Against All Nations and Borders

by Rad Geek
Against All Nations and Borders

Libertarianism has nothing to do with national interests. Libertarianism is about individual liberty. The liberty to live your own life, to pursue your own livelihood, and to come and go as you please to anywhere that’s open to you or anywhere you’re invited to go. The implications for immigration policy are obvious: Everyone – not just Americans, not just “citizens,” not just people with government permission slips, but everyone – has rights. They have the right to own or lease property, to take jobs, to make their own living, wherever they want, and to peacefully come and go wherever, wherever and however they please as long as they don’t infringe on any other individual’s equal liberty. That means nothing short of free immigration, open borders, and immediate and unconditional amnesty for all currently undocumented immigrants.

If a landlord rents an apartment to an immigrant, they have every right to live there, regardless of where they came from. If an immigrant buys land of their own, they have every right to live there, regardless of where they came from. If a friend invites them to come sleep on their couch or in their spare bedroom, they have every right to stay there as long as the friend wants them. Of course they do. Nations have nothing to do with it; state governments have nothing to do with it; local governments have nothing to do with it; neighborhood busybodies and border-control freaks who want to inflict their prejudices on other people’s property have nothing to do with it. If you don’t want immigrants in your house then you are welcome not to invite them in. If you don’t want immigrants in your neighbor’s house, that’s tough for you, bro; you’ll need to keep your prejudices on your own property.

A recent post at the “Libertarian Realist” blog (actually, they are neither) claims to take issue with Sheldon Richman’s defense of free immigration. The post is an example of astonishing sophistry, beginning with a long attack on Sheldon’s comments about “the right to travel and settle anywhere.” They complain that in a free society, landowners should be able to throw out uninvited trespassers, so there cannot be any such right. Apparently they neglected Sheldon’s direct statement that the right of free immigration is “the right to travel and settle anywhere so long as no one else’s rights are violated.” Or they chose to ignore this, and hoped nobody would notice the bait-and-switch. Of course, everybody has a right to shut their own door. But their own, not their neighbors’.

Like most border-nationalists, the “Libertarian Realist” is not particularly interested in what libertarian principles imply; they’re interested mainly in finding rationalizations to pass off a foreordained anti-immigration conclusion as if it had something to do with principles individual liberty (it doesn’t). Apparently, they think the following is a crushing put down:

What we’re dealing with in the open-borders camp are . . . moral purists whose creed is altruistic egalitarian humanism.

To be fair, that is pretty much my creed, yes. But then, if the alternative is moral corruptionism, or anti-humanism, or an ethic of domination and subordination, then I am pretty much comfortable with where I stand.

They also find it odd that libertarians believe things like this:

“. . . They believe that it’s morally wrong for the people of any nation to pursue a self-interested immigration program.”

Well good God, of course it is morally wrong for nations to pursue their “self-interest” in anything, and especially in border control policies. People have self interests that matter, morally; nations do not. Nations are toxic hellholes of false identity and purveyors of monstrous political violence. Nations are not rational people; they are not free associations or contractual agreements; they are unchosen, coercively assembled collectives, whose interests are typically an abortion of, if not an outright war against, the moral interests of individual people which actually deserve to be cultivated, practiced and respected. For anyone committed to individual liberty, a nations’ “interests” deserve no notice at all except to trample them underfoot.

National borders are a bloody stain on the face of the earth. Burn all nations to the ground.

flattr this!

62 responses to “Against All Nations and Borders

  1. I wanted to give no stars, but there was no such option. The goal of libertarianism is a free society. That is not the same as pretending we are not a society and that the human race is just a collection of individuals.

  2. This is cultural genocide. A total destruction of the right for people to associate (and by necessity, disassociate) as they wish.

    The practical result of a completely borderless world would be the overwhelming and subsequent destruction of every culture that isn’t Chinese or Indian. Simple mathematical proportions dictate that.

    From *that*, I daresay libertarian-ism would die with it.

    People aren’t interchangeable 1’s and 0’s. I would expect better from people whose state purpose is the empowerment of the individual.

  3. I cannot help but feel that if Libertarianism is stuck with this naive and impractical approach to the nation state and borders, it is going to remain an impossibly hard sell, at least outside the USA. It may have been an appropriate position decades ago before the current immigration flood- delivered we must remember by utopian statists- into old Europe, but I honestly believe that at the current time it is utterly toxic.

    We may in the long view hope for a libertarian world, from pole to pole and, er, Greenwich to Greenwich. A world of approximately the same libertarian values and economic levels. In such a world, nations would whither away as political constructs and free movement become ubiquitous, eventually becoming of mere historical geographical interest like Wessex. But to quote Augustine, “not yet!”. Currently, open borders is simply a form of cultural suicide. I have little enthusiasm for sacrificing the hope of a better future for our descendents on the altar of an ersatz ideological purity.

    • Agreed. Open borders at the moment make as much sense as defence cuts in 1940. Open borders, granted a continuation of the moral and economic climate of 1900, are one thing. Open borders, given all that has actually happened, would finish us off in no time at all.

  4. I see so people have the right to travel and settle anywhere “as long as no one else’s rights are violated”.

    Well that is fair enough – as the people concerned often come with the express intention of “violating the rights of others”.

    As far back as 1982 illegal (yes illegal) immigrants sued the State of Texas for “free” (i.e. tax payer funded) education – and the Supreme Court upheld their claim (the Law Schools being what they are – i.e. collectivist play pens).

    In California illegal immigrant groups repeatedly had the courts over turn votes to limit the government services they could have – after all the basic reason they had come was to VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

    There was no point in being in the United States if they were not allowed to loot other people – that is why they had come in the first place.

    “No you do not understand – we do not believe in nations at all”

    But the illegals DO believe in nations – that is why they wave the Mexican flag and celebrate Mexican independence day, and teach their children that “this land is really OURS” (that the wars of 1836 and 1848 should have gone the other way)

    They are not anarcho capitalists – the illegals are (in their own way) patriots. The trouble is that they are Mexican patriots.

    Nothing to do with “race” (after all Ted Cruz is Hispanic and Hispanics died defending, as well as attacking, the Alamo) – but everything to do with the beliefs in their hearts. And they do have beliefs.

    If you doubt me why do you not ASK the illegals?

    Ask them if the right side one in the war of Texan Independence or in the Mexican-American war – ASK THEM.

    “It does not matter” – sorry but it does matter.

    However, there are one vast group of immigrants who really do NOT care about “nations” and “borders”,

    These are the forces of Islam.

    The forces of Islam really do not care about “nations” and “borders”.

    But if anarcho capitalists think this means they do not come to “violate the rights of others” you are mistaken.

    On the contrary – it is the most basic duty of a Muslim to spread the power of ISLAMIC LAW (that is what “submission to Allah” means – the unbelievers must “feel themselves subdued”).

    That is as true in Sweden (try being a Jew in Malmo – indeed trying being a women in Malmo) as it is in Arabia.

    And it is true in the United States also – go to the Twin Cities of Minn and find out.

    It is not just “you can not have a dog in my taxi – the Prophet said so” – it is training their children to be suicide bombers and so on.

    “But that is just for Somalia” – neither the Koran or the Hadiths say anything about “Islamic law is just for Somalia” (a place that Mohammed never even visited) Islamic Law (to a sincere Muslim) is for the world.

    “Islamophia” – no I give people the basic respect of taking their beliefs seriously.

    If a illegal immigrant from Mexico says their loyalty is to Mexico – I believe him (or her).

    [If they side with the people who defended the Alamo, not those who attacked it, then it is a different matter].

    If a Muslim tells me that they are s a sincere follower of Mohammed (of the Koran and the hadiths) I believe him (or her).

    [If they formally reject Islam, and thus risk death from the forces of Islam, then it is another matter}/

    So if it is really a matter of “they have a right to come – as long as they do not intend to violate the rights of other people”, then there is no disagreement.

    For they DO come with the intent to violate the rights of people.


  5. As for the United Kingdom situation.

    It is not just the Welfare State – having about half the entire population is unsustainable whether there is immigration or not (although mass immigration will bring the breakdown more quickly).

    It is also a matter of loyalty – and I make no apology for sounding “feudal” at this point.

    The United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) should not be part of a political Empire called “Europe” – but we are part of Europe CULTRUALLY.

    What does this mean?

    One of the things it means is that we are part of the struggle against Islam.

    For more than a thousand years Europe as been in conflict with Islam – this is the truth (however much the BBC and the universities may dislike it).There were raids on Europe from the 7th century to the 19th century – and often major wars as well.

    The industrial revolution gave Europeans such vast power that raiding Europe no longer became possible – indeed all of North Africa eventually fell to the Christian powers (for the first time since the Islamic conquest of the 7th century – although Christians in what is now South Sudan held out, over more than a thousand years of war and persecution).

    However, the theology of Islam DID NOT CHANGE – see Winston Churchill in “The River War” (an unedited version) for this point. What changed was the tactical situation – and now it has changed again

    It is totally unreasonable to suppose that followers of Islam in the United Kingdom will oppose their fellow Muslims in battle (although some may) and side with nations (such as England, Scotland and old Ireland) that have great big CROSSES on their flags.

    “But you do not understand Paul – we anarcho-capitalists do not believe in religion any more than we believe in nations”.

    But other people (including the immigrants and their children) DO believe in religion.

    What are we dealing with in the case of people who say “open the gates in the city wall – everyone is the same all over the world”.?

    I think we are dealing with a similar mind set to John Rawls and his “veil of ignorance” – where people are stripped not just of knowledge of their position in society (whether they are rich or poor) but also of their “ideas of the good” – i.e. of all their basic BELIEFS.

    As people pointed out to John Rawls at the time (1971) this “veil of ignorance” is totally mad.

    If people have no beliefs (none) then they are not people – they are just robots ready to accept the programming of others (in this case John Rawls).

    Immigrants and their children are NOT robots – it is not reasonable to assume that they are robots.

    They have beliefs – and in the case of Islam the most basic beliefs they have involve (and have always involved) “violating the rights of others”.

    One example to show what I mean……

    When a television programme maker was murdered (by a follower of Islam) in Holland (if I my use the word “Holland”) lots of people said this was a “perversion of Islam” and some even did the “what would Jesus say?” thing (what one does when a Christian commits a terrible crime in the name of Christianity – and many have). “What would Mohammed have said?” (assuming that Mohammed would have condemned the murder).

    Such protests were nonsense – utter and complete nonsense.

    Mohammed ordered the deaths of poets (the old version of television programme makers) himself.

    Mohammed ordered the death of an old blind poet who had mocked him. Muslims were sent to the camp of the old blind poet to pretend to be his friends (to have broken with Mohammed) so they could get close enough to murder him [treachery was a favoured tactic of Mohammed – he often signed peace treaties with tribes he intended to destroy, in order to get them to drop their guard].

    When a female poet protested this treachery and murder – Mohammed simply sent men to murder her as well (and her unborn child).

    Those who are surprised at events in Holland (or in Sweden – or in the Twin Cities of Minnesota) are not giving immigrants (and their children – and converts) the basic respect of treating their beliefs seriously.

    So “they can come if they respect the rights of others” is not some minor point

    They CAN NOT “respect the rights of others” – it goes against their most basic beliefs to respect the rights of others.

    Please show them the basic respect of treating their beliefs seriously – and not pretending that they are all anarcho capitalists really.

  6. Thank goodness this article, so far, is getting a drubbing.

    These kinds of extreme libertarian waffling about open borders tend to show no comprehension of how societies actually work, nor do they tend take into consideration human nature, the right of an ethnic identity, the justified ethnic self preservation of a people, or the forces of collectivism that occur over that of individualism.

    They also tend to wrongly suggest that egalitarianism is moral – and have a (positively mental) delusion that all humans and races are equal, that they are of equal worth and of equal capacity, not to mention have equal intent and equal senses of ‘rights’ and objectives.

    They are not. That is why much of these open borders screeds are anti-human as well as nonsensical. This is particularly so if the idea of it is to sustain and grow libertarianism! Complete open borders will only serve to kill it, stone dead.

    (Not to mention that these kinds of arguments by their very nature are genocidal in intent. That they can often claim to have some sort of moral high-ground is laughable on that particular score).

    What about the right of people to not live in such a society that open border maniacs advance?

    If several people are in a boat and six of those people individually choose to stand up and rock the boat over, them telling the seventh person that “they don’t have to stand up and rock the boat if they don’t want to” – and telling them that their decisions exercise their ‘world view’ will have no impact on the seventh person is, to me, a completely absurd position.

    The impact of this ‘individualist’ based open borders crack-pottery will lead to hell on Earth, and already is doing. May their ideology be burnt to the ground, for it is more of a stain and an ultimate detriment on humanity and progress than nations and borders could ever be.

  7. Great set of comments. I’ve made a whole blog post out of one of Paul Marks’ comments and illustrated it with a Richard Lamm quote here:

  8. All I did was take “Rad Geek” at his word – he does not want to allow in people who intend to “violate the rights of others”.

    Illegals in the United States make no secret of the point that this is why they have come to the United States – indeed they have (repeatedly) sued so they can loot the taxpayers more effectively. They have made it clear that there is no point in their being in the United States if they are not allowed to “violate the rights of others”.

    As for the forces of Islam (in Europe and elsewhere) – as sincere and dedicated followers of Mohammed they must also (in our terms) “violate the rights of others” – that, after all, is what Islam is about.

    So I do not think there is any disagreement on the thread – if Rad Geek was sincere about keeping out those who seek to “violate the rights of others”.

  9. The two are mutually exclusive views. The very idea that you have a natural right to move into someone else’s neighborhood is to violate their right of disassociation.

    As to the other part of the argument – I am willing to take you, personally, in good faith. I am not willing to take in good faith those who argue Rad Geek’s position – not when I see the results of fifty years of unrestrained immigration. And especially not when his premise includes the idea that everything I value in my heritage and culture is – by its very nature – exclusive and thus an evil to be destroyed.

    And finally, there’s the obvious disconnect. From ‘immigrants who want to live peacefully’ he then immediately turns around and claims that this mean we must immediately grant amnesty to all illegals, everywhere, and allow any in all who wish to follow.

    In short, lip service to prudence, but the true desire is the eradication of western culture.

  10. “As far back as 1982 illegal (yes illegal) immigrants sued the State of Texas”

    No, not illegal. The US Constitution absolutely and unambiguously forbids the US government to regulate immigration in any way, shape, manner or form with the exception of levying a small head tax. Thus in US law there cannot be any such thing as “illegal immigration.”

  11. “All I did was take ‘Rad Geek’ at his word – he does not want to allow in people who intend to ‘violate the rights of others.'”

    You took Rad Geek at his word if, by “his word” you mean “Paul Marks’s changed version of his word.” Each and every reference to “intent,” “intention” and “intend” on this page is in your comments, not in his original.

    “Illegals in the United States make no secret of the point that this is why they have come to the United States – indeed they have (repeatedly) sued so they can loot the taxpayers more effectively.”

    Leaving aside the fact that there’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant in the United States, since the US Constitution forbids federal regulation of immigration, if that’s what “illegals” are here for, they are doing a piss-poor job of it, insofar as they pay more per capita in taxes and consume less in government “benefits” than native citizens. Apparently their version of “looting the American taxpayer” is akin to the Israelis’ “genocide of the Palestinian Arabs” (despite 65 years of such alleged “genocide,” the Palestinian Arab population continues not just to grow, but to grow faster than the Israeli Jewish population … some “genocide”).

  12. Does the US Constitution forbid the states from regulating immigration?

    Anyway, this just highlights waht I’ve said before; the American libertarian discourse is in many ways too specific to the USA and European libertarians need to develop our own form of libertarianism which is distinctive and specific to our place, time and history. To perhaps oversimplify, I have said before, Americans are not a people. Their identity as Americans descends from the State, and their ethnic feelings remain rooted in their prior ancestry, hence the toxic American ideology of identity politics; Italian American, Jewish American, Irish American, Native American, African American, etc etc.

    Europeans have more of a feeling of the nation as an expression of “peoplehood”. England is the land of the English, France the land of the French. And so on. Thus American rhetoric on the subject is not a good model, and the adoption of it by our ruling elites under the banner of “multiculturalism” is inappropriate and toxic.

    • “Does the US Constitution forbid the states from regulating immigration?”

      Nope. In fact, it specifically leaves that power to the states.

      That was an odd outcome of the debate over the Constitution.

      The Federalists, who were normally in favor of a strong central government, didn’t want a federal immigration power because they knew that if there was one the Constitution wouldn’t be ratified (Pennsylvania was bringing in lots of migrant labor, and the slave states were sensitive about such a power possibly interfering with the slave trade).

      The Anti-Federalists, who were mostly against a strong central government, wanted a federal immigration power to “preserve the national character” (versus Irish Catholics and Germans who were coming for work).

      I’m not sure you’re correct about Europeans vs. Americans, though. Americans definitely have a bad case of the “nationhood” superstition since World War II, and our Civil War was a pretty bad outbreak of it as well.

  13. Thomas – for once I tried to be nice (no good deed goes unpunished), R.G. (whoever he really is) said that he approved of Mr Richman’s position that those who intend to “violate the rights of others” should be kept out.

    That seems reasonable. After all if someone points a pistol at me (and tells me he is going to shoot me dead) I do not have to wait till he fires before shooting him. Real life is not like “Star Trek” where the “Federation” can win battles even though it always gives the enemy the first shot (and goes around with “shields down”).

    As for the illegals in Texas – the Supreme Court in 1982 disregarded State law (not just Federal law).

    You say that that States (not the Federal government) should be in charge of immigration – and up till a Supreme Court case of the 1850s (I believe it was one of Chief Justice Taney’s cases – but I could be wrong) they were.

    I AGREE with you – but in the case of Texas (or California) it would have make no difference.

    As the courts do not care about Federal law or State law.

    Although (I admit) the State courts in Texas are not like the State courts in California.

    • “Thomas – for once I tried to be nice (no good deed goes unpunished), R.G. (whoever he really is) said that he approved of Mr Richman’s position that those who intend to ‘violate the rights of others’ should be kept out.”

      1) Rad Geek is the pseudonym of Charles Johnson, who uses said pseudonym to avoid confusion because there are one or two political writers named Charles Johnson who are at least as well known as him.

      2) Rad Geek did not support the position you cite, because your citation is incorrect. The correct citation is “the right to travel and settle anywhere so long as no one else’s rights are violated.” Not so long as no one “intends” to violate anyone’s rights. So long as no one DOES violate anyone’s rights (pointing a pistol is not intent, it is an overt act).

      “You say that that States (not the Federal government) should be in charge of immigration”

      No, I don’t — I’m an anarchist, not a states rights conservative. The US Constitution does.

      “and up till a Supreme Court case of the 1850s (I believe it was one of Chief Justice Taney’s cases – but I could be wrong) they were.”

      Actually it was 1875. And even after that, Congress relied on treaty provisions (which are co-equal with the Constitution as “the supreme law of the land”) to justify their early immigration regulations (e.g. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882).

  14. Thomas you are making a distinction without a difference.

    The illegals do not just “intend” to violate the rights of others (although YES that would be enough as far as I am concerned) they DO violate the rights of others.

    That is the whole point of the legal actions (against Texas, California and so) to enable them to loot the taxpayers.

    And what about the Castro lover who is running for Mayor of New York City – the man who wants to let in the Islamists.

    Do you support that as well?

    Was 9/11 not enough?

    • “The illegals do not just ‘intend’ to violate the rights of others (although YES that would be enough as far as I am concerned) they DO violate the rights of others.”

      1) There’s no such thing as an “illegal.”

      2) Yes, some of the people you are referring to do violate the rights of others. But:

      2a) If the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports are any indication, they’re slightly less likely to do so by way of crime than the natives are; and

      2b) If the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Internal Revenue Service are correct, they pay more per capita in taxes and consume less per capita in “services” — i.e. government-provided education, health, retirement, food, etc. — than the natives.

      Which means that while some of them, as individuals, may be rights violators, in aggregate they are on average less likely to be rights violators than the natives whom you seem to think are magically entitled, absent just property claims, to dictate who may go where and why even if we don’t count such attempts at dictation as violations of rights.

      I’m not following the New York City mayoral election — don’t even know who the candidates are, except for the Libertarian, and all I know about him is his name and that he’s a Muslim.

      To me it’s not a question of whether or not “we” decide to “let” people do stuff. It’s a question of whether anyone has the right to stop people from doing particular things. Your dislike of falafel and the Quran don’t entitle you to do that.

  15. “There is no such thing as an illegal”.

    So violating State (as well as Federal) law does not make someone an illegal alien – well many thanks for that display of ignorance Thomas.

    You do not even have the wit to understand that I was offering COMMON GROUND.

    Instead of a blanket ban on immigration (as was supported by some above) I was giving you (and others) an option – if you could show that immigrants did not intend “the rights of others.”……. (the very words Mr Richman used).

    But you did not see the offer – or did see it and decided to throw the offer in my face.

    “Your dislike of falafel and the Quaran”

    An odd way of describing more than a thousand years of attacks – from the 7th century to the 19th century (actually they went on, in other parts of the world, in the 19th and 20th centuries also).

    My dislike of the prospect of the enslavement or extermination of the West is a bit more than “falafel”.

    And I ask you again…..

    Do you support getting rid of the New York City Counter Terrorism unit – and allowing in Islamists to murder people?

    Yes or no?

    • “So violating State (as well as Federal) law does not make someone an illegal alien”

      There are no valid federal immigration laws, since the US Constitution bans federal immigration law. And I know of no state immigration laws that do not claim to be “enforcement mechanisms” for the void/invalid federal immigration laws.

      “You do not even have the wit to understand that I was offering COMMON GROUND.”

      No, you’re not. I am an anarchist and don’t acknowledge any state power as legitimate. And while I am not an atheist per se, my personal religious superstitions do not extend to a magical power of politicians to give special powers to invisible lines they draw on the ground at the whim of their supporting mobs

      “And I ask you again…..

      “Do you support getting rid of the New York City Counter Terrorism unit”


      “– and allowing in Islamists to murder people?”

      Non sequitur. I am unaware of a single instance in which the New York City Counter Terrorism unit has ever stopped an Islamist from murdering anyone.

      • Thomas, with all due respect, the denunciation of abstracts- which play an essential part in human life- as magical and mystical is not really much help even if it is rhetorically satisfying. The abstract police power may be a violation of your interpretation of what is good or right- as it is mind- but it will still shoot you to death with a real bullet if you violate the abstractions which govern.

        Boundaries are abstractions, but play a real part in human life, always have and always will. They are the basis of property in territory, which is a fundamental part of the human character (to be scientific, we are territorial, gregarious animals that naturally live in groups with boundaries). It may be as simple as “your land is that side of the river, our land is this side of the river”. Or the boundaries may be written down on vellum in buildings designed to inspire awe, and enforced by men in ridiculous wigs. But you cannot simply erase them by declaring them invalid in your philosophy.

        Human life and society in all its aspects are mental constructions and often have no more reality than the consensus of a group. Rights are indeed of the same nature. That doesn’t make them “magic” or “superstitious”. They are part of the way we are.

        If you erase the boundaries that currently are, new ones will form. The issue of immigration is thus not really an issue of whether you accept the boundaries of today, and how they came to be. It is whether boundaries however formed- by some legitimate means you can agree on perhaps- will operate.

        A boundary is by nature exclusive. This is my land, get off it or I’ll shoot you. I think we can all agree on that for the individual landowner. But it is highly likely that landowners will pool their lands to some degree; they may become the Sometown Collective, and agree a system of exclusive personal land and donate some to a commons, for a park or nature reserve, administrated by some appointed persons, and agree to share the roads, and all bounded by a greater common boundary within which their land parcels and commons exist; the boundary of Sometown. And then, they will decide- as propertarians- who may enter either as guests, or as new permanent residents. All voluntarily, all by agreements, without a State.

        Except this is the thing really. Sometown has now become a State, and is discussing immigration policy. The most basic need of any collective, whether it is a city state or a school chess club, is the power of admission (and the power of expulsion). It will always arise when people come together in a voluntary manner. Not by magic, but just by the way people are, as gregarious territorialists.

        • IanB,

          I’m aware of the difference between an abstraction and a superstition.

          Political borders, unlike legitimate boundaries, are a little bit of both. They are an abstraction in the same sense as any other street gang’s territorial claims (with the same concrete results, e.g. extortion, kidnapping and murder pursuant thereto), and they are a superstition of those criminal gangs’ mob followers/victims in the same sense as any other thing for which there is no rational basis whatsoever (with the same concrete results, e.g. stonings, crucifixions and burnings at the stake).

          What they are not is rational. Or libertarian. Period.

      • Non sequitur. I am unaware of a single instance in which the New York City Counter Terrorism unit has ever stopped an Islamist from murdering anyone.

        Police rarely prevent things. Police and courts (either Statist or anarchist or any other method) are post hoc punishment/compensation/whatever systems. So in this context “allow” means whether to (a) try to stop them (and often fail) and (b) catch and punish perpetrators after the event.

  16. “I am not aware of a single instance in which…..”

    Oh stop dancing Thomas – if you want the Islamists to come in New York and murder more people just say so (spare us all this jive). Actually you do NOT want this – but you dare not say so because that might undermine your ideological purity (which is a bit silly really).

    As for “I am an anarchist” (meaning anarcho capitalist – not black flag waving Kevin fan who wants to destroy all large scale private property rights).

    Well good for you Thomas!

    Trouble is that the illegals (and they are illegal under State as well as Federal law – and the first Federal immigration law was actually in 1790 so if Washington and co did not want it – why did not say so at the time?) are NOT anarcho capitalists.

    The Mexican patriots who come over the Southern border of the United States are not anarcho capitalists – they are not entering to roll back the Welfare State.

    On the contrary they have sued (repeatedly) to enable them to LOOT THE TAXPAYERS.

    How is that “libertarian” Thomas?

    More broadly……..

    Human beings (not anarcho capitalists – the other 99.9% of the population) are “tribal” beings.

    When a new “tribe” comes to your area it may not be a terrible thing – they may be friendly – they may not intend to violate “the rights of others”.

    On the other hand they may NOT be friendly – they have come to LOOT (and so on).

    If you are serious about the “non aggression principle” about keeping out those who wish to “VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS” then you can not be an open borders person.

    If you open the gates of the city and let in those who intend to “VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS” if would be better if you had killed your children with your own hands – as they would suffer less that way.

    You open the gates of the city to FRIENDS not to FOES.

    Unless the expressed concern with keeping out those who will “VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS” is not real.

    • “As for ‘I am an anarchist’ (meaning anarcho capitalist – not black flag waving Kevin fan”

      I am not a capitalist, and I am in fact a black flag waving Kevin fan — and colleague. I am unaware of any property right, large scale or small, which Carson wants to destroy.

      “Unless the expressed concern with keeping out those who will ‘VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS’ is not real.”

      It’s not that the concern is not real. It’s that it’s your concern, not the concern of those on whom you keep trying to pin it. Usually arguments work a lot better if you argue with what your opponent said rather than with what you wish he had said.

  17. Many thanks Thomas – I did not know you were a “fan” and “colleague” of Kevin (the self confessed supporter of “Occupy” in the West, the savage mobs in Egypt. and “Social Justice” in general).

    I have known about Kevin since 2006 (his attack on paid employment as “Contract Feudalism”) – so for someone to tell me that they are “fan” of Kevin is useful information.

    Your support for the illegals (in spite of their looting of the taxpayers) and the Islamists (in spite of their desire to exterminate or enslave the West) now makes sense.

    You see both the illegals and the Islamists as de facto allies in your war against “capitalism” – i.e. private ownership of large scale means of production, distribution and exchange. Ice Breakers as it were – to destroy what is left of the West, so that you can build your communal utopia on the ashes.

    A logical plan – although there some flaws in it.

    Indeed if the people coming in from Mexico were eager supporters of capitalism (i.e. supporters of the traditional definition of justice – rather than the opposing concept of social justice) and if Islam really meant (as the BBC claim) the “religion of peace” (it in fact means “submission”) you would most likely be against their arrival, just as I would (most likely) be in favour of it, – we would SWAP POSITIONS on the open borders question.

    I again thank you for the information Thomas .

    By the way – the word is “enemy” not “opponent”,.

    • “Indeed if the people coming in from Mexico were eager supporters of capitalism (i.e. supporters of the traditional definition of justice – rather than the opposing concept of social justice) and if Islam really meant (as the BBC claim) the ‘religion of peace’ (it in fact means “submission”) you would most likely be against their arrival, just as I would (most likely) be in favour of it, – we would SWAP POSITIONS on the open borders question.”

      I have no opinion on who should or should not “be allowed” to go where. My opinion relates strictly to whether or not a particular kind of organization (the model of organized criminal activity known as “the state”) should be empowered to do such “allowing” or “disallowing.”

      Our opinions thus being on different questions, and based on different criteria (I support freedom; you support a state with whatever pattern of criminal activity that you fantasize to be personally satisfactory and beneficial), no “swap,” either in lower case or ALL CAPS, is possible.

  18. On the contrary Thomas – you are a human being (you are very much interested in who should be allowed into where) – you are just human being on the other side.

    When someone sees people walking up to the city gates they care (you care) about whether the people walking up are friends or foes.

    You care about that just as much as I do.

    It is just that your friends are my foes, and my friends are your foes.

  19. You forget Thomas – you have already told me what you care about.

    That you are a Kevin “fan” (supporter) a “waver of the Black Flag” (i.e. a an anti propertarian enemy of the West – of “capitalism”).

    As I have often said, there is a an “urge to confess” – thumb screws and so on are not necessary, all the information that is actually needed is freely given – if one listens. That was true even with professionals such as Kim Philby who revealed what they were many times – it was just that the people who heard them assumed “he can not really mean that – it is a joke,” on hearing their “anti capitalist” opinions.

    As for your desire to use certain groups as Icebreakers against what is left of Civil Society (and Western Civilization may indeed be on its last legs) that, as you know, is also the position of the Frankfurt School (the “Critical Theory” crowd as they now call themselves). As so often the “Black Flag” and the “Red Flag” show themselves to be the same – whether in support of the collectivist thugs of the Chicago Teachers Union or anything else.

    • Quoth Paul Marks:

      “You forget Thomas – you have already told me what you care about.”

      Yes, I have. And you’ve ignored it in favor of the fantasy world version of it that you’ve made up. While you’re certainly free to live in your fantasy world, I’m not under any obligation to assist you in pretending that it’s the real one.

      “But Thomas, the interesting question for us is this; what State policies should libertarians (or indeed black flag anarchists) support under the current Statist regime?”

      You may find that question interesting. I don’t.

      “You see, it’s all very well saying that you don’t recognise their authority, fine. But still, you are advocating a particular policy be enacted by them; which is that they should grant citizenship rights to all comers.”

      Jesus Fucking Christ — the Marks Dissociation from Reality Syndrome must be contagious!

      No, I advocate no such policy anywhere other than in your exceptionally vivid imagination. My superstitions don’t include freakish ideas like”citizenship rights” for myself, let alone for anyone else.

  20. But Thomas, the interesting question for us is this; what State policies should libertarians (or indeed black flag anarchists) support under the current Statist regime? You see, it’s all very well saying that you don’t recognise their authority, fine. But still, you are advocating a particular policy be enacted by them; which is that they should grant citizenship rights to all comers. This is what a current open borders policy is. It isn’t an anarchist or libertarian “free movement of free individuals” policy because we don’t have that option on the table.

    There are lots of policies I would desire in a libertarian society. As I said above, a libertarian world would be vastly different and, with no means of expropriation via the State, questions of borders, citizenship and so on become vastly different, or meaningless, in that paradigm. But that is not where we are.

    As a parallel example; suppose you have a compulsory nationalised healthcare system, taxpayer funded. If you advocate that it should provide healthcare to anyone anywhere in the world, you are advocating the expropriaton of taxpayers. It is not the same as advocating the (obviously libertarian) position that anyone anywhere in the world should be free to purchase healthcare from anyone else, anywhere in the world.

    Immigration currently imposes the citizenship burdens of newcomers on current citizens. Nobody is allowed to stop this expropriation. You cannot advocate an anarchist policy in a Statist society. But that is what you are doing. And in so doing, you actually end up advocating a Statist policy of proactively causing immigration, which is what the State does. There is no neutral position.

  21. The idea that Thomas just opposes state immigration polices is mistaken.

    For example, if a rancher tried to keep intruders off his ranch (because they robbed and caused damage, which they do, or just because the rancher disliked them) Thomas would promptly say that the ranch (or farm – or whatever) was not “justly acquired” property.

    Remember Thomas is fan of Kevin – and Kevin (like the Jacobins of old) is an expert at finding some flaw in the property title of people he dislikes (because they are rich – or whatever)

    And it is not that difficult (if one ignores the principles of both Roman Law and Common Law) as, if one goes back far enough, one can find the use of force in almost all land titles (Iceland may be an exception – and only partly even there)

    The “waver of the Black Flag” is about to say//////

    “Lo and behold , this property is not a virgin! Why only a thousand years ago this land was transferred by force – so it is not really yours……”

    The “wavers of the Black Flag” really do “reason” like this – as a cover for their own envy and lust to steal and murder.

    They are, art heart, no different from the wavers of the Red Flag. This is why they happily cooperate – not just in Chicago Teacher Union (although please note that Thomas did not deny that his Comrade Kevin is a fan of them) , but also in the “Occupy” movement and everything else.

    And, of course, if the people coming over the Mexican border were mostly like the people who died defending the Alamo (and some Hispanics did deny defending it – what matters is beliefs not “race”) rather than the Social Justice fans that most of them are…..

    Well then Thomas would do a back flip – then (quite suddenly) idea of “free migration” would be forgotten – and these “strike breaking tools of the Koch brothers” (as he would most likely describe them) would then have to be kept out – by any means necessary.

    • —–
      The idea that Thomas just opposes state immigration polices is mistaken.

      For example, if a rancher tried to keep intruders off his ranch (because they robbed and caused damage, which they do, or just because the rancher disliked them) Thomas would promptly say that the ranch (or farm – or whatever) was not “justly acquired” property.


  22. “You are speculating Paul” – not really, as I have history to check. When the situation was different the position was different.

    Back before the Welfare State “defenders of the workers” and “enemies of capitalism” (people like Kevin – and Thomas is a self confessed fan of Kevin were ardently in favour of state immigration controls (even though, as “wavers of the Black Flag” they officially did not believe “the state” should exist at all). It is easy to rename the State “the people” and then have this “the people” do what you want it to do – this is what the phony “anarchists” (the “wavers of the black flag”) in fact do

    There is also the historical example of France, 19th century France……

    “Wavers of the Black Flag” pretend that they just hate big landowners and “corporations”.

    It is not true – it is just a lie to cover their envy of those better off than themselves (and their desire to steal and to murder). The example of 19th century France shows this clearly.

    Big landowners were of no great importance in 19t century France (the vast majority of farmers owned their own farms – indeed most land was owned by famers even before the Revolution of 1789, if we are talking about 1889 it is absurd to talk of the “power of the great land owners” or other such nonsense). Nor were “corporations” of great importance in 19th century France – most factories and other such were owned by individuals or by families

    So the “wavers of the Black Flag” either did not exist or were happy?

    Not at all – there were lots of Black Flag “anarchists” (they were very strong in 19th century France) and they were very unhappy – shooting pistols and planting bombs unhappy.

    And, no, it was not the things that upset French Liberals (who were real Liberals – opposed to government taxes on imports and subsidies) that really angered them.

    It was (just as it is now) the very existence of people richer than themselves that angered them – their position was, in fact. based upon envy (although they were careful to pretend that it was some “injustice” that they objected to).

    It is not different today.

    Mention Charles or David Koch to some “waver of the Black Flag” – and look at their face as you say the names. You will see exactly the same look of hatred you would say on the face of a “waver of the Red Flag”

    That is why I have always (and rightly) said, that in the end, the only logical relationship between us and “wavers of the Black Flag” is exactly the same relationship that exists between us and “wavers of the Red Flag”.

    Kill or be killed. For they will not leave us alone – if we have property then it will (somehow) be “not justly acquired property” (and they will be as creative as they need to be to declare it “hot justly acquired”) and if we have no property – that will not save us either (not if we get in the way of the “social justice” of “the people”).

    Remember “Henchmen of the Kulaks” – that covered people who were poor (often dirt poor) who objected to their richer people in their area (the so called “kulaks” – from the Russian for “grasping fist”, their wealth not being “justly acquired you see…. ) being robbed and murdered. They could not be called Kulaks (because they did not have anything) – so they were declared “Henchmen of the Kulaks” and murdered as well.

    “Wavers of the Black Flag” can be just as creative as the “wavers of he Red Flag” – if they do not call us “Henchmen of the Kulaks ” it will be “tools of the Koch brothers” or whatever. They are flexible – they will find some justification.

  23. Thomas it is too late for you to cry “liar” now – remember you have already confessed (on the this very thread) you have already announced yourself a “fan” (a supporter) of Kevin – indeed a “colleague” of his working for the same side.. And Kevin’s position is quite clear – whether in “Contract Feudalism” (some seven years ago now) or in many other works.

    Do we really have to go through all the stuff again, the attack on paid employment as “oontract feudalism” (if I used the word “feudalism” it might not have a negative sense – but it is quite clear that Kevin uses it as a smear term), the support fort the “Occupy” movement (that alliance of Marxists and so called “anarchists” with some a lot of anti-Semitic types thrown in), the support for the “Social Justice” demands of the savage mobs of Egypt (free bread and all the rest of the infantile leftism) and the general “Social Justice” movement – even the collectivist thugs of the Teacher Unions.

    So it is too late (much too late) for you to pretend that you are in favour of large scale private property now – you would do the same thing that Kevin (of whom you are a “fan” and a “colleague”) does – you would do the “justly acquired” tap dance. After all in one of his most recent posts here Kevin came out as a complete and total collectivist….

    Supposedly the “invisible hand” would lead to people (not just a few monks and nuns and so on – but the general population) living in communities where all aspects of like (education, healthcare, everything) would come from a single source – no aspect of life would be outside this collectivism.

    Kevin has long specialised in using free market language (such as “”invisible hand” ) and even out-of-context quotes from free market writers to push collectivism (the opposite of what people such as Ludwig Von Mises wanted – indeed what they spent their lives fighting against).

    And now you are pretending that you would support Big John Cannon (or John Chisholm in real life) having his employees kick people off his ranch. Pull the other one Thomas – it has got bells on. We both know that Kevin would do the “it is not justly acquired” tap dance – and you have “outed” yourself as a supporter of his.

  24. J.R.R. Tolkien (so he told his son Christopher) could not make up his mind between monarchy and anarchism (Parliamentary government had no charm for him – partly because “the law” to an ever changing product of a legislation factory of politicians).

    Tolkien understood that Kings are human beings – and thus vulnerable to desire for power. That a monarch who just “lived off his own” (like big farmer Thrain Took in the Shire) and led the people in time of crises, was unlikely to stay that way.

    So why not anarchism?

    Tolkien explained to his son that he did not wish to be confused with the European “anarchists” – with their shootings and bombings and their pretence that anyone who had large scale property was someone committing an “injustice”. He did not want to be confused with the wavers-of-the-Black-Flag.

    I have already pointed out that when an “anarchist” pretends to just hate big landowners and corporations (not that even hatred of big land owners with lots of tenants or big corporations with lots of employees is justified) they are “liars” (to use the word Thomas uses).

    This is clear from the history of 19th century France – where neither big landowners or corporations were of great importance, yet “wavers of the Black Flag” (and Thomas has announced that he is a “waver of the Black Flag”) continued their terrorism – motivated by hatred of anyone who had large scale property, and by a lust to steal.

    One must also beware of “distinctions without a difference”.

    Modern academics (indeed some people at the time) attack Edmund Burke for not examining the vastly complicated picture of the various factions of the French Revolution. – of (some of the time) just lumping all the factions together.

    The reply of Edmund Burke was that if the factions supported the ideas of Rousseau (his hostility to large scale private associations outside the state, such as independent and propertied Churches, and his opposition to large scale private employment – for it was Rousseau who had pretended that private employment was somehow “slavery” whereas total control by the collective was “freedom”, ideas that he got from the early socialist the Abbe de M.) then the distinctions between factions were distinctions without a difference.

    As long as the major factions of the French Revolution were committed to robbery and murder – then he was not interested in their detailed differences (what they called themselves and so on).

    The same is true today – for example……..

    If Kevin (as he might well) denied being an “anarchist” – “I am not an anarchist I am a…… ” (whatever) a sensible reply would be as follows…..

    “Yes my dear, you call yourself all sorts of things, but what I want to know is what your attitude is to the wealth of Jon Huntsman Jr – oh I see you want to rob him of his company and kill him if he resists, well then Kevin [and “fan” Thomas] just put your head in this noose, there is a good chap”.

    • Mr. Marks,

      1) Being a fan/colleague of someone is not the same as slavishly agreeing with that person on every issue. Kevin and I disagree on plenty of things (for example, he’s a proponent of the Labor Theory of Value, where I’m a value subjectivist along Austrian lines; he seems to have largely adopted the Georgist position on property in land, while I’m not yet settled on the question; etc.).

      2) I’m a fan/colleague of the ACTUAL Kevin Carson, not the Kevin Carson of your psychotic fantasies.

      3) You have no standing to bitch and moan about “collectivists.” You’re the most thoroughgoing collectivist I’ve ever had the displeasure to “meet,” always prattling on about “the illegals” and “the Muslims” and so forth, treating large aggregates of very different individuals as if they were single, unitary hobgoblins (which, in the Marks universe, they probably are, of the Menckenesque variety).

      As far as you being a liar, I suppose there is the question of whether you were knowingly and intentionally false in this instance, or whether your statement was an indication of the extent/power of your dissociation from reality.

  25. The above should read Jon Huntsman, not John Huntsman Jr – I apologise for my error

    No doubt I will be denounced as a “liar” again – and Kevin (and “fan” Thomas) will be announced as a great defender of the Huntsman Chemical company, and of Charles and David Koch (and so on).

  26. Thomas you hanged yourself when you announced yourself as a “supporter” and “colleague” of Kevin.

    Nor will your lying about what Kevin stands for will do you no good – as Kevin has posted here many times and his (fanatical) collectivism is clear. Indeed it was clear seven years ago in Contract Feudalism – but it was made obvious in his recent posts here (defending collectivist movements around the world – and even claiming that the “invisible hand” would lead to the total and absolute collectivism he craves).

    Why do you think I did not comment on his invisible-hand-will-lead-to-collectivism post? I did not comment because he had hanged himself – which saved me the trouble of hanging him.

    As for you Thomas – your defence of Kevin is one big lie (in short it is you that is the liar) and you are a collectivist who chooses not to use the word State (you would prefer the words “the people” or other such).

    If I am lying then tell us all how much you support John Huntsman and the Huntsman Chemical Company, and how you would die to defend the property (no tap dance about “justly acquired”) of Charles and David Koch.

    As for me – I have worked with immigrants all my life.

    I make a distinction between those who wish to “violate the rights of others” and those who do not

    Those who do not I have no problem with – those who (for example) show me (with approval) the film of a Westerner getting his head cut off (as a Muslim guard did) – I do have a problem with.

    I have the same problem with you.

    • —–
      you are a collectivist who chooses not to use the word State (you would prefer the words “the people” or other such).

      We don’t have to argue about what I “would do” because there are reasonably public records of what I “have done.” And those public records demonstrate conclusively that you’re either lying about me or have me mixed up with one of the fantastic hobgoblins in your head.

      I can’t force you to get help for your psychoses and/or dishonesties, but I’m not required to pretend they’re not psychoses and/or dishonesties.

  27. There is indeed a record of what you have done Thomas.

    You have announced that you are a fan of the fanatical collectivist Kevin – and have repeatedly defended him in a wildly dishonest way.

    I have given you an opportunity (repeatedly) to show what a good defender of private property you are – and you have dodged each time.

    Go on – say how you support Jon Huntsman and the Huntsman chemical company and how you would die to defend the property (no tap dancing about “just acquired”) of Charles and David Koch.

    We both know you would fail a polygraph if you said those things – because you are guilty (you let the cat out of the bag some time ago now).

    As for me – I have no problem with immigrants who do not wish to VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS (on yes – those cap lock things again).

    You support those who do want to violate the rights of others – because you see them as Ice Breakers to help destroy what is left of the West – in order to build your collectivist utopia on the ashes.

    How do I know you are a “waver of the Black Flag” – i.e. a collectivist “anarchist”.

    Because you told me so Thomas – you told me so.

    • “There is indeed a record of what you have done Thomas.”

      Yep. Consult it, or stop pretending to know what’s in it.

      I know nothing about Jon Huntsman except that he ran for president a couple of years ago.

      I’ve always been fairly agnostic about the Kochs. I was indirectly on the “Kochtopus” payroll some years back (as managing editor of Free-MarketNet and the Henry Hazlitt Institute, which partnered with a number of Koch-funded organizations). I’m surprised that you’d pick them as putative allies after bemoaning the alleged cultural Marxist/”bleeding heart” bent of the publications and institutions they fund, e.g. Reason and Cato.

      “Because you told me so Thomas – you told me so.”

      I’ve told you a number of things. The next one you actually listen to, understand and choose not to lie about will be the first.

  28. Thomas who told me you were a foe of “capitalism” – you did.

    Who told me you were a “waver of the Black Flag” – you did.

    Not part of the anarcho capitalist tradition – but part of the collectivist “Black Flag” (anti capitalist) tradition – you were the one who let me know this (and I did not use any thumb screws on you – you confessed freely, a classic case of the “urge to confess”)

    And who told me you were a “fan” of Kevin (some of whose posts here – indeed whose article as far back as seven years ago, show him to be a fanatical collectivist) again – you did.

    You may not use Kevin’s tricks yourself (such as using free market language such as using the term “invisible hand” for collectivism – or citing Mises and co in support of stuff they spent their lives fighting), but you are a “fan” of his – and it is not his dress sense you are talking about, it is his political stuff.

    Every step of the way what I have said has been based on your own confessions

    So if anyone is “lying” here – it is you.

    • “Thomas who told me you were a foe of ‘capitalism’ – you did.”


      Because I am not a Marxist, I don’t condone a state-regulated, “mixed” industrial economy that fits into Marx’s theory of history as the stage of socialism following mercantilism and preceding the dictatorship of the proletariat. That’s what capitalism is and always has been.

      Because I am not an economic sleight-of-hander, I don’t buy into the attempts of various Misesians, Objectivists, etc. to re-define the word to mean “free markets” in popular parlance, while leaving intact its essential statist and collectivist characteristics in the details.

      “Who told me you were a ‘waver of the Black Flag’ – you did.”

      Fuckin’ A Skippy!

      “Not part of the anarcho capitalist tradition – but part of the collectivist”

      Bzzt. Nice try. I actually came up by way of Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, et. al, and after a long and tortuous process decided I had to reject the contradictions in their attempts to hide or ignore the statist/collectivist pill in their individualist/laissez faire biscuits.

      All of which you’d know if you could be bothered to actually do your research instead of just relying on the fever swamp of your imagination for your “facts.”

      You’ve already had my statement about the Kochs, and my note that I don’t know Jon Hunstman from Adam. You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.

  29. By the way I am still waiting for your statement of support for Jon Huntsman and the Huntsman Chemical Company, and the property rights (no jazz about “justly acquired” – the classic Kevin trick) of Charles and David Koch.

    But, somehow, I think I will be waiting a long time.

  30. Well “agnostic” is better than expected (although, yet again, the comments are in the wrong order).

    What I want to know is whether you will defend the property of people (big or small – and no Kevin tricks) against people like Kevin.

    If the answer is “yes” – it is hard to see how you can be a “waver of the Black Flag” (your words) as the Black Flag tradition has been anti (fanatically anti) private property in the means of production, distribution and exchange.

    It was not Tolkien who visualised the typical Black Flag “anarchist” as someone planting a bomb, or shooting someone – because they (the “anarchist”) was filled with hatred for anyone better off than themselves. That is just what Black Flag “anarchists” were like – their terrorism was well known in both Europe and the United States.

    By the way thanks for the “correct” when I said you were a “foe of capitalism”.

    Previously you had said you were “not a capitalist” – which might not have been interpreted as a “foe of capitalism” – you have now given me what I wanted.

    Another confession.

    • “What I want to know is whether you will defend the property of people (big or small – and no Kevin tricks) against people like Kevin.”

      I defend the property of all people.

      Property doesn’t have to be defended against Kevin. He’s about as propertarian as it gets. He just differs from you — mostly correctly, in my view — as to what constitutes property and what is stolen.

      “If the answer is ‘yes’ – it is hard to see how you can be a “waver of the Black Flag” (your words) as the Black Flag tradition has been anti (fanatically anti) private property in the means of production, distribution and exchange.”

      Your ignorance of history seems to be nearly as deep and dark as your ignorance of Carson.

      Of course, ignorance as such is not a vice. Preserving it against knowledge, and flaunting it, however, are.

  31. By the way Black Flag “anarchists” are exactly the sort of people who should be kept out of an area.

    If not by the state (and the state tends to be useless) then by private action.

    The active cooperation between Black Flag people and Red Flag (Marxist) people in everything from “Occupy” movement to the Teacher Unions, is exactly what should be expected.

  32. My “ignorance of history” Thomas?

    Such as the campaign of terrorism by the (Black Flag) anarchist movement in the United States?

    I am not ignorant of it – and neither are you (you just dishonestly pretend to be ignorant of it Thomas).

    For example, the letter bombs that were sent that blew off the faces of those who opened the letters (people who were innocent of any crime).

    Or the security guard (an Italian immigrant) who was shot dead whilst on his knees begging for his life.

    And what motivated the 20th century (not just 19th century) campaign of anarchist (Black Flag) terrorism? It was motivated by hatred for anyone who had more property than the anarchists did – and hatred for anyone (no matter how poor) who worked for these people (as servants, security guards – whatever) or even just happened to be standing near them.

    That is the “Black Flag” history (tradition) Thomas – and you know it is. It is not so much a political philosophy as a form of rabies – “Black Flag” anarchists are essentially rabid dogs.

    Accept that rabid dogs have no choice of their actions – whereas “Black Flag” anarchists choose to let their ENVY of anyone with more property of them, dominate their conduct.

    This is why people who oppose the existence of government should be careful to call themselves “anacho capitalists” and make it clear that they oppose the Black Flag (which, like the Red Flag, is a banner of evil).

    By they way – an anarcho capitalist can be a “free migration” person and many of them are (although many others say that whilst the Welfare State exists…….).

    How do I know that you are not anarcho capitalist Thomas?

    Because you told me you were not.

    How do I know you are an anarchist Thomas?

    Because you told me were.

    How do I know you are a “waver of the Black Flag” Thomas?

    Because you told me you were.

    How do I know you are a “enemy of capitalism” a person motivated by envy of those who have more than you?

    Again you told me you were an enemy of capitalism.

    Each step of the way I would not have known – had you not told me.

    You choose to identify with the “Black Flag” tradition.

    The tradition of theft and murder – motivated by envy.

    • “How do I know you are … a person motivated by envy of those who have more than you?”

      You don’t.

      And by the way, the IRS/income tax was ratified by a Congress in which both houses were majority Republican, and by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, almost all of which were Republican, under a “conservative” president (Taft). It only came into force around the time of “progressive” Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration, but it was created by conservatives.

  33. As for immigration – in the real world (not a world of anarcho capitalism that does not exist).

    In the United Kingdom people come in to the country and sign on for benefits – before they have worked a day.

    They also use the NHS – before they have worked a day.

    “But under anarcho capitalism such things would not exist” – then come back to me when (and if) anarcho capitalism is established – and we will discuss the matter then. Although there is still the matter of evil cults (such as the Islamists – or the followers of the Red Flag or the followers of the Black Flag) – if the state does not exist, private ways will have to be developed to defend against such people

    In the United States 48 million Dollars was delivered in IRS “tax credits” to single address in Atlanta Georgia – to nonlegal (as Thomas objects to the term “illegal”) residents.

    Come into the United States and get yourself tax number (no proof of legal residence is required) and the tax credits of the IRS are open to you.

    The same IRS that persecutes conservative groups (in every way it can think of) and is in charge of Obamacare.

    The IRS was not just established by the Progressive Movement (in 1913 as part of their campaign against “the rich” and “big business” – the Corporation Tax being established in 1909) it is now an active part of the Progressive movement.

  34. By the way……..

    Many billions are paid in “tax credits” to people in the United States who do not pay income tax.

    And it is the same in Britain.

    Milton Friedman lived to regret his “Negative Income Tax” idea – he (Milton Friedman) viewed it as alternative to existing benefits. As he should have guessed – it was thought of by politicians (starting with Richard Price Controls Nixon) as something to ADD TO the Welfare State.

    What people such as Gordon Brown would do with the “tax credits” idea should have been obvious to anyone.

  35. And for the record, I not only oppose the income tax, I oppose all “social welfare” and “social engineering” benefits (tax credits and other tricks to reward constituencies like “the poor” or to “nudge” certain behaviors) that are built into it.

  36. Thomas – as you know many Republicans were Progressives. T. Roosevelt (even before his Bull Moose days) said (and did) many things against Big Business (and so on) that would make Kevin stand up and shout for joy.

    As I have mentioned before (often before) T. Roosevelt had the same mentor as Woodrow Wilson – Richard Ely.

    And whose picture did Richard Price Controls Nixon have on his bedroom wall as a kid? T. Roosevelt.

    Even W. H. Taft considered himself a progressive – and (judging by his policies) he was one.

    As for you.

    Reject the Black Flag – reject that tradition of anarchism.

    You can oppose the existence of the state and have your Free Migration (if you want) – without it.

    By the way a point against myself.

    I have some sympathy for a certain family of Progressives – a famous one in Wisconsin.

    Anyone willing to stand against that scumbag Richard Ely deserves some regard – not withstanding their economic opinions.

    I might have supported the war they opposed (at least after the German-Mexican offer was made clear), but the policies that Woodrow Wilson pushed (for example pushing such hatred of Germans, via his “three minute hate men” and so on, that people were murdered just for speaking German – the language that Wilson’s mentor Ely had been educated in) were vile.

    Some Progressives at least stood for Civil Liberties (against other Progressives) and they deserve praise for that.

    • Paul,

      There is no tradition of anarchism other than the black flag — which does have some bad moments in its history.

      Even the anarcho-capitalists use a black and gold flag, and unlike some left market anarchists, I do consider them “real” anarchists and libertarians, just in error (at some point they have to choose between free markets and capitalism, since the two cannot co-exist).

  37. Thomas your last line confirms you as a Kevinite,

    The idea that it is not “free market” for some people to own large amounts of capital and employ thousands of people, is false.

    And the tradition of the Black Flag does not “have some black spots” – it is a banner of theft and murder motivated by envy.

    • “The idea that it is not ‘free market’ for some people to own large amounts of capital and employ thousands of people, is false.”

      I agree 100%.

      However, the idea that it is a “free market” for the state to socialize risks, privatize profits, seize capital and compel labor on behalf of a privileged class — the system known as “capitalism,” both in theory and as it hals always, in every case, existed, in other words — is equally false.

      I do not propose to seize existing large bundles of capital from their putative owners on some impossible to calculate claim of what and was not “justly acquired.” [1] I see such dispossession of capital as neither necessary nor desirable.

      Rather, I propose that the state stop subsidizing the owners of large bundles of capital and protecting them from market competition, in which case I predict that the outcome will be somewhat like Ayn Rand’s assessment of inheritance — that is, those who are actually capable of operating, and willing to operate, in a free market will likely continue to do well, while those who can only succeed by virtue of state-enabled parasitism will watch their fortunes dwindle and disappear once they are no longer propped up by the political class in their war against the market.

      Of course, the only way to get the state/political class to stop doing those things is to abolish the state and leave the political class without an instrument.

      I don’t predict who would come out how under such a scenario. Maybe Wal-Mart would have become a $200 billion company even without the US and state governments spending $425 billion + maintenance on the Interstate highway system that makes its distribution model feasible, subsidizing its employees’ health care to reduce its labor costs, etc. And maybe Wal-Mart will do OK if those subsidies get yanked. Or it might slide into ruin when it has to compete without its subsidies. My toes are tapping either way.

      My own predictions tend to be more conservative than Kevin’s. For example, while we both agree that there would probably be a reduced incidence of wage labor in a free market (since the state would not be doing its damnedest to force people into such labor, and since personal wealth would increase by the amounts no longer taxed, etc.), Kevin seems to think that wage labor would become a lot less prevalent than I do (I think a lot of people see a GOOD side, especially vis a vis risk, to commodifying their labor for a wage from an employer with enough of a capital cushion to ride out rough times).

      But Kevin and I, while we may disagree in our predictions, both agree that we want to see a free market rather than a state-regulated, “mixed” industrial economy that serves and is served by the political class, aka “capitalism.”

      [1] One exception to that — not because I prefer it that way, but because it can be no other way — is “intellectual property,” a fraudulent concept which is going the way of the dodo already even WITH state crutches, and couldn’t survive half an hour without those crutches. But I don’t think that way because I’m jealous of the large piles of magically-state-created “capital” involved. I think that way because it’s fairly obvious that “intellectual property” is not and cannot be property.

  38. Thomas your comment was really in two parts – I think that (on reflection) you may regret writing the first part of it, but you did write it. So I will reply to it – before getting on to the (much better) second half of your comment.

    Thomas the start of your last comment (about classical capitalism being about the state compelling labour to a privileged class, socialising losses and on and on………) had about as much in common with real manufacturers and so on (whether in the 18th,19th, 20th centuries – or even in these degenerate days) as National Socialist propaganda about Jews has in common with real Jews. And the comparison is not an unfair one – after all Karl Marx’s attacks on capitalists were taken (sometimes word for word, as Paul Johnson points out) from Martin Luther’s attacks on the Jews (the Nazi propagandists just returned the favour by directing the words back to their original target).

    There may, from time to time, be occasions at which reality has points in common with the propaganda (Jews, like other men, can be greedy – businessmen, of all ethnic groups, can seek subsidies from the state), but the general thrust is false. The success of men such as Mr Wedgewood and other creators of the industrial revolution was earned, just as the relative success (which was actually far less than the National Socialist propagandists claimed) of the Jews in the professions in pre war Germany (and other lands) was earned.

    So the general thrust of the attack is false.

    And, I believe, that you know it is false – just as the National Socialist propagandists did (anti Semitism may be the “socialism of fools”, but that does not mean the creators of the propaganda were foolish – they knew what they wrote was false, even if idiots like Franklin Roosevelt [who privately quoted Nazi propaganda as fact – and I wish the voters of New York City could have heard him do it] did not).

    Second part of your comment…….

    You then (thankfully) moderate your comment by admitting that even under a free market (and the past, although not the present, was not so far away from one – although the world has never been a perfect place) might not produce a radically different picture of society as others suppose.

    General standards would be higher, and different individuals might come out on top of the “rich lists” (hard to see how, for example, Mr Buffett, whose life has been so much about his political contacts could have prospered quite so well where political contacts were of radically less importance).

    But large enterprises employing many thousands of people (both in manufacturing and in the distribution and retail trades) would still exist – and some people would still be vastly richer than other people.

    “Even if everyone had a private sail boat – not everyone would have a private space ship”.

    Also much wealth would still be “undeserved” – the result of “accident of birth”.

    Being born rich is a big advantage in life – and it is logical that it should be.

    For example when the Mr C. V. junior was told (by arch flatterers) that….

    “You have made just as much money as your father did – and you are so much nicer a man”.

    His reply “I suspect making the first hundred million Dollars was rather more difficult than making the second hundred million Dollars” was crushing.

    Most “anarchists” (most “wavers of the Black Flag”) would have felt a great desire to rob and murder the second Mr C.V. – believing (quite correctly) that he was just a fairly average person who happened to have been born the richest man in the United States (and had “doubled his money” without vast effort).

    Indeed the wild (and wildly wrong) propaganda that such “anarchists” historically wrote was designed to justify the robbing and murdering – there is no point in writing the propaganda if one does not intend to do the robbing and murdering it is designed to justify.

    On the other hand Thomas you do not seem to feel any hatred for the good fortune of such people.

    I do not feel any reason to hate them either – no reason to either rob or murder them.

    That is why I do not describe myself as a “waver of the Black Flag”.

    And neither should you.

  39. To give a couple of practical examples……..

    Thomas you know perfectly well that the Teacher Union people (for example the Chicago Teacher Union) are not in favour of creating a free market.

    Yet such people can be found waving Black Flags as well as Red ones – and (Black Flag)anarchist groups proudly announce their support for them.

    Nor are the “Occupy” thugs of Oakland California or of New York City (who oddly march right past the home of Mr Soros without shouting a word – to go right across town to scream abuse outside the home of Mr David Koch) interested in creating a free market.

    So what is the point of repeating the “anti capitalist” propaganda of such people – there is no point. It is a mistake.

    • Paul,

      I admittedly have not read Marx in his entirety, and what I have read has been in English translation rather than in the original German, but my impression is not that he “attacked” capitalism per se. In fact, he considered capitalism a vital and important stage in his theory of history, it being the stage between mercantilism and revolutionary socialism. I don’t agree with his theory of history.

      The difference between his “attacks” on capitalism and Hitler’s attacks on the Jews is that Marx, for all practical purposes, was the popular definer of capitalism as an economic construct, making his statements on it damn near tautologies; while Hitler had no such relationship with Judaism or Jewry, making his statements on them merely libels.

      I find it odd that after claiming a resemblance between the two, you would so instantly resort to the latter types of statements re: Occupy/Soros/Koch. Do you think they had lice and spread typhus, too?

  40. Thomas.

    The comparison between the words of Karl Marx and Martin Luther is from Paul Johnson’s “History of the Jews”, as is the quotation of the absurd (totally false) statistics that Franklin Roosevelt used to justify his belief that the Jews dominated Germany before the coming to power of the National Socialists.

    However, I forget to mention the context – which was Franklin Roosevelt’s rejection of the idea of Winston Churchill that action should be taken to try and disrupt the extermination camps.

    As I said – if only people could have heard what Franklin Roosevelt was really like (although there is, I know, the alleged brain tumour defence).

    As for your own comments about businessmen (or “capitalists” such as Mr Wedgewood) being provided with slaves by the state (and so on – and on…..):

    The early part of your comment was silly – and you know it was.

    By the way I strongly suspect that the hatred that George Whitfield had for Mr Wedgewood (those endless sermons attacking the evil luxury of buying Wedgewood china and so on) were connected with Wedgewood’s opposition to slavery (want a piece of Wedgewood china for free – then ask him to send you one of his special anti slavery pieces, the china would arrive but the bill would not) and George Whitfield supported the establishment of slavery in Georgia.

    The founder of the Georgia colony had clearly stated (in the deeds) that slavery was not to be allowed – so legal trickery was used to overturn his wishes. And George Whitfield was involved in it.

    After all – what did slavery matter? Predestination (in which he ardently believed) makes us all slaves……

    I once explainedl the above to a (then) Fox News employee (via e.mail) – he accepted my points (I can not deny that), but I do not think he was very happy about being told the truth about G.W.