Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Harvard Student Calls for Libertarian Alliance With the Democratic Socialists of America

Here's more evidence of the damage President Trump is doing to the libertarian brand among the young.

An opinion writer for the Harvard Crimson, Trevor J. Levin, is calling for a libertarian alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America

Levin writes in the Crimson:
The protectionist, militarist, fiscally catastrophic, and, yes, white-nationalist Republicans are no option. But the primary victories of candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, most notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset, might rattle those considering the Democrats...

Now, whether libertarians should vote for a DSA-backed candidate obviously depends on the particulars (see SB 827). But in national politics, left-wing Democrats, including those with the DSA label, represent the most viable option, electorally and politically, for addressing these urgent issues.

The electoral successes of DSA-backed candidates have already dwarfed those of the Libertarian Party: In addition to Sanders and the near-inevitably-elected Ocasio-Cortez, DSA affiliates have won a major-city district attorney election (to very libertarian-friendly results), a medium-city mayoralty, and various primaries and elections in state-congressional races.

Do other major-party factions offer better possibilities? No..

Even if DSA swings the economic platform leftward, “top neoliberal shill” Noah Smith has argued that Ocasio-Cortez’s proposals aren’t necessarily so awful (for consequentialists). And her “green new deal,” depending on its execution, might be reconcilable with libertarian principles: even Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick recognized pollution as infringing on others’ property rights.

Ultimately, though, the greatest upside to an alliance with the left lies in its anti-establishment streak.
Note well, Levin is making, in the final sentence quoted above, the flip-side of the same argument that Trump fanboys are making. that it is about an anti-establishment streak. But both close their eyes to the various statist positions of their favored candidates.

Levin writes:
[L]et’s suspend disagreement on marginal tax rates. Let’s bring together everyone who agrees that people who weaponize state power to enrich themselves or rip families apart should not blissfully carry on at Mexican restaurants.
Does Levin not realize that the Left is not about decreasing the power of the state but only about gaining control of the power?

It is true the millennials are not going to jump on the Trump bandwagon. Levin correctly writes:
The protectionist, militarist, fiscally catastrophic, and, yes, white-nationalist Republicans are no option.
But Trumped has sucked the life out of the libertarian opposition. It barely exists. And the kids are going to the only alternative they see, democratic socialism.

Once again, I call on my fellow libertarians to attack and attack Trump intellectually when he wanders from libertarian principles (which he almost always does). The millennials need to be made aware there is a vibrant non-socialist opposition to Trump. And it must be made clear that the DSA is just as bad as Trump/



  1. Libertardians need to drop the unlimited immigration stance. If you can't understand race, IQ, and culture matter you are too stupid to have an opinion.

    1. I love the unintentional irony of this post.

    2. You to Evan have yet to show me I am incorrect. Which African country will you be moving to?

    3. Lab this really is stupid. What does “when will you be moving there” have to do with anything concerning US immigration?

    4. If you're thinking of moving, Meth Lab Manager, I believe there are many countries with a higher proportion of white people than the US. Are we to take it you will be moving soon?

  2. Even with the Libertarian Party, it's all about political-party hegemony. To quote The Who: "Meet the new boss...same as the old boss."
    I don't trust any political party, and certainly will never place my hopes in democracy.

  3. This blog and other similar libwap publications are muddling the libertarian position on immigration. In fact, you "open border libertarians" are actually just Marxists.

    If Mexicans want to be ruled by the USA Constitution and rule of law, they should secede from Mexico and beg that the USA redraws its boundaries to include Mexico.

    Please read Mises. Read Albert Jay Nock. Read Rothbard. There's over 100 years of sound libertarian thought on the migration problem. And it doesn't include muh feelz.

    1. That’s really funny that someone who advocates collective national ownership and state population control accuses OTHERS of being secret Marxists.

      Also, Bernie Sanders is almost as anti-immigrant as Trump. Even had a border wall in his platform. So this is not an issue on which we’re likely to have much potential for alignment with the socialists.

    2. Re: Stuffed Mouth,

      --- In fact, you "open border libertarians" are actually just Marxists. ---

      The statement leaves ni doibt you have NO clue regarding libertarians, libertarian political philosophy or Marxism.

      --- Please read Mises. Read Albert Jay Nock. Read Rothbard. ---

      Did you? Because none of them were for centrally-managed anything, which is what current government policies (including the anti-trade and anti-immigration policies) entail.

      No one is in favor of 'open borders' as the paranoid xenophobes describe it. Open Borders, within the frame of respect for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, simply means open to commerce, to trade, to the free flow of goods, services, capital and, yes, labor. Letting The Market make all immigration decisions, not the state. The state would either stop all voluntary and pacific traffic inna show of power or would import refugees to show false righteousness, neither thing resembling the kind of 'open border' that a principled libertarian espouses. Your obfuscation indicates you are dishonest and insincere when it comes to libertarian philosophy.

    3. Re: Stuffed Mouth,
      --- they should secede from Mexico and beg that the USA redraws its boundaries to include Mexico. ---

      That's an incredibly expensive proposition, for everyone. It's far cheaper to just grant those who want it citizenship and then let them live wherever they damm please. But, again, Trumpistas have not shown to possess even a modicum of economic understanding, which explains their penchant for spewing outlandish and ridiculous policy recommendations.

    4. "Migrations thus bring members of some nations into the
      territories of other nations. That gives rise to particularly
      characteristic conflicts between peoples.
      In that connection we are not thinking of conflicts arising out
      of the purely economic side effects of migrations. In territories of
      emigration, emigration drives up the wage rate; in territories of
      immigration, immigration depresses the wage rate." Mises Nation, State, and Economy

    5. Then you agree that illegal invaders should be detained and sent home? They clearly do not wish to assimilate into society. They have no respect for the culture or customs of this nation. Most of them can't even be bothered to learn the language. This is anti-liberal!

    6. The First Amendment is anti-liberal? Who knew?!?

    7. Rothbard on free immigration:

      Tom Woods and Joe Salerno discuss Mises' view on immigration:

    8. Re: Stuffed Mouth,

      --- Then you agree that illegal invaders should be detained and sent home? ---

      See, that's why it's funny to talk to Trumpistas. Is there such a thing as a legal invader, then? There has to be - it's implied by you clumsily-composed term, 'illegal invader'.

      Immigrants are *not* invaders. They're invited in, by The Market - that is, your neighbors and their neighbors. You simply despise such display of raw liberty.

      And you took that Rothbard quote completely out of context. Of course you did.

    9. Torres is letting the syphilis from his black male partners affect his thinking. He can't even show me a single African or Central American country on par with a mostly white one. His stupidity is showing as usual.

    10. Re invited in by the market
      70% are on welfare

    11. The 1st Amendment protects speech against the government, freedom to practice any religion, a free press, and freedom of assembly to petition government. Has nothing to do with third worlders trying to set up District 9s all over the USA and refusing to learn the customs of their new home. But then again why would an invader bother to learn the language and customs of the territory he occupied?

      Free speech is antithetical to a Stateless society. It'd be up to each property owner to set his own rules for permissible speech in his property, commercial or private. Free speech is an absolute right in a liberal nation-state.

    12. Re: PH,

      --- Re invited in by the market 70% are on welfare ---


    13. Re: Stuffed Mouth,

      --- But then again why would an invader bother to learn the language and customs of the territory he occupied? ---

      You sure like to use loaded language instead of sound arguments, S. Immigrants are NOT invaders, and they ARE learning the language. Immigrants today are much more proficient in English than immigrants of 100 years ago, thanks to the success of American culture which, at least before the age of Pvssy Grabber, exuded freedom.

      --- Free speech is an absolute right in a liberal nation-state. ---

      You confuse rights with state-provided privileges - typical statist view. You also conflate positive rights and negative rights.

      I absolutely have a right to freely speak, as no one else has the right to stop me through aggression or violence. That doesn't mean I have an absolute right to keep my friends or agreements. Yet you easily confuse them in order to support your view that people don't have a right to invite foreigners to peacefully engage, trade and live with them, which they absolutely do. It is YOU who doesn't have the right to use violence and agression to stop them.

  4. Liberturds only have themselves to blame for their failures and blowing their big opportunity. Don't get mad at Trump because he made the most of his political opportunity.

    1. Trump is more libertarian than most commenters on this blog. Sadly real libertarians are going to have to abandon the moniker as it's being taken over by Marxists. We used to call ourselves liberals, but had to abandon it as it was taken over by Marxists. Sad!

      Classical Nationalists?

    2. Please abandon it ASAP. We don’t need any more conservative Republican interlopers trying to water down our principles.

    3. Your principles: stand for nothing, fall for everything

    4. Your principles: get triggered by the thought of having to breathe the same air as brown people and run crying to the arms of the state for protection

    5. Re: Stuffed Mouth,

      --- Trump is more libertarian than most commenters on this blog. ---

      Yeah, nothing suggests libertarianism more than protectionist schemes and thuggish behavior against peaceful individuals, including businesses, professional sports players and people who simply engage in peaceful trade.

      Trumpista mental illness is moving from paranoia to schizophrenia. One can literally see it happening in front of your own eyes.

  5. If Evan stood for nothing, you wouldn’t attack him.

    1. This is just political rhetoric, which I think is best done throwing bombs a la Trump, Gorka, Farage (and sometimes RW). Niceties muddle the water for other readers who may be on the fence or not clear in their thinking of a topic. I have no ill will towards Evan or Francisco or anyone else here and try not to make attacks on character. I do attack fallacious thinking and use pejoratives to attach that thinking to the thinker. Again, it's a rhetorical style that I think forces the thinker to clarify his thoughts (whether changing them or not) to make a reasoned response. When I say Evan stands for nothing, I'm using the famous Biblical verse as a rhetorical device to buttress a point. I don't know his personal constitution and wouldn't judge him one way or the other anyway. To each his own. Live your best life and that sort of thing.

  6. First of all, I want to point out that I dont have a racial view on this like many commenters but really am trying to get your views.

    So some people here claim that private property and the defense of it is good and proper but stopping any sort of immigration is a terrible sleight to the lord and saviour Murray Rothbard. The lord aside, what reason do you have to differentiate between the right for you do arbitrarily claim ownership of land and defend it, but that there is no right for others to do the same. I am assuming you believe in the right to association. So, in theory there is nothing wrong with a group of people making a corporation, defining rules for its members who decides who is allowed on corporation grounds, and how you can become a member of said corporation. Also, I have never heard any moral limitation to the amount of land and property a "Libertarian in high standing" ( not one of those bad ones that disagree with you) can own. Now trade the word "country" with corporation, and tell me where is the substantive moral difference.

    1. So you want someone to describe the difference between “public” and private property?

    2. Murray Rothbard opposed open borders. These fakers here claim they don't support unchecked open borders, yet think stopping people at the border is statist thuggery. What a stupid contradictory opinion. The State wants as many inhabitants as possible to grow its power. Hence the Leftist push for open borders.

      These people either don't understand or dislike the concept of 'nations.' They unwittingly desire third-worlders to become a permanent political underclass in America, causing permanent strife between the majority and minority political sides, and serving the ends of power hungry Leftists in California, South Florida, Chicago, Illinois, New York and ultimately Texas. They don't care that illegals are counted in the census and artificially inflate democratic Representation in these areas (where the vast majority of illegals migrate). They are tools of the Left. They are not libertarians. They are uncritically thinking Utopians.

      Like any good Marxist they label anyone who disagrees with their nonsense "racists," conveniently ignoring the fact that we don't want illegal Canadians, Germans, Swedes, French or anyone else. However, forced to choose, we would prefer the ENGLISH speaking illegal from a (classical) liberal, first world society because their CULTURE readily integrates with ours and our HISTORIES have more in common.

      Except for the true racists (which these fakers claim to support speech unless its presenting facts about IQ and cultural differences of other races), libertarians support unlimited Work Visas for immigrants of all races, cultures and religions. We don't want State sponsored workers, however. The Private Sponsor must insure (bond) the financial self sufficiency of the migrant worker while he is here and insure the ability to enforce the migrant worker's deportation when the work ends. Many of us support some form of permanent residency for those who become enamored with our way of life and wish to integrate in the American ideal of self-determination and self-governance. No welfare, no criminal activity, no 1st generation participation in the democratic process.

      Mises was a Nationalist. We want peace and friendship with our foreign neighbors and an independent, self-determined national identity.

    3. I pretty much agree with you pimento, I will look in to Rothbards view on immigration just to know.

      And Evan, so you think public property is noman's land for anyone to with what they want? If this is the Libertarian position, I have to agree with some how stupid libertarians are. You basically want San Francisco everywhere. You want your buildings private, but want to wade through a cesspool while traveling between them.

      And by the way, you haven't explained a moral difference, just claimed there is a semantic one. Where is the moral difference between a group of people forming a country and determining membership, and a group of people forming a company, or a home owners association, or a private club? Why the outrage over a country determining who can come in?

    4. @David,

      First of all, I think it's odd that a libertarian would describe the difference between public and private property as "semantic." Private property was justly acquired through homesteading or voluntary gift or purchase, whereas public land was typically appropriated to the state by fiat. This is a massive operational distinction, and makes a huge difference in the legitimacy of excluding others from the territory. There is no analogy between a state and a voluntary club.

      And I don't consider open borders to be an optimal situation. I would much prefer a regime of private property. However, if we're going to have public property, I think it's stupid and wrong to automatically ban 95% of the Earth's population simply because they don't have the correct paperwork from the correct state. If highways, for example, were private, they would never be so exclusive (or exclude based on such politically arbitrary criteria.)

      And San Francisco is top-10 among US cities in average land value (and has amazing restaurants) so I don't really view that as a nightmare scenario. I'd rather have San Francisco everywhere than Lincoln, Nebraska, everywhere.

    5. You really think most private property was justly obtained. I think what you meant to say was the native inhabitants were either killed or forced into an Indian reservation, the land was then claimed by the country as their property. At which point large plots of it were signed over to different states who then sold their "public property" which was actually owned by the state to individual people for cash. Almost zero acres were homestead plots. If you think the land you own was homestead land or was given to your ancestors by Indians, you are more delusional than Gary Busey. So yes it is semantic, because all "public property" actually does have an owner. And if the state wants to sell it for cash to developers, or restrict access, they can. That is where most "private property" came from.

      Just as I thought, the people who believe this crap have no clue how the world works.

    6. And about San Francisco, the property values are not high because you have to step over human waste and homeless people on the way to work. Most people dont find that appealing. If you want to have a better idea why it is, go read some old posts at epj.

    7. David, the problems in San Francisco emanate from an excess of state central planning. You’re advocating... HELLO... more state central planning.

    8. Once again, your views are based on delusions. It's okay for you and others to own and control property only if they call it "private" and gain it through gift or homesteading? Who do you think allowed homesteading? Ever hear of the homestead act? Hmmmm, who's advocating central planning? Apparently in your book, land gained by the centrally-planned homestead act is gotten legitimately.

      And of course if people vote on this and decide the correct action it's wrong, but you think your poorly thought out whims should be forced down everyone's thought because you say so. Boy am I glad we have a separation of powers to protect us from people like you.

    9. Homestead Act? Appeal of democracy?

      Maybe you should go ahead and read that Rothbard instead of talking to me.

    10. Yes the homestead act. Remember you said that homesteading was a morally superior way to obtain land but government had no rights to it? Homesteading happened throughout the federal government's homestead act. The land came from the conquests of Indian land by the American government. They claimed ownership and allowed parcels to people through the homestead act.

      So once again, why are you morally allowed to hire jack booted thugs to give you land under their rules? How is that morally superior?

    11. Funny there is no mention of Hoppe's Immigration and Libertarianism posted recently at in the discussion about libertarianism and immigration.

      What do they say?
      "To conceal known adversaries is an argument of fear and distrust".

    12. David T,

      Homesteading was a process described by Locke that refers to original appropriation of land by the first user. It’s the libertarian means for justly acquiring territory and has nothing to do with the Homestead Act.

    13. Is there anything more socialist or collectivist than the concept that "we all collectively own and control the territory of [insert name of nation here] and get to decide who comes here and under what conditions." If this is to be a rationale for liberty---that "this is OUR place"---then as Bryan Caplan pointed out [ ], no rights or liberties are safe; What's to prevent the same rationale of "We Own This Place, Do As We Nation-Owners Say, And If You Don't Like It, Leave" from justifying stripping people of the right to carry firearms in public (i.e. collectively-owned), or speak freely in public, or be free from unreasonable detainment, search, arrest and seizure?
      Nobody wants to be consistent in their moral principles anymore. Nowadays the common refrain is always "The End Justifies the Means" or "That's fine in theory, but..." or "Times are different now...we need some temporary, emergency measures!"
      I agree with Carl Watner (quoting Ghandi): "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.”

    14. The homesteading process described by Locke is a theoretical one. Smiley made the distinction that public property was appropriated to the state by fiat, where as private property was somehow gained through moral means. I was just pointing out that both lands were gained the same way. Land was homesteaded through the Homestead act, not by the first user. The first users were either killed or forcefully moved through a series of legal agreements which were continually broken by the US government. And these agreements (Treaties) were not generally willingly entered in to to begin with. He also said the land could be morally obtained by gift or inheritance. None of those "moral methods" happened in the US by and large. The homestead plots were appropriated to homesteaders in the Sam way state land was appropriated to the states.

      And yes, I can think of many more socialist things than a nation controlling their borders, especially considering every non-socialist country in history has done so.

      Once again, there is no moral distinction between you hiring thugs to steal land from natives an calling it private property and a group of people doing so and calling some of it public property. They both used the same group of thugs to get their land.

    15. @David

      Are you trying to claim that, because historically some land was stolen from its rightful owners, that therefore the entire concept of private property is invalidated? And in fact plenty of homesteaded land on America was in fact virgin or abandoned territory, or was purchased legitimately.

      And a critical difference between the homesteaders and the state was that the homesteaders actually lived and worked on the land, so they, as Locke put it “mixed their labor” with the land, a generally-acknowledged prerequisite for the appropriation of ownership. The state, by contrast, generally draws lines on a map to claim territory, which doesn’t confer any ownership according to libertarian theory. (And even in cases where state agents did first work the land, they’re a gang of thieves funded by plunder, so their claims would be forfeit anyway.)

    16. David T:
      You're anthropomorphizing a nation when you say "I can think of many more socialist things than a nation controlling their borders...". I.E., treating nations as if they are if they are sentient beings, or acting as one entity. It's like people saying "USA has to stand-up to Nazi Germany, and stand with France"... When you view it as the USA controlling its border, you're ascribing human qualities to a geographic area and to a sovereign territory that is comprised of 320 million individuals.

      Also, you're flat-out incorrect when you assert that every non-socialist country in history has controlled its borders (at least with respect to individuals crossing borders---which is the issue here---and not with respect to the governments of countries encroaching upon other governments' sovereign territory). Borders were historically a useful tool to delineate the territory in which cattle-like citizens would be subject to the taxation by the gangs in power (government); It's a tool that facilitates control over the country's drones, which generally governments have historically viewed as their chattel or possessions; Borders aid in the government's practice of animal husbandry over "its" citizens, and puts other governments on Notice of such "rightful" claim to that territory and its inhabitants. As such, borders historically were a protection against NATION encroachments, not INDIVIDUAL encroachments.
      You really believe that nations throughout history policed and enforced immigration controls and constraints on border travel to the extent they do today in this country? You think the Sumerians, or Carthaginians, or Romans, prevented free movement into their countries or territories? What about Medieval Europe, or Renaissance Europe? You're crazy if you do think that. People traveled just about everywhere, without restriction.
      And what is the weird idea that freedom of travel is socialist? If anything, it's capitalist: Unhindered movement of labor capital is the same as other importation of inputs into manufacturing, farming or business---no different than cost-beneficial steel, aluminum, lumber, rubber, avocados, widgets, etc. crossing borders to be used here, to improve a company's bottom line, allow them to be more competitive, and to bringer cheaper, finalized goods to market; If you're against tariffs and other barriers to free-trade, then you should be against barriers to the importation of labor capital (immigration, and freedom of movement).
      Ah, but at least until such time as Trump is out of office, I'm guessing you're NOT against tariffs, and otherwise are suspending all logic and reason until later.

    17. @MikeyBikey

      I read Hoppe’s piece on LRC. Sadly, it read like boilerplate minarchism. “If we don’t beg the state to enforce its territory today, then it might get too powerful tomorrow?” Wut? “The state is the ‘trustee’ of the taxpayers money”? GTFOH!

      I liked him better when he was an AnCap

  7. First, there was no virgin land. If you mean there was land that was unfarmed, of course that's true. Most natives weren't farmers. Just because they were hunters and gatherers doesn't mean they weren't the first users. And plenty of private property never had a farm on it.

    And no, I am not claiming private property is bad. The original question was about you differentiating between the ability of individual property owners to determine who can enter their land and a group of property owners doing so and calling their property a country and determining rules. You said that the difference between private and state-owned property was that private property was gotten legitimately while state property wasn't, so I pointed out that the private property in the US came from the same place as the state property and that your idea that there was homesteading of "virgin" land is outrageous and historically untrue. Killing the people that used the land doesn't make it virgin land. Also, the homestead land was doled out by the federal government's homestead act, or by encroaching on Indian territory and killing any dissenters. They were the original users who worked the land.

    Also, I was not anthropomorphizing, I was responding to a commenter who said that there is nothing more socialist than defending public, or state owned land. If this is true, then all countries in history were extremely socialist, so there is no point in arguing the merits of socialism vs anything else if you believe such nonsense.

  8. Just because I am not against a country determining who joins, doesn't mean I like tariffs. You are as extreme as the snowflakes who assume because you disagree with someone, they are Hitler and want to skin Jews and enslave black people.

    My original point was that there is no moral difference between an individual owning land and determining who can enter and a group of people like a a corporation, club, home owners association, or country doing so. So far, there have been a lot of weird arguments but nothing addressing the moral difference other that smiley saying that the difference was that the individuals private property was gained morally while the other was not, which I pointed out was untrue. I don't remember ever bringing up tariffs.

    And of course countries have always done this. Rome had citizens and slaves, and non-citizens, and there were certain people who could become citizens and those who could not. And no, I never advocated we follow Rome's lead, or the visigoths, or whatever other strawman you want to bring up.