Just an interesting set of discussion questions I think:
I know that Rothbard did some "reach-out" activities with the anarcho-communists back in the 60s, and I was wondering if anyone has done similar work with the "alternative right" (basically the denizens of counter currents, amren, stormfront, alternative right.com, etc.)?
Do you think they are less receptive to our message, for ideological/specualtive reasons or practical ones?
Do you think that there will ever be a need or a time for the far left and right to join together with us or is that already being done via the ron paul movement?
I think it's an interesting discussion as well.
I think this is what Hoppe has been attempting to do with his writing on cultural conservatism, European heritage and the restriction of immigration via property rights. Whether these are his sincerely held views, I don't know. Certainly any fusion of libertarians and far-rightists hinges on questions of nationalism, borders, multiculturalism, etc. None of which are especially decided within the libertarian community. I don't think it's necessary that, to gain this bloc, libertarians become racialists. I think the clearer and safer direction to gaining the bloc would be a focus on traditions, oppposition of multiculturalist legislation, and a restricted immigration policy. That's basically what Pat Buchanan does and he's got the Far-Right crowd behind him solidly.
There are significant risks and profits to be made, from an analytic standpoint:
Risks:
- Libertarianism is forevermore associated with racism, fascism and nationalism. To some it already is. Becomes an under-ground and publicly inappropriate movement. Rothbard is already on record for politically incorrect stuff, as is Ron Paul. Remember how inflammatory that was?
-Acquisition of militant-minded supporters who may act rashly and jeopardize their own situation. Racist groups have already been known to be infiltrated by the FBI.
Profits:
- Libertarianism 'corners the market' on 'the right'. Nationalists and Capitalists merging leaves only the centrist / neo-con establishment remaining, which the right has only really ever supported pragmatically.
-Acquisition of militant-minded supporters.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I don't think there's any use in allying ourselves with those types of people. The younger GOP is already more receptive to the libertarian message. We just need to actually start working hard on pushing ourselves into the discussion. We need libertarians to be going to Republican conventions and spreading anti-corporatism.
^That
I was under the impression that Rothbard already did stuff with those sorts of groups too. Frankly I think that having our message associated any more with racism than it already is is a very bad idea.
^Yerp.
I'm a College Republican and the other week at our weekly meetings I mentioned Rothbard. The only kid who knew anything about Rothbard said, "He was a racist! That whole strategy of reaching out to neo-Confederates that Ron Paul used with the newsletters, that was Rothbard's idea!" I was talking economics, so the conversation turned quickly away from racism.
In case you're interested, I was explaining Bush 43's ignorance of the housing bubble and the basics of the Fed's current policies under (Bush-appointed!) Bernanke.
So yes, College Republicans/Republicans and even Democrats = good. Groups associated with racism and other balogna = bad.