Darrell Castle: “I read Murray Rothbard’s stuff and I generally like it”

American Third Party Report: On August 29th, 2016, at 8 PM CST, Constitution Party presidential candidate Darrell Castle held his first live stream Q&A session with his supporters over Facebook. The livestream allowed supporters of Castle to ask questions directly in the comments underneath the live video.  The first question Castle answered was from this ATPR editor with regards to his ballot access situation in Tennessee. Castle said that he and his wife, Joan Weil Castle (who serves as his campaign manager) handled Tennessee ballot access for the Constitution Party for six straight election cycles, but this year they turned it over to volunteers and they unfortunately fell short in their efforts (by just 39 signatures -ed.). Castle said he’s sadder about this setback in home state than anyone else. His campaign will be working to secure official write-in status.

At the 21:53 minute mark of the 50 minute video archive of the live stream (uploaded to YouTube earlier today), Castle was asked about Murray Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism:

Murray Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism. Well, I’m a von Mises person, I believe in the free market, so I read Murray Rothbard’s stuff and I generally like it. 

At its peak moments, over 110 people were viewing the livestream. Below are some PARTIAL highlights of the livestream (all of them appear before the Rothbard question in the video).

The issue of theocracy was one of the first questions to be asked:

Well, I’m a Christian. I make no apologies for that, but we don’t call ourselves the Constitution Party for nothing. We understand what the first amendment says, and we believe that people have a right to religious freedom – to believe what they want to believe, and we would upload that as best we possibly could.

Castle was then asked about his stance on the constitutionality of the War on Drugs:

Well I’m against the War on Drugs. I don’t like it at all; I think that sometimes the federal government doesn’t want the competition but I’m in favor of stopping it, I think it does more harm than good.

The following question concerned Castle’s ballot status in Ohio. Castle replied that the Constitution Party submitted over 8,600 signatures in the Buckeye state, which has a requirement of 5,000; Castle said that the state counted only roughly 3,600 signatures as valid. The Memphis area attorney hopes to qualify for formal write-in status in the state.

Castle said he isn’t a Ted Cruz “birther” (a pejorative term used to describe those individuals questioning the Texas senator’s constitutional qualifications in regards to his failed presidential run) and that he also isn’t a “Bircher,” referring to the John Birch Society, whose leaders have spoken at various Constitution Party meetings in the past.

A few questions later, someone asked Castle if he was confident that he would be on enough state ballots to mathematically have a chance of winning the election (a total ballot access to 270 Electoral College votes). Castle replied that he believed his campaign would very likely not achieve enough success to meet that symbolic threshold for third party candidates.

When asked if he would want Ron Paul’s endorsement, Castle replied that he would very much like to have it.

Castle reiterated his opposition to mandatory vaccinations in  a response to a subsequent question and said,

“Right now, if I had a child, and my child is 32, so it’s not an issue, but if I had a child I would not have her vaccinated, and if they tried to forcefully vaccinate her, which actually happened when my daughter was younger, they told me she couldn’t go to college if she didn’t have a hepatitis vaccine, I said, ‘well, you’re gonna get sued,’ and that’s the last we heard of it. It didn’t happen.”

Castle then tackled a question regarding education:

“Can we get rid of the Department of Education and Common Core? Yes, absolutely. That’s a fundamental principle of mine. Education should be handled by states and local people, it takes a family to raise a child, not a government – that’s my view, so local folks can handle it themselves and there’d be no more videos appearing, hopefully, of the federal government teaching six-year old girls how to put on dildos and things like that. I heard of something like that just the other day and it’s horrible and needs to stop.

When asked about transgender bathrooms, the Constitution Party standard bearer replied:

Well, I don’t shop at Target anymore, that’s my thoughts. I don’t think that’s something the federal government needs to be involved in, certainly no orders from the White House to do it, it’s ridiculous and so forth.

A few questions later, Castle was asked why he is a better choice for libertarians than Gary Johnson:

Well, I’m a better choice if you’re pro-life. If you believe in secure borders and so forth…if you value those things then I might be your man.

When discussing Supreme Court appointments, Castle said he would love to appoint “his old friend” Herb Titus and consider him first, as well as the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore.

To an inquiry about how he would deal with ISIS, Castle replied:

Dealing with ISIS or any other terrorist group starts with a secure border in my opinion. If we’re going to let people walk across the border unimpeded, how can we say we’re fighting terrorism? As far as going abroad looking for monsters to slay – only if it’s absolutely necessary. But right now I don’t think it is.

Castle then said, regarding free trade:

No, I am not opposed to free trade. I like free trade. For example, the free trade deal that we have with Chile, were they ship us their fresh fruits and vegetables -it’s summer down there when it’s winter up here, so we have that kind of deal with them. They buy our Boeing aircraft and machine parts and things like that, so I’m all for that. I’m just opposed to free trade agreements for reasons that I have stated many times, they transfer authority over trade to international bureaucracies, not accountable to the American people, things like that. So I’m opposed to those things.

A bit later, Castle was asked if he planned to organize a third party debate; he replied:

Well, if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein wanted to debate me, I’m all in, but I don’t want to debate the other people necessarily, without them. So I’m happy to do that if they’re ready.

Castle was eventually asked who his favorite president was. He answered:

Well, probably you disagree with me about that, but I like to say who is my  favorite president post World War II, and that would be John Kennedy because he tried to dismantle the CIA, he tried to do something about the Federal Reserve, he tried to bring troops home from Vietnam. I know the other things he was, but those things are meaningful to me.

Castle then answered a rather humorous question:

Getting a fake ID so you can vote for me twice? No, don’t do that. That would make you a Democrat.

Castle was asked about Virginia’s ballot access situation. Castle said that it wasn’t likely that he would make the state’s ballot, and that an effort to get official write-in status would begin. ATPR: Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party’s 2012 nominee, is from Virginia and was on the ballot that year; in fact, he received his highest percentage of the vote county-wise in Franklin County (2.58%), which was part of his former congressional district that he represented for twelve years. 

Castle was asked at a later point if he sings; he replied:

Well, I’m told if I get a couple of drinks in me, I do a pretty good Elvis, but other than that, no.

Castle was asked about how well he knew Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North:

You know, we weren’t friends, I served under him, and that doesn’t make you friends, but I respected him a great deal as an officer at the time.

A question about marijuana was asked of Castle:

What’s my personal stance on marijuana decriminalization? I’m in favor of it. I think it should be decriminalized, I just don’t see sending people to prison for possessing that substance – it’s a liberty issue, it’s a moral issue to me.

Regarding the FairTax, Castle said:

No, I don’t support the FairTax. I have my own tax program, and I certainly think the tax program is better than what we have now, and I think it would be better than the flat tax because the flat tax admits that the government has a right to take our income, and I certainly reject that.

Theocracy came up again:

Well, I already talked about theocracy, we’re not a theocracy, I’m not a theocracy, I believe in the Constitution and in the First Amendment and I believe people have a right to practice their own faith, or no faith if that’s their choice, you know the Bible even talks about those, it says ‘the fool said in his heart there is no God’. So, people have a right to that if that’s what they want.

Thoughts on Ted Cruz?

In all seriousness, I think he was the best Republican candidate, were I Republican, I would have voted for him, so you know, I hope he’s reelected in 2018 if that’s what he wants, and I would love to see him somewhere on the Constitution Party ticket, but we’ll see.

Who would Castle’s Secretary of Defense be?

I don’t know, maybe Allen West. I like General Mattis too, I don’t know if he would accept that, but I like him a lot. He’s a Marine, you know.

Castle said towards the end of the stream he and his campaign are open to conducting more Facebook livestreams in the future.

47 thoughts on “Darrell Castle: “I read Murray Rothbard’s stuff and I generally like it”

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    Darrell Castle: “I read Murray Rothbard’s stuff and I generally like it”

    Wow. Talk about pandering with no upside.

  2. langa

    Talk about pandering with no upside.

    Pandering? To who? Libertarians? If he were pandering to libertarians, he would have answered a lot of the other questions differently. Most of his answers were not very libertarian — which shouldn’t be surprising, since Castle is not a libertarian. The fact that he looks like a libertarian compared to the LP’s nominees says much more about Johnson/Weld than it does about Castle himself.

    Having said that, Castle does take libertarian positions on a number of issues. Look at his comments on JFK, whom he praises because “he tried to dismantle the CIA, he tried to do something about the Federal Reserve, he tried to bring troops home from Vietnam.” These are just some of the many issues where Castle could find common ground with someone like Rothbard. Contrast that to Johnson, who has made it clear on several occasions* that he neither knows nor cares anything about Rothbard.

    *For example, see here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/gary-johnson-statist

  3. Cody Quirk

    “If he were pandering to libertarians, he would have answered a lot of the other questions differently.”

    Did you even read the transcript itself? That alone shows how eager (desperate) he is to attract LP votes. His comment about Murray Rothbard is quite laughable.

    “Having said that, Castle does take libertarian positions on a number of issues.”

    Not on immigration or the social issues, despite the verbal tap-dancing he plays on those subjects. If he was truly a (l)ibertarian, then he would denounce the CP’s platform and distance himself from his party, but he certainly doesn’t do that. In fact at the CP’s national convention in SLC earlier in the year, he served on the platform committee and voted to confirm the current CP platform as it was reworded… And yet there is plenty in there that is quite anti-libertarian.

    Hmmmmmm, he’s on really poor standing to claim the libertarian mantle.

    Oh and these also do not help his ‘libertarianism’ one bit-

    http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d0da7e535b5e7a71a66f365ef&id=1dab09defb

    https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2016/08/17/milwaukee-county-constitution-party-sovereignty-accountability/

    https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2016/08/24/mike-warner-a-biblical-strategy-for-voting-increasing-learning/

  4. langa

    Here’s a link to an interview where Johnson demonstrates his total ignorance of Rothbard (and pretty much every other libertarian thinker besides Milton Friedman):

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/how-libertarian-is-gary-johnson.html

    What’s really interesting is the comments, especially those from Johnson defenders. The interview was in 2012, but they are repeating the exact same talking points as they do now, e.g. “He’s polling higher than any LP candidate ever has.” … “He actually has a real shot to win.” … “Maybe he’s not perfect, but the two major party candidates are historically bad.” … blah, blah, blah … It sounds like a broken record.

  5. langa

    Cody, I’m not going to answer the same crappy arguments I’ve already answered a thousand times. If you want to keep grinding that ax, have at it. Your hatred of the CP is just like RC’s hatred of the NAP (cue RC, chiming in to say that he “hates nothing”) — everyone here at IPR has heard it a million times, to the point that it just goes in one ear, and out the other.

  6. T Rex

    This is great!! So why do we have the Constitution Party candidate endorsing Rothbard’s writings but not the Libertarian Party candidate(s)?

    “That alone shows how eager (desperate) he is to attract LP votes. His comment about Murray Rothbard is quite laughable.”

    Actually, it is quite plausible. He has made abolishing the Fed a key issue in his platform, and mentioned Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson as a book to read in one of his videos.

    It is very unlikely that Castle is unfamiliar with Rothbard’s work and name-dropping to pander. But even if he is, bravo! He’s doing a better job pandering to libertarians than the actual LP candidates.

  7. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Cody Quirk: That alone shows how eager (desperate) [Castle] is to attract LP votes.

    Since Johnson is so eager (desperate) to attract GOP votes, it makes good sense for Castle to pick up the LP votes that Johnson has driven away.

  8. JamesT

    Lol Cody Quirk does his excellent gawkeresque attacks. I vote for Barr in 08 & Johnson in 12 and was gonna vote for Johnson until he picked Weld as his running mate. Picking a CFR member would be like picking a FED chairman to be a LP candidate. It’s literally insane. In fact I supported Johnson over other LP potentials until he picked Weld. I’ve never voted for a CP candidate before. I’ve been a paying member of LP before etc…

    I’m voting for Castle because he’s the most libertarian candidate on the ballot in PA. Not because he is an actual libertarian. Plus he’s got the 3 key issues for libertarians, IMHO, non-intervention, opposition to war on drugs/police state & end the fed. Those trump every other issue for me.

  9. Cody Quirk

    “Here’s a link to an interview where Johnson demonstrates his total ignorance of Rothbard (and pretty much every other libertarian thinker besides Milton Friedman)”

    Oh, so this is supposed to make Castle’s petty comment on Rothbard look better? Both GJ and Darrell may not be purists, but Gary is way closer to the definition of a libertarian then Castle is by over a hundred miles.

    Btw, Castle also didn’t do himself any favors with the way he stumbled through that Glenn Beck interview. But then again, for a candidate that will be on in only 24-25 state ballots that together still don’t add up to a electoral majority, and has- what? -a few thousand in the campaign piggy bank right now; it still won’t hurt him much.

    “everyone here at IPR has heard it a million times, to the point that it just goes in one ear, and out the other.”

    Just like everyone here has heard your romance and pathetic propping up of a ultra-conservative Christian Reconstructionist and his even more religiously extreme political party all because GJ isn’t pure enough for you, so you are willing to throw the LP and libertarian principles under the bus for the petty ax that you yourself keep grinding.

    Btw, why don’t you post under your real name like I do, or are you too cowardly to?

  10. Cody Quirk

    “Since Johnson is so eager (desperate) to attract GOP votes, it makes good sense for Castle to pick up the LP votes that Johnson has driven away.”

    GJ is trying to attract ALL votes and not just GOP ones, nor does he water down his libertarianism or voice disagreement with the LP platform like Darrell supposedly does with his party’s platform.

    Plus Gary has his act together and is not only attracting mass support, but is also causing elected partisan office holders to defect to the LP.

    Has Darrell’s candidacy attracted any mass support or current office-holders into the CP like GJ has with the LP? Nope. In fact he won’t even be on the ballot in enough states to make up 270 electoral votes; hell, he couldn’t even get on in his own home state.

  11. JamesT

    GJ literally picked a running mate who is 100% not libertarian. No nit picking here. Not a purity test. Objectively anti-libertarian on every single issue. He might as well have picked Paul Volker while he was at it. Bill Weld supports an interventionist foreign policy and is a pure neo-con. He never supported Ron Paul. Supports Mitt Romney & Obama. He supported the patriot act. He’s pro-fed, pro-war, anti-civil liberties that’s literally the opposite of the libertarian party. Sorry some of us would rather have a paleo-con than George W Bush…

    The LP was founded in part to rebel against Rockefeller republicanism and they nominate the most Liberal Republican of all time for VP and we aren’t supposed to take issue? I mean the whole point was principle over party. Barr/Root horribly backfired but if you just Bob Barr harder it’ll work this time…
    At least Bob Barr kinda faked it for awhile. Endorsed Badnarik & RP..lobbied against the patriot act. Bill Weld just showed up, changed no principles, and somehow got the nod.

    Gary 2012 “I’m Ron Paul but younger.” Gary 2016 “I’m Mitt Romney with a joint.”

  12. Cody Quirk

    “I’m voting for Castle because he’s the most libertarian candidate on the ballot in PA. Not because he is an actual libertarian. Plus he’s got the 3 key issues for libertarians, IMHO, non-intervention, opposition to war on drugs/police state & end the fed. Those trump every other issue for me.”

    No, you are voting for him because you are a CP-loving troll.
    Even if Darrell didn’t bother trying to reach out in vain to libertarians and behaved instead like Michael Peroutka on steroids -you would still be supporting Castle. Never mind Darrell was a member of the platform committee at the CP’s recent national convention in SLC and even voted to uphold the CP’s platform there- which makes his phony attempts to “distance” himself from the CP’s platform (never mind he features excerpts from it on his campaign website) even more pathetic.

    And yet your candidate will be on, what, 25? 24 state ballots, which don’t even add up to 270 electoral votes. In fact Castle will be on in less states then Goode was on in 2012.

    Btw, the founder of the CP (Howard Phillips) was a member of the neocon equivalent of the CFR- (Council for National Policy) and also had several white supremacists working in his Conservative Caucus organization, along with being close buddies with anti-Semite, Joseph Sobran. And that’s only the surface of your dying party’s baggage.
    So go ahead and vote for a lost cause while the LP crosses the 5% threshold and elects a ton of people to various offices this November while also gaining ballot access in more states and tens of thousands of new members.

  13. JamesT

    Pro-war, pro-patriot act, pro fed. That’s neo-con 100%. Endorsed by Bill Kristol. If the LP nominated JEB! it seems like some of you would still vote for him.

  14. Anthony Dlugos

    He’s not a neocon. He’s just not a pure non-interventionist.

    If Jeb switched parties, I surely would consider him. That would indicate some movement on foreign policy issues.

  15. T Rex

    which makes his phony attempts to “distance” himself from the CP’s platform (never mind he features excerpts from it on his campaign website) even more pathetic.

    He is under no obligation to “distance” himself from the Constitution Party platform,, and aside from favoring decriminalization of victimless crimes, he has not said much of anything different from their platform.

    Nobody is under the illusion that he is running as a pro-choice or open-borders candidate.

  16. T Rex

    along with being close buddies with anti-Semite, Joseph Sobran.

    Sobran was a libertarian anarchist in his later years (and buddies with Rothbard when he was alive).

    http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

    I don’t think a lot of hardcore libertarians are going to be upset that Castle was friends with him..

  17. JamesT

    That Sobran article is the most powerful thing on anarchism I have ever read. Seriously….Sobran was a rothbardian. Also anti-semite? Your quoting national review talking points from when they drove him out for not being a neo-con. Is Ron Paul a white supremacists too? Utter nonsense.

    Also Howard Phillips hated neo-cons. Pretty openly. He furiously supported Baldwin over neo-con Alan Keyes in 08. He unlike Bill Weld supported Ron Paul in 88, 08 & 12.

    Also in 2004 Badnarik was a fabulous choice and Peruotka is a nut. I voted for John Kerry cause I didn’t know betterback then but I happily would vote for Badnarik if I could go back in time.

    I’m not a CP loving troll. Like I said I never have been registered member or voted for any of their candidates before. I would have for Baldwin in 08 but he wasn’t on the ballot in PA. I saw him debate Bob Barr and Nader and he came off better on the issues. I have voted LP, been a paying party member, and petitioned for them. They let me down with Bill Weld and I feel more uncomfortable voting for him than Darrell Castle who on the key issues is saying what I want to here. No need to take it personally. Being petty, and posting smear attacks on par with gawker or DNC releases doesn’t make me want to support Johnson for the sake of the party it just alienates me more. Honestly the more inaccuracies Johnson supports post the more I think Darrell gets a positive image to disaffected libertarians. And honestly if 10,000 “paleo” libertarians vote for Castle it doesn’t matter in the scheme of things. So why do you even care? Nominate an actual libertarian in 2020 and don’t put all your energy on a collapsing paleo party’s last stand.

  18. langa

    …why don’t you post under your real name like I do, or are you too cowardly to?

    Simple. Because my “real” name is none of your fucking business.

    A better question is why you do post under your real name. Don’t you realize how ridiculous your uninformed arguments and petty grudges make you look?

  19. Cody Quirk

    “Pro-war, pro-patriot act, pro fed. That’s neo-con 100%. Endorsed by Bill Kristol. If the LP nominated JEB! it seems like some of you would still vote for him.”

    Thus sayeth the Pro-CP troll!

  20. Cody Quirk

    “He is under no obligation to “distance” himself from the Constitution Party platform,, and aside from favoring decriminalization of victimless crimes, he has not said much of anything different from their platform.”

    Oh, so because he embraces the CP platform, then that double standard can still be applied and be trumped as the more libertarian candidate then Johnson. Pathetic.

    Btw, are you a former member of the CP? I am, and if you think these people are a hundred times more moderate then what their platform proclaims, then you are a fool.

  21. Cody Quirk

    “Sobran was a libertarian anarchist in his later years (and buddies with Rothbard when he was alive).”

    Uh huh. Riiiiiight.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sobran#Political_philosophy

    http://www.ihr.org/conference/14thconf/sobranconf.html

    http://sobran.com/jewid.shtml

    “I don’t think a lot of hardcore libertarians are going to be upset that Castle was friends with him..”

    If you count those white nationalist trolls in that one big Libertarian facebook group as “hardcore libertarians”, then you just might be right ;3

  22. Cody Quirk

    “Simple. Because my “real” name is none of your fucking business.”

    Yep. You’re a coward, and for all we know, you are a stalwart CP blogger that loves to troll as a libertarian and attack LP candidates -which doesn’t surprise me by your posts here.

    “A better question is why you do post under your real name. Don’t you realize how ridiculous your uninformed arguments and petty grudges make you look?”

    Nope, I believe in integrity, plus your highly delusional & vain attempts to make Castle and the CP appear “more libertarian” then GJ and the LP makes you look the most ridiculous here.

  23. JamesT

    Cody you didn’t even repudiate my facts about Weld and call me a CP troll despite having never been or never going to be a member of their party.

    Lol it’s not that Weld has a terrible track record, or that Johnson has been putting his foot in his mouth, it’s that the broke Castle campaign is paying internet trolls. Gotcha. That’s some Alex Jones level stuff right there.

    I could see why some libertarians would not like the CP. For legit reasons but you act like they ran over your dog. I’m sorry some of us don’t want to vote for a low tax sjw and his neo-con bill kristolite running mate.

    On Sobran we posted the article from 2002 when he converted to An-cap and why. But y’know his own words on his own website don’t count.

    I’m gonna explain the history of political philosophy to you. Libertarianism and paleoconservatism are both children of the old right and classical liberalism. That makes them similar. Neo-con is descended from Wilsonian progressivism. So Weld has less in common with us than the CP or Castle. Gary Johnson is all over the place but is at basically a progressive with some libertarian instincts when his weed is hitting the right spots. For me, personally, I’d rather vote for the guy that intellectually came from same progenitor than one guy who has literally nothing in common with me and his occasionally right mountain climber buddy. It’s really not hard if you had ever studied the history of political theory.

    And for the millionth time how can I be a CP troll, if I voted, donated and had a bumper sticker for GJ in 2012 when he ran as an actual libertarian….

    But yes Darrell Castle’s campaign which hasn’t even raised twenty grand is paying me by the hour to troll you.

  24. JamesT

    Also if Castle wasn’t on in PA I’d stay home or vote for Jill Stein. Because #Neverweld #Never neo-con. I’m sorry not murdering brown children that have nothing to do with us is a no compromise issues for me. Castle & Stein are peace candidates. Bill Weld bathes in the blood of Iraqi children on behest of the CFR. Kinda a no brainer. Questions which is more racist; have some uncomfortable associations or supporting a foreign policy that has lead to the death 1.5 million+ middle easterners? This is the typical sjw attitude which Johnson fully embodies. It’s worse to hurt somebodies feels that kill untold thousand of non-whites.

  25. Mr. Brown

    “Libertarianism and paleoconservatism are both children of the old right and classical liberalism.”

    Not so. Classical liberalism is one thing, the old right (classical conservatism, very similar to the new “alt right”) is something else completely. Back in the day they were considered polar opposites. Radical libertarianism is a more radical spinoff of classical liberalism mixed with anarchism, and moderate libertarianism is very much in the classical liberal tradition. The poison of the old right and its religious and racial bigotry, monarchism, mixing of church and state, rigid gender roles and blind obedience to cultural traditions was grafted unto modern libertarianism by Murray Rothbard in some of his more bizarre phases of seeking alliances with the racist, authoritarian far right. Rothbard and Rockwell made up this bizarre and repulsive distortion of libertarianism out of whole cloth. Rockwell even admitted later that it was a mistake.

  26. JamesT

    They’re both anti-Federalist and focused on radical decentralization. So no. Rockwell & Murray were right just modern left-libertarians want to virtual signal to liberals they aren’t tracing their roots back to most of the same philosophers. But they are.

  27. T Rex

    “Oh, so because he embraces the CP platform, then that double standard can still be applied and be trumped as the more libertarian candidate then Johnson. Pathetic.”

    I am not sure that supporting the majority of your party’s platform is a “double standard”….

    It’s something Bill Weld should try sometime!

  28. T Rex

    “I could see why some libertarians would not like the CP. For legit reasons but you act like they ran over your dog. I’m sorry some of us don’t want to vote for a low tax sjw and his neo-con bill kristolite running mate.”

    Heck, I *am* voting for Johnson and Quirk is still convinced I’m some sort of CP stooge just because I acknowledge his shortcomings. LOL.

  29. langa

    Quirk is the only troll on this thread. He used to view himself as some sort of conservative third party savior, but when the CP refused to indulge his ego trip, he got all butthurt about it, and he’s been carrying out his silly vendetta against them ever since. It’s one of the most pathetic and childish things I’ve ever seen.

  30. langa

    The term “Old Right” refers to a specific coalition that opposed the New Deal and U.S. entry into World War II. They were an eclectic group, and while some of them were conservatives, many were not. For example:

    Other Old Right stalwarts came from the Left. Rose Wilder Lane was a communist sympathizer, but “quite unlike her opposite numbers in the Future Neocons of America contingent,” she turned against socialism and came “to challenge the central premise of statism.” H.L. Mencken was not a conservative but a radical. There is nothing right-wing about his shockingly irreverent Notes on Democracy, which lambastes nationalism, small towns, creationism, religion, prohibition, World War I, and puritanical busybodies. As for Albert Jay Nock, today’s conservatives might see his views on family, landownership, and police as “Cultural Marxism.” And the anarchistic Frank Chodorov warned that anyone who called him a conservative would “get a punch in the nose.”

    Source: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whats-left-of-the-old-right/

    To describe them as the “polar opposite” of libertarianism is ridiculous. In fact, they were one of three groups (along with the Objectivists and the Rothbardian anarchists) that David Nolan cited as the basic elements of the early libertarian movement.

  31. Mr. Brown

    “They’re both anti-Federalist and focused on radical decentralization. ”

    Actually, there’s nothing inherently libertarian or anti-libertarian about centralism or decentralism; there are many historical and present day examples of higher levels of government intervening to stop abuses of authority at the local or state levels. And to the extent that decentralism is sometimes associated with libertarianism, it’s a value that is held up by many others as well including anarcho-communists, some right wing theocratic reactionaries, greens, syndicalist socialists and so on.

    ” Rockwell & Murray were right just modern left-libertarians want to virtual signal to liberals they aren’t tracing their roots back to most of the same philosophers.”

    No, no one ever suggested that libertarianism had much if anything in common with the old right until Rothbard and Rockwell invented this nonsense. Libertarian philosophy was widely and correctly classified as being on the left until the post World War II era, and in many places still is. Actually, historically and globally the term libertarian has most widely been used by anti-capitalist anarchists. The more moderate form of modern libertarianism is a clean continuation of classical liberalism and in no way tied in with the hate filled authoritarian old right.

  32. Mr. Brown

    “The term “Old Right” refers to a specific coalition that opposed the New Deal and U.S. entry into World War II. ” That’s only a small part of the story. Consider:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

    “Although the right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries, the term right-wing has been applied to extreme movements including fascists, Nazis, and racial supremacists.[22]

    In the United States, the Right includes both economic and social conservatives.[23] In Europe, economic conservatives are usually considered liberal, and the Right includes nationalists, nativist opposition to immigration, religious conservatives, and historically a significant presence of right-wing movements with anti-capitalist sentiments including conservatives and fascists who opposed what they saw as the selfishness and excessive materialism inherent in contemporary capitalism.[24][25]”

    And:

    “The Right has gone through five distinct historical stages: (i) the reactionary right sought a return to aristocracy and established religion; (ii) the moderate right distrusted intellectuals and sought limited government; (iii) the radical right favored a romantic and aggressive nationalism; (iv) the extreme right proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism; and (v) the neo-liberal right sought to combine a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional Right-wing beliefs in patriotism, élitism, and law and order.[27][28]

    Only a couple of the latter stages have any elements in common with libertarianism, and even then it is mixed with many more elements of authoritarianism.

    The original (old) right was authoritarian, not libertarian:


    In France after the French Revolution, the Right fought against the rising power of those who had grown rich through commerce, and sought to preserve the rights of the hereditary nobility. They were uncomfortable with capitalism, with the Enlightenment, with individualism, and with industrialism and fought to retain traditional social hierarchies and institutions.[13][54] In Europe’s history, there have been strong collectivist right-wing movements, such as in the social Catholic Right that has exhibited hostility to all forms of liberalism, including economic liberalism, and has historically advocated for paternalist class harmony involving an organic-hierarchical society where workers are protected while hierarchy of classes remain.[55]

    In the 19th century, the Right had shifted to support the newly rich in some European countries, particularly England, and instead of favouring the nobility over industrialists, favoured capitalists over the working class. Other right-wing currents on the Continent, such as Carlism in Spain and nationalist movements in France, Germany, and Russia, remained hostile to capitalism and industrialism. There are, however, still a few right-wing movements today, notably the French Nouvelle Droite, CasaPound, and American paleoconservatives, that are often in opposition to capitalist ethics and the effects they have on society as a whole, which they see as infringing upon or causing the decay of social traditions or hierarchies that they see as essential for social order.[56]

    Or take this from the wikipedia article on paleoconservatism:

    “Donald Trump – (1946–) 2016 Republican nominee for President of the United States. According to political researcher Bruce Wilson, “Trump advances core paleoconservative positions laid out in “The Next Conservatism” — rebuilding infrastructure, protective tariffs, securing borders and stopping immigration, neutralizing designated internal enemies and isolationism.”[166]”

    Does that sound anything like libertarianism to you? Not to me.

    At http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/new-right-vs-old-right/ Greg Johnson writes

    For our purposes, the Old Right means Fascism, National Socialism, and other national-populist movements, which are the pre-eminent attempts to restore traditional hierarchical social forms within the context of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were not merely reactionary, rear-guard resistances to modern egalitarianism by partisans of corrupt hierarchies. They represented a genuinely revolutionary impetus to restore vital, archaic, hierarchical values within the context of modern science, technology, and mass society.

    The New Right and the Old Right share the same goal: a society that is not just hierarchical but also organic, a body politic, a racially and culturally homogeneous people, a people that is one in blood and spirit, a people that is politically organized and sovereign and thus in control of its own destiny.

  33. langa

    Actually, there’s nothing inherently libertarian or anti-libertarian about centralism or decentralism…

    Sure there is. Libertarianism favors decentralization, all the way down to the individual.

    …there are many historical and present day examples of higher levels of government intervening to stop abuses of authority at the local or state levels.

    Of course, libertarians oppose abuses of authority at all levels. However, that doesn’t mean that we favor the centralization of power in general. If you believe centralization of power promotes freedom, then I guess you support the creation of a world government to stop abuses of authority by national governments, no? That hardly strikes me a libertarian stance.

  34. langa

    …no one ever suggested that libertarianism had much if anything in common with the old right until Rothbard and Rockwell invented this nonsense.

    Wrong. As I mentioned above, the “Old Right” was considered a part of the libertarian coalition since before the LP was even formed. From the article David Nolan wrote in 1971, prior to the LP’s birth:

    Four years ago, at the YAF convention in Pittsburgh, there was born a unique coalition – the coalition that is known today as “the libertarian movement”. There, for the first time, Randists, Miseists, and elements of the old “radical right” from all over the country got together and established an embryonic network of organization and communication – laying the groundwork for future cooperation and building the foundations for a mechanism whereby previously isolated individuals could begin to act as a cohesive force in American society. [Emphasis added]

  35. langa

    The original (old) right was authoritarian, not libertarian…

    When American libertarians speak of the “Old Right” they aren’t talking about who sat where in the French Assembly of the 18th century. They’re referring to the specific anti-FDR coalition I mentioned above. Just because they both use the term “Right” doesn’t mean they are the same thing, anymore than classical liberals are the same as modern day progressive liberals. When it comes to political categorizations, context is everything.

  36. Mr. Brown

    “Libertarianism favors decentralization, all the way down to the individual.”

    That doesn’t necessarily mean that more localized government are inherently better than less localized ones.

    ” If you believe centralization of power promotes freedom,”

    It’s orthagonal to the promotion of freedom. Either a centralized state or a local tyrant can be more abusive to those suffering under them.

    “I guess you support the creation of a world government to stop abuses of authority by national governments, no? That hardly strikes me a libertarian stance.”

    The level at which power is held is irrelevant to libertarianism, it’s more the degree to which that power usurps the authority of the individual over him or herself and interferes with mutually voluntary interactions between individuals.

    Why would it be a libertarian stance that states can saddle their subjects with theocracy, racial discrimination, enslavement, arbitrary imprisonment, etc? What if that is extended all the way to genocide and mass murder, still less bad than any centralization of power?

    “As I mentioned above, the “Old Right” was considered a part of the libertarian coalition since before the LP was even formed.”

    But not by many, and not much before. It speaks ill of the LP that one of its key founder considered only various types of right wingers to comprise the libertarian coalition, whereas most libertarians throughout history have at most regarded them as marginal members of the coalition at best and entirely outside it at worst.

  37. m

    ” They’re referring to the specific anti-FDR coalition I mentioned above.”

    Yes, and that coalition included many elements whose main problem with FDR’s interventionist policies aimed at Europe was that they disagreed which side of the European conflicts ought to be favored.

    It’s also false that Americans all use the term Old Right in the same way; there are plenty of examples in links referenced above of Americans using the term Old Right to refer to fascism, monarchism, authoritarianism of various sorts, etc.

    “Paleoconservative” is another term closely associated with Old Right, and the article on paleoconservatism has a list of individuals and organizations that exemplify paleoconservatism, many of which have a long and thorough taint of racism, anti-semitism, and various other forms of bigotry.

  38. Mr. Brown

    ” They’re referring to the specific anti-FDR coalition I mentioned above.”

    Yes, and that coalition included many elements whose main problem with FDR’s interventionist policies aimed at Europe was that they disagreed which side of the European conflicts ought to be favored.

    It’s also false that Americans all use the term Old Right in the same way; there are plenty of examples in links referenced above of Americans using the term Old Right to refer to fascism, monarchism, authoritarianism of various sorts, etc.

    “Paleoconservative” is another term closely associated with Old Right, and the article on paleoconservatism has a list of individuals and organizations that exemplify paleoconservatism, many of which have a long and thorough taint of racism, anti-semitism, and various other forms of bigotry.

  39. T Rex

    “Why would it be a libertarian stance that states can saddle their subjects with theocracy, racial discrimination, enslavement, arbitrary imprisonment, etc?”

    The solution to state abuses of power is not further centralization, but even more decentralization.

    “Either a centralized state or a local tyrant can be more abusive to those suffering under them.”

    Yes but having Hitler or Stalin be in charge of a small town is not as bad as having them be in charge of an entire country…which should be quite obvious. This is why libertarians support decentralization.

  40. langa

    That doesn’t necessarily mean that more localized government are inherently better than less localized ones.

    More localized government isn’t necessarily “better” in the sense of having more libertarian laws, but it is inherently “better” in being easier to flee or overthrow, if things get bad enough. Consider the case of a world government. Nothing could be more frightening, from a libertarian perspective. Yet your logic suggests that such a monstrosity would actually be beneficial.

    Why would it be a libertarian stance that states can saddle their subjects with theocracy, racial discrimination, enslavement, arbitrary imprisonment, etc?

    Where did I say anything close to that? What a straw man.

    It speaks ill of the LP that one of its key founder considered only various types of right wingers to comprise the libertarian coalition…

    You seem to be one of those people who are determined to shoehorn libertarianism into the archaic left/right paradigm. Nolan was merely looking for people who generally opposed aggression. Why should he care whether those people were, at the time, arbitrarily lumped into the nebulous abstraction called “the right” or the nebulous abstraction called “the left”? From a libertarian standpoint, it is irrelevant whether people consider themselves to be closer to the left or the right. It only matters whether they are for or against big government.

  41. langa

    …that coalition included many elements whose main problem with FDR’s interventionist policies aimed at Europe was that they disagreed which side of the European conflicts ought to be favored.

    No, it included many people who were smeared as Nazi sympathizers because they refused to beat the war drums, in much the same way that the neocons tried (and still try) to smear libertarian opponents of today’s wars as being anti-American or pro-terrorism (e.g. Giuliani claiming that Ron Paul was “blaming America” for 9/11, etc.).

    It’s also false that Americans all use the term Old Right in the same way…

    I said when American libertarians use it that way.

    “Paleoconservative” is another term closely associated with Old Right, and the article on paleoconservatism has a list of individuals and organizations that exemplify paleoconservatism, many of which have a long and thorough taint of racism, anti-semitism, and various other forms of bigotry.

    I have my issues with the paleocons. For example, I disagree with their attempts to legislate morality and with their protectionist economic policies, among other things. But they are quite good on foreign policy, and that is why they were purged from the conservative movement. They opposed the policy of perpetual war that was espoused by the neocons, and thus, they could not be tolerated. Notice that the theocons (the “Religious Right” of Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, etc.) were just as socially conservative as the paleocons, yet they were allowed to remain in the mainstream conservative movement, because they went along with the neocons’ ultra-hawkish foreign policy. Of course, the neocons couldn’t officially purge the paleos for being insufficiently bloodthirsty, so instead, they smeared them as bigots. This is a time-honored tradition that is still frequently used by the Establishment today.

    By the way, you really should try doing some actual research, instead of relying on Wikipedia so much. The “wisdom of crowds” doesn’t mean too much when 95% of the population has been brainwashed.

  42. Pingback: Darrell Castle Vs. Evan McMullin – #NeverTrump #NeverHillary

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *