Economics, Libertarianism, and the Alt Right

"We need our own nation before we can even have a conversation about libertarianism or economics."

I hear this a lot on the Alt Right and I think it's a cop-out that people use when they want to criticize libertarian theory or free market economics without giving anyone a chance to respond. In fact, I know it's a cop-out. None of the people who say it ever shy away from pointing out how immigration stagnates wages or how white people should have the right to be left alone in their own countries.

Why am I pointing this out? Why does it matter? Because hypocrisy and contradictions dilute otherwise valid arguments for white nationalism, rendering them ineffective.

The most important and time-sensitive issue we're dealing with is immigration. You can't even have a conversation about it without dealing with libertarian ideology or economic theory because both of these things have been perverted by the left in order to justify unrestricted mass migration. Unfortunately, their arguments have been effective on the white majority. We still have a lot of work to do to get the Overton window back on our side of the political spectrum.

However, the good news is that the left's arguments aren't even really rooted in libertarian theory or free market economics, let alone reality. We should stop giving concessions to them by claiming otherwise. Instead, we should advance the following points:

• Access to white people isn't a human right.

• The entire concept of having our own nation and culture is predicated on the libertarian idea that we have a right to freely associate with our own people and be left alone by everyone else.

• The short-term economic advantages of mass immigration are artificially created and wildly exaggerated by the government through the manipulation of exchange rates; the long-term costs deprive our children of their culture and wealth.

• "Free movement" requires the prohibition of both exclusion and the production of defense against invasion. As such, it is really just a euphemism for unrestricted trespass.

• Exploiting government-created arbitrage opportunities by socializing the costs of importing migrants isn't consistent with libertarian theory or free market economics.

• People aren't economic goods, which means that free market economics don't apply to immigration. When the left insists otherwise, they're pulling a bait and switch. For example, you don't have to share a neighborhood with the Chinese in order to purchase Chinese goods at Walmart. They're just being obtuse and stupid.

If you want to say that we shouldn't have to make these arguments, I'd understand and even agree with you. The burden of proof should be on the people who want to trespass against our people and sabotage our countries from within. What it comes down to though is that the none of what's happening politically would be possible without the compliance of white people, and the left has the compliance of white people because white people have been shamed and guilted into believing that the left has the moral and intellectual high ground.

If we want other white people to side with us against the left, we're going to have to convince them that we have the high ground because, unfortunately, white people have been gaslit into believing that defense of their heritage and nations is an immoral and costly act of aggression. The only other options are to physically separate and remove those who can't be persuaded, or secede.

Now, there are some valid points in the Alt Right's criticism of libertarianism and free markets. People can't reliably reciprocate libertarian property norms when they don't have high social trust, and you don't have high social trust when you have a multicultural society where no one can understand or relate to each other. That's just a fact. Further, you can't uphold libertarian property norms by extending them to people who explicitly reject them.

Accordingly, we do not owe non-aggression to people who demonstrate their rejection of private property norms by coming here without permission or espousing communism. Their presence in our communities is even more of an economic bad than taxation or the state's monopoly on territorial violence and banking because they destroy our culture and reliably vote for government expansion. There is no libertarian or economic argument against using the state to deport them because libertarian principles don't apply to invaders and nothing is more economically destructive than the presence of communists.

If it's true that libertarian ethics and free markets require the type of high trust you find in white communities, we don't have to wait to have these conversations with white people. In fact, the longer we wait to have these conversations, the more ground the left is going to gain on us.