human right.
  • Donald Trump is a Nazi.
  • My body my choice.
  • Donald Trump is a baby.
  • Hate speech is murder.

Closing the Debate

The simplest way for you to win and effectively close out the debate is to call your opponent a racist and to start crying immediately. They will be taken aback, and be at a loss for words. They also may make fun of you, but that is further proving your point that you are the better person. Never forget that you should tune out anything points they try to make. After all, those points are inherently racist and have no real value.

How to Win Any Argument as a Libertarian

Preparation

As you scratch your neckbeard with “Liberty Defined” by Ron Paul in your hand, you have realized that everybody is a statist, even other libertarians. Libertarians are not libertarian enough, and some libertarians are too radical (@ ancaps). “Everybody is an NPC except for me,” is what you tell yourself as you look at your diverse collection of literature ranging from Murray Rothbard all the way to Milton Friedman. You have all the answers already. You do not even need this article to know how to win an argument. Friedrich Hayek taught you everything you need to know, thus, you are prepared.

In the Debate

I know you already know everything, but here are some things you may want to mention in your debate in case you forget:

  • Taxation is theft.
  • End the Fed.
  • Legalize all drugs.
  • No victim no crime.
  • Make fun of people who say “But who will build the roads?.” This is an effective and hilarious tactic because you know deep down that the private sector will be able to handle the roads. God, you are so funny.
  • Gun control is literally murder.
  • The free market will solve all problems.
  • Libertarianism is an objective and moral truth.
  • If somebody ends up leaving libertarianism, they were never a true libertarian in the first place because they must not have read Murray Rothbard. The words of Murray Rothbard will convert anybody to the one true objective truth.
  • The only good communist is a dead communist.
  • Socialism kills.
  • There is no such thing as a good cop.
  • We live in a police state.
  • But what if the child consents?

Closing the Debate

At the end of the day, you want people to do as they please as long as they are not directly hurting somebody. Your opponent obviously does not agree with this, however, so the last thing you need to do to ensure your victory is it call them “statist scum.” Statists are parasites that leech off others through the power of the state. Statists want to take away your freedoms and are the equivalent to Satan. Thus, make sure your opponent knows what kind of filth they are.

How to Win Any Argument as a Socialist

Preparation

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Repeat this phrase over and over in your head. Repeat it until that is all you can think about. These words will transcend your mind to an intellect never seen before. Let’s be honest here; you can’t just be a socialist. You have to go all the way and hit some more radical levels. Become an anarcho-communist, an anarcho-syndicalist, or even an anarcho-primitivist. Embrace more radical ideas than socialism. You are weak if you don’t. This is like when a libertarian is too afraid to become an anarcho-capitalist. Like seriously, stop being a wimp and just go full communist. Communism or nothing is what I like to say.

In the Debate

Things to mention in a debate:

  • Capitalism kills.
  • The world sucks because of capitalism.
  • Capitalism is quite literally the worst.
  • Real socialism has never been tried.
  • Scarcity is a hoax.
  • Antifa stands for anti-fascist, so they must be good and do no wrong.
  • Kill the 1%.
  • Israel deserves death.
  • Noam Chomsky’s word is the true word of God.
  • All cops are bastards.
  • Sex work is exploitation and is a direct result of capitalism.
  • Kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.

Closing the Debate

The easiest way for you to win an argument here is to beat the living hell out of your opponent. You see this tactic with Antifa and kids on college campuses, and they always seem to face little to no repercussions. You can’t lose the argument if your hateful opponent is incapacitated.

 

The following subsections will show how you can beat unconventional political ideologies.

How to Beat a Fascist in an Argument

Look, if you can’t beat a fascist in an argument by yourself, then there is no hope for you. Just get out of politics and never look back.

How to Beat a Maoist/Stalinist in an Argument

Mao Zedong and Stalin both killed millions upon millions of people. Again, if you can’t win this argument, get out of politics. Losing here is almost as embarrassing as losing to a fascist.

How to beat an Anarcho-Primitivist in an Argument

Bring up the famed anarcho-primitivist, Ted Kaczynski. With that, your argument has been won. You’re welcome.

How to beat an Anarcho-Communist in an Argument

Tell these commies that anarchy and communism can’t go together. It is impossible. Communism=big government. Anarchy=no government. Therefore, anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. Congratulations, you just made an entire political ideology obsolete.

Guaranteed Victory

Sticking to the outline on how to win an argument while maintaining a specific political ideology as well as adhering to the framework on how to beat obscure ideologies, you will become unstoppable. There is not a single political argument that you can lose. This outline will work in every single circumstance. Want to run for president? I can guarantee that if you follow the steps I laid out for your debates, you will get at least 99% of the votes.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk. Now you know how to obliterate and shatter anybody in an argument about politics. If there is one thing you can take away from this article, I want it to be this:  if you ever feel like you are losing an argument, cover your ears, call your opponent an idiot, and walk away. It works like a charm. It is a cheat code that works on every single argument, even non-political arguments. Now, go out there and destroy some idiots.


71 Republic takes pride in distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

An Introduction to Time Preference

Jack Parkos | United States

Suppose someone offers to pay you 20 dollars. You have the choice to receive the money today or tomorrow. In choosing the former, you are like everyone else. You would prefer wealth sooner rather than later. This economic concept is Time Preference. Time Preference affirms that current satisfaction is preferred over future satisfaction. People would prefer not to wait for wealth when it is easily achievable now. Wealth could be monetary, assets, experience, etc.

“Satisfaction of a want in the nearer future is, other things being equal, preferred to that in the farther distant future. Present goods are more valuable than future goods” – Ludwig Von Mises

However, the choice is not always equal and simple. Suppose someone offers you 20 dollars today, or 30 dollars tomorrow. The choice becomes a bit more complicated. We see a divide in people with high time preference and those with low time preference. Someone with high time preference puts their focus on their present well being. They would take the 20 dollars today. On the other hand, A person with low time preference puts emphasis on future satisfaction. This person would take 30 dollars tomorrow. A good example would be comparing savers and spenders. Those with low time preference tend to save their money and make wiser investments. Those with high time preference are more likely to blow through cash.

Real World Examples

Criminals tend to have extremely high time preferences. They are not willing to work to obtain wealth as that involves waiting for future wealth (paychecks). They would rather steal to achieve wealth in the present.

Another example of high vs. low time preference is in the context of college students. One who chooses to stay in and study over going out and partying has a lower time preference. The reasoning being, there will be a future benefit; a better chance at a higher grade, meaning better opportunities down the road. On the other hand, one who chooses to go out has a higher time preference; they prefer the instant short term gratification of partying.

Furthermore, different goods could be preferable in the future than in the present. During winter, ice has a low demand and is preferable in future (summer). However, it still is a general rule people value current wealth to future wealth.

Different groups of people tend to have different levels on time preference. Age is one of the biggest factors in determining one’s time preference. Young children tend to have high time preferences as they are not concerned with the future. A child would likely spend all of his money on ice cream. Adults tend to have lower time preference as they need to save for the future. However, The elderly tend to have higher time preference as they have less time for future consumption. Moreover, someone who has (or is planning to have) kids tends to have lower time preference as they need to save for the future.

Relation to Interest

In “Man, Economy, and State”, Murray Rothbard writes

“The time-market schedules of all individuals are aggregated on the market to form market-supply and market-demand schedules for present goods in terms of future goods. The supply schedule will increase with an increase in the rate of interest, and the demand schedule will fall with the higher rates of interest. A typical aggregate market diagram may be seen in Figure 44. Aggregating the supply and demand schedules on the time market for all individuals in the market, we obtain curves such as SS and DD. DD is the demand curve for present goods in terms of the supply of future goods; it slopes rightward as the rate of interest falls. SS is the supply curve of present goods in terms of the demand for future goods; it slopes rightward as the rate of interest increases. The intersection of the two curves determines the equilibrium rate of interest—the rate of interest as it would tend to be in the evenly rotating economy. This pure rate of interest, then, is determined solely by the time preferences of the individuals in the society, and by no other factor”.

The Time Preference Theory of Intrest explains how rates relate to one’s time preference. Demand for capital is driven by investment and the supply of capital is driven by savings. Interest rates fluctuate, eventually reaching a level at which the supply of capital meets the demand for capital.

Relationship to Civilization

In “Democracy the God That Failed”, Hans Hermann Hoppe notions that concern for future wealth is a key to the prosperity of civilization. If the majority holds a low enough time preference for the process of production, civilization would then be able to thrive. When one allows someone to use capital and resources, an economy forms with Division of Labor and private property. As previously mentioned, criminals have high time preference and will steal resources, slowing down production.

Hoppe describes that the state also has a high time preference. The state violates property rights and steals resources to give to others. The recipients in turn usually also have a high time preference. Hoppe describes this as “decivilizing”.

Time preference is arguably one of the most important parts of economic thought. It is the foundation of saving and interest. Furthermore, it distinguishes spending and saving.

71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

The 7 Most Important Schools of Libertarian Thought

Jack Parkos | United States

When people think of libertarians, they often tend to think “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” or “a Republican who likes weed”. However, neither of these statements are fully true. The libertarian philosophy actually goes very deep; in fact, there are several factions of different libertarian schools of thought. The libertarian ideology is far more intellectually diverse than American conservatives and liberals. Below are some of the different major schools of libertarian thought. Though many more exist, these seven best capture the wide array of beliefs.

Classical Liberalism

Classical liberalism is one of the earliest schools of libertarian thought. Originating in the philosophy of John Locke, classical liberalism holds that all men are born with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property and that the sole purpose of government is to protect those rights. The Declaration of Independence is an echo of classical liberal thought, as many of America’s Founding Father’s were classical liberals. Generally, they place emphasis on natural law, republicanism, and skepticism; many classical liberals are firm believers in the U.S. Constitution.

Key classical liberal figures include:

  • John Locke
  • Thomas Paine
  • Many of America’s Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington

Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalists base their philosophy on the moral principle called the “Non-aggression Principle” (NAP). The basis of the NAP is that people do not have the right to initiate force against others. On the contrary, the only acceptable use of force is in self-defense. They also believe that the mere existence of the state violates the NAP, as it acquires all its income through coercive means (taxation). Thus, they believe that no government should exist. Instead, they believe that voluntary communities and private entities should fill the government’s role.

Key anarcho-capitalist figures include:

  • Murray Rothbard
  • Hans Hermann Hoppe
  • David Friedman

Minarchism

Minarchism basically falls in between anarcho-capitalism and classical liberalism. It holds many similar beliefs to anarcho-capitalism but criticizes the idea of a lack of government. Minarchists believe that the free market can cover almost all government programs. However, they maintain that a minimalist government is necessary for the protection of rights. Minarchists typically believe, with some variation, that government should be limited to a “Night-watchman State” consisting of police, military, and courts. Robert Nozick, author of “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” argued that out of anarcho-capitalism, minarchism would naturally arise, as monopolized private police and courts would form a “state” of sorts.

Key minarchists include:

  • Robert Nozick
  • Friedrich Hayek
  • Ludvig Von Mises

Objectivism

Objectivism is a philosophy that author Ayn Rand outlines in her books “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead”. To begin with, objectivism is an extreme Laissez-faire capitalist belief with huge emphasis on individualism. Rand believed that man was best off serving his own self interest and should not need to help out the needy. In addition, it describes the pursuit of one’s own happiness as life’s most important goal. Accordingly, she, like many objectivists, rejected selflessness and altruism as an inefficient direction of resources.

Key figures in the Objectivist movement include:

  • Ayn Rand
  • Leonard Peikoff

Bleeding Heart Libertarianism

Bleeding Heart Libertarians can be considered more “moderate” libertarians. In some cases, they are associated with the libertarian left. The official site for bleeding heart libertarians says they believe in “free markets and social justice“. Bleeding Heart Libertarians tend to believe in social equality and egalitarianism. They often still believe in social safety nets and a welfare state, and fall on the progressive side on social issues.

Arguably, the most famous bleeding heart libertarian is Gary Johnson. Much of the moderate side of the Libertarian Party also falls under this category.

Libertarian Socialism

Libertarian socialism is a form of left libertarianism. Typically, it is a form of Marxist theory that believes in social liberties and limited to no government. However, they also support a voluntary sharing of resources in a communal way. They also tend to oppose the power of strong corporations and hierarchies. Libertarian socialists often believe capitalism to be a tyrannical force and compare the “economic” elite to the state. As a result, they believe in ending authoritarianism and bringing in systems of direct democracy (sometimes unanimous) that distribute wealth more evenly.

This mode of thought draws much criticism from most other branches of libertarianism. Conversely, many libertarian socialists firmly believe themselves to be the only true libertarians. This partly dates back to the origin of anarchism and libertarianism in 19th-century Europe as a term to describe the left.

Key libertarian socialists include:

  • Emma Goldman
  • Peter Kropotkin
  • Noam Chomsky

Paleolibertarianism

Paleolibertarians believe that while the state should be limited or abolished, society should still hold culturally conservative views. Paleolibertarians are thus very supportive of Western and American culture and are concerned about threats to it.

The paleolibertarian movement began in the 1990’s as a coalition of paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives that Rothbard (above) and paleoconservative presidential candidate Pat Buchanan formed. Basically, the goal was to stop interventionism, globalism, and social democracy.

Paleolibertarians usually oppose mass immigration and foreign wars. Many more radical paleolibertarians may consider themselves “Hoppeans”, following the anarcho-capitalist philosophy of Hans Hermann Hoppe.

Key paleolibertarians include:

  • Murray Rothbard
  • Lew Rockwell
  • Hans Hermann Hoppe
  • Ron Paul
  • Tom Woods

The movement, of course, is even more diverse than this. Countless versions of libertarian thought exist within it, and it would take ages to explain them all. Without a doubt, the area of thought is rich with diversity and variation. No two libertarians are alike, but all have one thing in common: a desire to live free.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Hatred and Polarization Has Ruined Politics

Ian Brzeski | United States

Politics, in essence, is the art in which people are involved with changing or guiding government policy. The majority of the population detests politics mainly due to the recent extreme polarization of the political spectrum. The left hates the right and vice-versa. People have forgotten how to argue and have resorted to slander to try to make themselves feel good about whatever it is that they are claiming.

The polarization of the political spectrum has led people to believe that there is a hierarchical standing associated with politics. People everywhere on the political spectrum think that whatever they believe in is correct. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but where it starts to get dangerous is when people begin to dehumanize the other side which will inevitably lead to hatred for others.

Unwilling and Unyielding

This all comes from people’s unwillingness to learn and view other viewpoints. Take Ben Shapiro for example. I have no doubt in my mind that Ben is a brilliant man. He is intelligent, knowledgeable, and knows how to win his arguments. I agree with him on specific issues, but I also disagree with him on a multitude of others. The problem that I have with Ben is not where I disagree with him, but it is where I can see that all he really cares about is winning his argument. Ben goes into every single discussion thinking that he is already right. He does not want to learn or take anything away from a debate. Arguments should not be about winning. They should be about learning or gaining a sense of understanding from other perspectives.

Going into an argument thinking that your mind cannot be changed is honestly the worst thing a person can do. Nothing good is going to come out of that argument, only hatred and further polarization. Due to this, constant generalizations about people of their respective political standing which will only lead to slander and dehumanization. It is so feeble-minded how conservatives hate liberals and liberals hate conservatives solely based on their politics. When this hatred in politics arises, people are quick to resort to slandering their opposition, and it is horrible to look at. It is dehumanizing and frankly extremely childish. It is not even just conservatives and liberals; it includes every single area of the political spectrum, including libertarians. People need to start attacking ideas in arguments and not the people themselves.

A Riff Caused by Hatred

People hate each other in politics for no rational reason. Everywhere I look on social media, I see many conservatives who think every liberal is a crying “snowflake” who kills babies, wears vagina hats and is a member of Antifa, and many liberals who believe every conservative is a racist, misogynist pig who enjoys mass shootings and sexual assault. Yes, maybe there are some extreme rarities on both of these sides that people fall under, but in no way whatsoever is this the case. It would be incredibly idiotic to think so.

Some of the worst childish banter comes from libertarians themselves. You have the libertarian infighting where many libertarians think some libertarians are not libertarian enough. You also have the opposite of this where many libertarians believe that there are libertarians who are too radical. Some libertarians want no government at all, and others still believe in some form government, a minimal government, however. It is honestly weird that there is so much tension between these two sets of libertarians despite having near similar beliefs especially since the political system we have in place today is nowhere near the realm of any form of libertarianism.

Libertarians not only hate each other, but they also hate other groups even more. To many libertarians, if you are not a libertarian, you are probably a statist pig who hates our freedoms. Just like how not every conservative is a racist and how not every liberal is a snowflake, not every non-libertarian hates your freedoms. These straightforward generalizations that people make towards other political groups are abnormal, to say the least, and has led to a deep hatred towards others. The legitimate hatred for others based on political views is exceptionally pathetic, almost as pathetic as hating somebody because they are a supporter of another sports team.

This hatred has led to so many people not knowing why they like or dislike a political candidate or why they are Republican or Democrat or Libertarian. They only vote for specific candidates or align with specific political parties because they are quick to make generalizations about the other side. They don’t try to read about opposing viewpoints or learn why people hold opposing views because they already believe that they are inherently right or maintain the moral high ground. This all stems from people’s unwillingness to learn and hear new ideas. People need to go into arguments willing to learn or get something out of it, not to just go into arguments trying to win. In my eyes, a genius of a person unwilling to learn is way less respectable than a less intelligent person who strives to learn.

Politics is literally just people trying to figure out what they think would be best for everybody. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, independents, socialists, communists, objectivists, anarchists, and many others are not inherently evil people. These people are generally well-meaning people who want the betterment of society. There is really not that much more to it. So stop hating people based on their political ideology and start reading and learning about why people believe in what they believe. You are going to remain stupid and ignorant if you do not have a proper understanding of other ideologies.

If you are a socialist who likes to hate on libertarians but has never read Hayek or Rothbard or Bastiat for example, then you have no right to hate on libertarians at all. This also goes for libertarians who have not read any books or articles from any great socialist thinkers or authors. This goes for every single person who is invested in politics. Read as much as you can so you can obtain the most knowledge. Read so you can formulate your ideologies to the best of your ability because if you don’t, you really shouldn’t be engaging in political discourse at all.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Libertarians Must Defeat the Left: A New Strategy.

By Jack Parkos | United States

Recently, I wrote on the importance of right-wing unity. This will serve as a follow up to that piece; it is important to go into further detail about why this is essential for society to prosper.

What Is the Left?

Two main groups make up the threat of the left. First of all, there is a wave of modern Marxists. These are the groups like Antifa, who want to bring down capitalism and the social order. According to them, capitalism oppresses various groups like women, minorities, and the LGBT community. As they want to see the end of free markets, they are not friends of liberty.

The other main threat of the left is the elites. These are often crony capitalists in positions of high power and influence. These people feed the previous group of Marxists, even if they differ from them. They also tend to support wars and do shady business behind the backs of the general public. In many cases, they have a monopoly on the media and education. Both elected and appointed, elites use big government against the people. They have infected both parties. Establishment Republicans may speak against left groups like Antifa but are as pro-war as the left elites.

Together, the establishment and Marxists are a deadly weapon in politics, culture, and society. They are a threat to liberty. Antifa advocates for an ideology (communism) that opposes private property. They both are against free speech. Antifa does this via riots when conservatives speak.

It is time that libertarians adopt a strategy to stop this. Principles are dying in politics; mobs are filling the void. Trying to reason with the left will not work; they are unable to peacefully come to resolutions. We have crazy enemies in the media, establishment, left and more. The old saying goes “desperate times call for desperate measure”. But we may not need to come up with a completely new strategy, there exists already an idea that, if adapted to modern times, could serve as a solution.

Right-Wing Populism

Murray Rothbard was the father of both Anarcho-Capitalism and Paleo-Libertarianism. An anarchist, of course, believes in no government and consequently, no politics. But Murray Rothbard, while believing in an ideology that would end politics, paid very close attention to modern politics. Not only that: he participated in it. This would be shocking to some anarchists, but Rothbard knew this was necessary to advance the movement.

In 1992, Murray Rothbard published a controversial essay entitled “Right-Wing Populism”. Although the essay contains some horrid ideas (such as allying with white nationalists), some parts of this essay are a good guide for how to approach modern politics. It is very important that we (libertarians) condemn white nationalists. Once we remove this portion of the essay, what does it say?

Rothbard presents an interesting idea, that with a new approach, could be beneficial. He writes:

The basic right-wing populist insight is that we live in a statist country and a statist world dominated by a ruling elite, consisting of a coalition of Big Government, Big Business, and various influential special interest groups. More specifically, the old America of individual liberty, private property, and minimal government has been replaced by a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society.

Rothbard described the right-wing populist movement as an “old right” that opposes big government and corporate unity. Many of the things he talks about apply to problems we face today. We are under a crony capitalist system that elites run without care for the people, and this must cease.

Allies of the Right

Cultural Marxists and elites work towards similar goals that lead to the weakening of society. Given this, it becomes abundantly clear that libertarians need allies, even if they are not pure lovers of liberty. Given the modern state of politics, this is absolutely necessary. Rothbard supported the idea of allies. But who do we choose? Rothbard makes a great point in his essay:

Libertarians have long been puzzled about whom, about which groups, to reach out to. The simple answer: everyone, is not enough, because to be relevant politically, we must concentrate strategically on those groups who are most oppressed and who also have the most social leverage.

So, who opposes the left and elite and has the leverage to help us win? Donald Trump’s populist movement. Before throwing away this idea, it is important to look at it deeply. It is nearly obvious that Rothbard would have liked this idea. Rothbard supported Pat Buchanan, someone who is not a 100% pure libertarian. If he were around in the 2016 election, it is extremely likely he would have supported Trump.

A Voice Against the Establishment

Trump did run an anti-establishment campaign, calling out the coalition of bureaucrats and politicians that Rothbard also criticized. Take a look at these proposals below. Who does this sound like?

l. Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS.

2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.

3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire “civil rights” structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.

4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not “white collar criminals” or “inside traders” but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters. Money and banking are recondite issues. But the realities can be made vivid: the Fed is an organized cartel of banksters, who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of the average American. The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks.

7. America First. A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority. The American economy is not only in recession; it is stagnating. The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago. Come home America…

8. Defend Family Values. Which means, get the State out of the family, and replace State control with parental control. In the long run, this means ending public schools, and replacing them with private schools. But we must realize that voucher and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatized education; instead, they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon the private schools. Within the sound alternative is decentralization, and back to local, community neighborhood control of the schools.

These are all Rothbard’s points, but some show considerable overlap with Trump.

Additional Similarities

Rothbard further details some similarities below:

So far: every one of these right-wing populist programs is totally consistent with a hard-core libertarian position. But all real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are other areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition. For example, on family values, take such vexed problems as pornography, prostitution, or abortion. Here, pro-legalization and pro-choice libertarians should be willing to compromise on a decentralist stance; that is, to end the tyranny of the federal courts, and to leave these problems up to states and better yet, localities and neighborhoods, that is, to “community standards.”

A Coalition of the Right

If the father of anarcho-capitalism was open to the idea of working with “non-libertarians”, it cannot be against anarchist principles to do so. Of course, we do not have to support every idea on the list or change our principles. However, the Trump Populist Movement is a good “target” to ally with. They also could become future libertarians, as many current libertarians come from this camp. We need to put aside our differences and unite with populists. We need to find common ground and defeat our common enemy: the left.

If this alliance weakens elitism and stops the left, then there is no real reason not to consider it. Along with this, we must call out when Trump is right as well as when he is wrong. But, we need to appear friendly. Trump likes this, and if he likes us, he may ally with us and lean towards libertarian positions. Without supporting every bill or abandoning principle, we can take this new strategy. Rothbard’s thoughts on the matter are not perfect, but lay the framework for a move towards true liberty.


Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source