Despite incredible advances in knowledge and technology over the past few decades, living standards have actually declined (also see here and here). [edit Aug 2010: In retrospect this statement was too strong, living standards are certainly higher today. It would be more accurate to say that the rate of increase has fallen.] Taken alone, this makes no sense—comparable advances in the past, such as the industrial revolution, have sparked enormous increases in prosperity. On top of falling living standards, civilization is crumbling: war, poverty, crime, debt, disease, social dysfunction, family breakdown, hedonism, etc. Why are so many things going wrong, despite unparalleled advances in knowledge and technology? This is the great unanswered question of our time. Keep reading...
Introduction
Democracy is universally held up as the sacred political ideal. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that democracy is a secular religion. Observe: We fight wars for it (“Making the world safe for democracy”). We are implored to blindly participate in it (“It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote”). And most tellingly, it is taboo to question it. Anyone who claims that democracy is bad is likely to be labeled a Nazi. (Even though Hitler was democratically elected and much of Nazism was promoted with democratic rhetoric.)
Nevertheless, I will attempt to prove that democracy is one of the worst political ideologies, on par with dictatorship and communism. My argument is three pronged. First, democracy is founded on initiatory violence. It is thus no more acceptable than murder or rape. Second, it can be refuted by a reductio ad absurdum; namely, that while we accept democracy for government, we would never accept it applied consistently in our lives. Third, democracy is unnecessary. What is there to vote on? All essential functions of society can be provided voluntarily and competitively on the market. Programs like the minimum wage and rent control are actually counter-productive, and can be eliminated altogether. There are many other problems with democracy: its ineffectiveness, its corruption, its total war, and its decivilization effect; but I will not address these here (see Hoppe). Last, I will address two strategies to undermine and weaken democracy: not voting and secession. Keep reading...
The first obvious strategy for anarchists is education: we need to teach people that government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn’t work. But how do we achieve this? Do we convert the masses or the intellectuals? Do we emphasize morality or practicality?
Hans Hoppe has provided the answer to such questions with his strategy of “Anti-intellectual Intellectualism”. Following Boétie’s insight that governments derive their power and legitimacy from public opinion, we must recognize that it is the intellectuals who shape this public opinion. Accordingly, Hoppe calls for “anti-intellectual intellectuals” to take up the task of combating the state intellectuals, and ultimately delegitimizing, and hence destroying, the State. The two main branches of this strategy are (1) rooting one’s arguments in morality, and not mere utilitarianism, while (2) circumventing academia and reaching out to the general public. Thus, Hoppe writes, “states, as powerful and invincible as they might seem, ultimately owe their existence to ideas and, since ideas can in principle change instantaneously, states can be brought down and crumble practically overnight.” Keep reading...
This article is a sequel to my previous post “Root Causes and the Libertarian Immigration Debate”. Continuing the discussion on what strategy libertarians should follow with regards to immigration, I will argue that even if we accept the Hoppean argument for closed borders, the conclusion still violates libertarian principles.
Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty
In chapter thirty of his book “The Ethics of Liberty”, Rothbard laid down the groundwork of anarchist strategy. Basically, there are two principles libertarians must keep in mind when pursuing strategy. First, we must not violate the nonaggression principle. Second, we must be abolitionists, for advocating anything less than the immediate abolition of aggressive violence would mean the sanctioning of injustice. Keep reading...
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
- Henry David Thoreau
The libertarian immigration debate is alive and well.1 Although there is no debate over the immigration policy of a free society, there is considerable controversy over the proper immigration policy in our currently existing statist society. However, this debate has neglected to address the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and its solutions fail accordingly. This article will attempt to resolve the debate by addressing the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and by proposing solutions that address these root causes.
Before we can address the problem of immigration under statism, we must establish several premises. Keep reading...
