自由意志主义“右”对了

Getting Libertarianism Right

 

[美] 汉斯-赫尔曼·霍普 著

HANS-HERMANN HOPPE

李三 译

道老师 校

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

人的行为研究社区

 

 

 

文档制作：人的行为研究社区

制作时间：2023年11月26日

最后修订：2023年11月

米塞斯学院 网址：https://mises。org/

奥地利经济学派经典作品的英文版本都能在米塞斯学院网站获取

欢迎打赏

 

打印装订建议：

可参照如下建议打印装订成册：

1、打印时更改布局页面设置为：页边距：内侧：5。8 cm；外侧：1。5 cm

2、页码范围→多页处，选 对称页边距

3、应用于 选 整篇文档

4、本文档适合A4纸双面自动打印，裁切为 18 cm * 25 cm规格装订

 

 

目  录

目  录…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

第一章……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

第二章……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

第三章……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

第四章……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction by Sean Gabb

引言 肖恩·加布

THE WRITINGS COLLECTED IN THIS book are mostlyaddresses given in Bodrum to the Property and FreedomSociety, of which Professor Hoppe is both Founder andPresident。 I was fortunate to hear them read out to thegathering, and I am deeply honoured to have been askedto provide an Introduction to the published versions。

本书中收集的文章，大多是在博德鲁姆举办的财产与自由协会时的演讲，霍普教授是该协会的创始人和主席。我很幸运地听到他们在聚会上朗读，我很荣幸被邀请为出版的版本做一个介绍。

I will divide my Introduction into three sections。 First,I will give a brief overview of Hoppe’s early life and intel-lectual development。 Second, I will write at greater lengthabout the academic work that has placed him at the headof the international libertarian movement。 Third, I willdiscuss the main theme or themes that emerge from the present collection。

我将把我的引言分为三个部分。首先，我将简要介绍一下霍普的早期生活和智力发展。其次，我将更详尽地论述，他成为国际自由意志主义运动领袖的学术工作。第三，我将讨论这本文集要表达的主题。

HOPPE: CHILD OF THE WEST GERMAN SETTLEMENT

Hans-Hermann Hoppe was born on the 2nd September1949 in Peine, a town in the British Sector of occupiedGermany。 After attending various local schools, he firstwent to the University of Saarland in Saarbrücken andfrom here moved to the Goethe University in Frankfurt, where he studied under the notable neo-Marxist JürgenHabermas, who also served as the principal advisor forHoppe’s doctoral dissertation in Philosophy on DavidHume and Immanuel Kant。 In those days, Hoppe washimself a Marxist, and had no serious differences with hismaster。 He said later: “What I 。。。 liked about Marxism isthat it made the attempt to provide a rigorous, deductivelyderived system。”[1] To any external observer, he was follow-ing a path followed by many thousands of his generation。It should, in the normal course of things, have ended in atenured post in which his duty, under cover of spreading disaffection, was to preach conformity to the new order ofthings in West Germany。

1949年9月2日，汉斯-赫尔曼·霍普出生在英国占领地区的德国小镇佩纳。在当地的各种学校毕业之后，他首先去了萨尔布尔肯的萨尔大学，之后又从这里去了法兰克福的歌德大学，在那里他师从著名的新马克思主义者约尔根·哈贝马斯，他也是霍普关于大卫·休谟和伊曼努尔·康德的哲学博士论文的主要导师。在那些日子里，霍普自己就是一个马克思主义者，和他的导师没有什么严重的分歧。他后来说:“我……马克思主义的优点在于它试图提供一个严谨的、演绎推导的体系。”在任何一个旁观者看来，他所走的道路是他那一代成千上万人都走过的。按照事情的正常进程，他应该终老于一个终身职位，在这个职位上，他的职责是在散布不满情绪的掩护下，鼓吹遵从西德的新秩序。

However, what he soon disliked about Marxism wasits failure as an intellectual system。 His disenchantmentwas a gradual process, and he went through a period inwhich he was influenced by Karl Popper, and was evena social democrat in politics。 His final break with leftismcame while writing his habilitation thesis on the foun-dations of sociology and economics。 He began with thenotion that, while certain truths about the world can beknown a priori, the laws of Economics and Sociology areat least largely known by induction。 He then rejected this,moving to the view that Economics, in contrast to Sociol-ogy, is an entirely deductive science。 This, then, led himto the discovery of Ludwig von Mises。 Here was a systemthat made the same ambitious claims as Marxism。 Austri-anism was a set of interlocking and largely deductive the-ories of Economics, Politics, Law, and much else。 Unlike Marxism, it held together intellectually。 It also generatedtrue knowledge about the world。 The last step remainingon this new and unpredicted path was to discover MurrayRothbard。 Hoppe ended the 1970s as a radical free marketlibertarian。 No longer welcome at any West German uni-versity, in 1985 he left for the United States。

然而，他很快就不喜欢马克思主义，认为它是一种知识体系的失败。他的觉醒是一个渐进的过程，他经历了一段受卡尔·波普尔影响的时期，甚至在政治上是一个社会民主主义者。在撰写关于社会学和经济学基础的教授论文时，他与左派的最后决裂。他首先提出这样的观点:虽然世界上的某些真理可以先验地认识，但经济学和社会学的规律至少在很大程度上是通过归纳法认识的。然后，他拒绝了这一点，转而认为，与社会学相比，经济学完全是一门演绎科学。这一点引领他发现了路德维希·冯·米塞斯。这是一个与马克思主义同样雄心勃勃的体系。奥地利学派是一套环环相扣的、很大程度上是演绎的经济学、政治学、法学以及其他许多领域的理论。与马克思主义不同，它在思想上是团结一致的。它也产生了关于世界的真实知识。在这条意想不到的新道路上，剩下的最后一步就是发现默里·罗斯巴德。20世纪70年代末，霍普成了一名激进的自由市场的自由意志主义者。他不再受到西德大学的欢迎，于1985年去了美国。

HOPPE: HEIR OF ROTHBARD

Until 1986, he taught in New York under Rothbard’ssupervision, “working and living side-by-side with him,in constant and immediate personal contact。” They thenmoved together to teach at the University of Nevada inLas Vegas。 Here, they stood at the centre of what became”the Las Vegas Circle” – a grouping of libertarian econo-mists and philosophers as brilliant and productive as anyin the entire history of the libertarian movement。 Othermembers of the Circle included Yuri Maltsev, DougFrench, and Lee Iglody。 Hoppe remained in Las Vegas as aProfessor until 2008。 But he admits that nothing was everthe same after Rothbard’s untimely death in 1995。 He sawRothbard as his “principal teacher, mentor and master,”and as his “dearest fatherly friend。”

直到1986年，他都在罗斯巴德的指导下在纽约教书，“和罗斯巴德一起工作和生活，保持着经常和直接的个人联系。”后来，他们一起搬到拉斯维加斯的内华达大学教书。在这里，他们站在后来的“拉斯维加斯圈”的中心——一群自由意志主义经济学家和哲学家，他们在自由意志主义运动的整个历史上都是杰出且多产的。这个圈子的其他成员包括尤里·马尔采夫、道格拉斯·弗兰奇和李·伊格洛迪。霍普一直在拉斯维加斯担任教授，直到2008年。但他承认，1995年罗斯巴德英年早逝后，一切都变了。他视罗斯巴德为“主要的老师、导师和大师”，是他“最亲爱的父亲般的朋友”。

Though he produced much other work during histime with Rothbard and after, his most important contri-bution, both to libertarianism and to Philosophy in gen-eral, is probably his work on what he calls ArgumentationEthics。 Every secular ideology appears to rest on shakyfoundations。 Free market libertarianism is no exception。Why should people be left alone？ Why should they befree？ We can argue that freedom allows people to makethemselves happier than they would otherwise be。We canargue that it lets them become richer。 The response is toask why people should be happy or rich。 These may be self-evident goods, but are not always so regarded。 A further objection is to start picking holes in the definition andmeasurement of happiness。 Or we can claim that everyhuman being is born with certain natural and inalienablerights, and that these include the rights to life, liberty, andproperty。 The objection here is to ask how, without Godas their grantor, these claimed rights are other than anexercise in verbal flatulence。

尽管在与罗斯巴德共事期间及之后，他创作了许多其他作品，但他对自由意志主义和一般哲学最重要的贡献，可能是他所称的论辩伦理学。每一种世俗意识形态似乎都建立在不稳固的基础上。自由市场的自由意志主义也不例外。为什么要让人们独处？他们为什么要自由？我们可以说，有自由比没有自由让人们更快乐。我们可以说，这让他们变得更富有。回答是问为什么人们应该快乐或富有。这些可能是不言而喻的优点，但人们并不总是这样认为。另一个反对意见是，开始在幸福的定义和衡量上吹毛求疵。或者我们可以宣称，每个人生来就拥有某些自然的、不可剥夺的权利，这些权利包括生命权、自由权和财产权。这里的反对意见是要问，没有上帝作为他们的赐予者，这些声称的权利如何不是口头上的放屁。

Hayek and von Mises, the two men who did mostduring the middle of the twentieth century to keep clas-sical liberalism alive as an ideology, were various kindsof utilitarian。 Rothbard, who took Austrian Economicsand fused it with native American radicalism to createthe modern libertarian movement, shared a belief withAyn Rand in natural rights。 For many years, until morepractical disputes emerged after the end of the Cold War,almost every libertarian gathering involved a rehearsalof the differences between the two schools of foundation。

哈耶克和米塞斯，这两位在20世纪中期，保卫古典自由主义作为一种意识形态做出了最大贡献，他们是不同的功利主义者。罗斯巴德将奥地利经济学与美国本土激进主义相融合，创造了现代自由意志主义运动，他与安·兰德(Ayn Rand)对自然权利有着共同的信仰。多年来，直到冷战结束后出现了更多实际的争议，几乎每次自由意志主义者的聚会，都涉及到两种基础学派之间的分歧。

What Hoppe tries with his Argumentation Ethics, is totranscend this debate。 In doing this, he draws on his earlywork with Habermas, on the Kantian tradition of Ger-man Philosophy, and on the ethical writings of Rothbard。He begins with the observation that there are two waysof settling any dispute。 One is force。 The other is argu-ment。 Any one party to a dispute who chooses force hasstepped outside the norms of civilization, which includethe avoidance of aggressive force, and has no right tocomplain if he is used very harshly。 Anyone who choosesargument, on the other hand, has accepted these norms。If he then argues for the rightness of force as a means ofgetting what he wants from others, he is engaging in logi-cal contradiction。 In short, whoever rejects the libertariannon-aggression principle is necessarily also rejecting thenorms of rational discourse。 Whoever claims to accept these norms must also accept the non-aggression prin-ciple。[2]

霍普在《论证伦理学》一文中试图超越这种争论。在此过程中，他借鉴了早期与哈贝马斯的合作，借鉴了德国哲学的康德传统，以及罗斯巴德的伦理著作。他首先指出，解决任何争端都有两种方法。一个是武力，另一个是论证。争端的任何一方如果选择使用武力，就已经超出了文明规范的范围，文明规范包括避免使用侵犯性的武力，因此，如果他受到非常严厉的对待，他没有权利抱怨。另一方面，任何选择论证的人都已经接受了这些规范。如果他接着为武力作为一种从别人那里得到他想要的东西的手段而辩护，他就陷入了逻辑矛盾。简而言之，拒绝自由主义不侵犯原则的人必然也拒绝理性话语的规范。无论谁声称接受这些准则，则必然接受不侵犯原则。

Speaking long after first publication, Hoppe deniedthat this was a retreat from natural rights:

I was attempting to make the first twochapters of Rothbard’s Ethics of Libertystronger than they were。 That in turnwould provide more weight to everythingthat followed。 I had some dissatisfactionwith [the] rigor with which the initialethical assumptions of libertarian politi-cal theory had been arrived at。Intuitively,they seemed plausible。 But I could seethat a slightly different approach mightbe stronger。 Murray never considered myrevisions to be a threat。 His only concernwas: does this ultimately make the case？Ultimately, he agreed that it did。[3]

Indeed, Rothbard gave the theory his highest praise。He called it

a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianismin particular。 。。 [Hoppe] has managedto transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued phi-losophy since the days of the Scholastics, and that had brought modern libertari-anism into a tiresome deadlock。[4]

在首次出版很久之后，霍普否认这是对自然权利的一次退却:

我试图加强罗斯巴德《自由的伦理》前两章的表达力度。这反过来又会为接下来的一切提供更多的权重。我对自由意志主义政治理论的最初伦理假设的严谨性有些不满。直觉上，它们似乎是可信的。但我可以看出，稍微不同的方法可能会更强大。默里从没把我的修改当成威胁。他唯一关心的是:这最终能成立吗？最终，他同意了这一点。

事实上，罗斯巴德对这一理论给予了最高的赞扬。他称其为一般政治哲学，特别是自由意志主义的一个令人赞叹不已的突破。[霍普]成功地超越了著名的是/应该、事实/价值二分法，这种二分法自经院哲学家时代以来就一直困扰着哲学体系，并使现代自由意志主义陷入了令人厌烦的僵局。

If Rothbard was the obvious leading intellectual ofthe libertarian movement, Hoppe was his obvious andchosen successor。 By the time of Rothbard’s death, he hadmade solid contributions not only to foundational eth-ics, but also to Economics, Politics and Law。 He was aninspiring teacher and a public speaker in demand all overthe world。There was no one in America or in the worldat large better qualified to take up where Rothbard hadleft off。 He now became the editor of The Journal of Liber-tarian Studies, and a co-editor of the Quarterly Journal ofAustrian Economics。

如果说罗斯巴德是自由意志主义运动中显而易见的知识分子领袖，那么霍普就是他显而易见的、被选中的接班人。到罗斯巴德去世时，他不仅在基础伦理学方面，而且在经济学、政治学和法学方面都做出了坚实的贡献。他是一位鼓舞人心的老师，也是一位在全世界都很受欢迎的公众演说家。在美国乃至全世界，没有人比他更有资格继承罗斯巴德的遗志。他现在是《自由意志主义研究杂志》的编辑，也是《奥地利经济学季刊》的联合编辑。

Rothbard himself, though, was not universallyaccepted within the libertarian movement。 One of hisnumerous talents had been for making enemies。 He hadmany reasons for making, or just for attracting, enemies。He was an isolationist in an age when the American Rightdefined itself by opposition to Communism and theSoviet Union。 He was sceptical of big business in a move-ment that was largely in love with American capitalism。He was an anarchist among economists who were feel-ing their way towards privatisation and deregulation。 Hesaw every step of America’s ascent to world power as abetrayal of the American Way。 He was variously in alli-ance with leftists and with ultra-conservatives。 He wasat open war with the utilitarian statists and soft moneyadvocates of the Chicago School。 He was soon out of sorts with the Cato Institute which he had done much to found。He was scathing in his contempt for political correctnessand the very idea of a universal equality that went beyondan equality of negative rights。

然而，罗斯巴德本人在自由意志主义运动中并没有被普遍接受。他的众多才能之一就是树敌。他有很多理由制造敌人，或者仅仅是吸引敌人。在那个美国右翼以反对共产主义和苏联来定义自己的时代，他是一个孤立主义者。在一场很大程度上热爱美国资本主义的运动中，他对大企业持怀疑态度。他是一名无政府主义者，当时的经济学家正摸索着走向私有化和放松管制。他认为美国崛起为世界强国的每一步都是对美国方式的背叛。他在不同程度上与左派和极端保守派结盟。他公开与功利主义的中央集权主义者和芝加哥学派的软货币倡导者开战。不久，他就对他苦心经营的卡托研究所感到厌烦了。他尖刻地蔑视政治正确，蔑视超越消极权利平等的普遍平等观念。

Hoppe is a still more divisive figure。 An avowed cul-tural conservative, he has no time for the more hedonisticor leftist strains of libertarianism。 From the beginning,his libertarianism has placed more emphasis on propertyrights than on tolerance。 In the Democracy: The God thatFailed, he writes that, in his ideal community,

[t]here would be little or no “tolerance”and “openmindedness” so dear to left-libertarians。 Instead, one would be on theright path toward restoring the freedomof association and exclusion implied inthe institution of private property。[5]

霍普是一个更有争议的人物。作为一名公开的文化保守主义者，他没有时间去考虑自由意志主义中更为享乐主义或更左倾的派别。从一开始，他的自由意志主义就更强调财产权而不是宽容。在《民主:失败的上帝》一书中，他写道，在他的理想社会中，左翼自由意志主义者所珍视的“宽容”和“开放”很少或根本没有。相反，人们将走上恢复私有财产制度所隐含的结社自由和排他性的正确道路。

He adds:

In a covenant concluded among propri-etor and community tenants for the pur-pose of protecting their private property,no such thing as a right to free (unlim-ited) speech exists, not even to unlim-ited speech on one’s own tenant-prop-erty。 One may say innumerable thingsand promote almost any idea under thesun, but naturally no one is permittedto advocate ideas contrary to the verypurpose of the covenant of preservingand protecting private property, such as democracy and communism。 There canbe no tolerance toward democrats andcommunists in a libertarian social order。They will have to be physically separatedand expelled from society。 Likewise, ina covenant founded for the purpose ofprotecting family and kin, there can beno tolerance toward those habitually pro-moting lifestyles incompatible with thisgoal。 They — the advocates of alternative,non-family and kin-centered lifestylessuch as, for instance, individual hedo-nism, parasitism, nature-environmentworship, homosexuality, or communism- will have to be physically removedfrom society, too, if one is to maintain alibertarian order。[6]

他补充说:在业主和社区租户之间为保护他们的私有财产而订立的契约中，不存在自由(无限制)言论的权利，甚至不存在对自己的租户财产的无限制言论。一个人可以说无数的话，宣扬太阳底下几乎任何一种思想，但自然没有人被允许提倡与维护和保护私有财产的契约宗旨相悖的思想，比如民主和共产主义。在自由意志主义的社会秩序中，不可能容忍民主主义者和共产主义者。他们将不得不在物理上被隔离，并被驱逐出社会。同样，在为保护家庭和亲属而建立的盟约中，不能容忍那些习惯性地提倡与这一目标不相容的生活方式的人。他补充说:在业主和社区租户之间为保护他们的私有财产而订立的契约中，不存在自由(无限制)言论的权利，甚至不存在对自己的租户财产的无限制言论。一个人可以说无数的话，宣扬太阳底下几乎任何一种思想，但自然没有人被允许提倡与维护和保护私有财产的契约宗旨相悖的思想，比如民主和共产主义。在自由意志主义的社会秩序中，不可能容忍民主主义者和共产主义者。他们将不得不在身体上被隔离，并被驱逐出社会。同样，在为保护家庭和亲属而建立的盟约中，不能容忍那些习惯性地提倡与这一目标不相容的生活方式的人。他们——倡导另类的、非家庭的、以亲属为中心的生活方式，例如，个人享乐主义、寄生、自然环境崇拜、同性恋或共产主义——如果要维持自由主义秩序，也必须从社会中移除。

These statements and others of their kind have beenand remain wildly controversial within the libertarianmovement。 I think it no exaggeration to say that justabout everyone in the Movement, since about 2000, hasdefined himself by what he thinks of Hoppe。 Some regardhim as the greatest living libertarian, others as The Devil。The only point of agreement is that he is a thinker whocannot be ignored。

这些言论和其他类似的言论在自由意志主义运动中一直存在并且仍然存在着巨大的争议。我想可以毫不夸张地说，从2000年开始，几乎运动中的每个人都用他对霍普的看法来定义自己。一些人认为他是在世的最伟大的自由意志主义者，另一些人则认为他是魔鬼。唯一的共识是，他是一位不容忽视的思想家。

THE PRESENT COLLECTION

This being so, the present collection will be useful as a briefstatement of where Hoppe stands on the most importantissues within the Movement – and the most importantissues of our age。 I am sensible of the truth that, while many skip over Introductions, others judge a book by itsIntroduction。 I am therefore more than usually sensibleof the need for a brief and accurate summary and discus-sion of the contents that follow my Introduction。

既然如此，这本文集将有助于简要说明霍普在运动中最重要的问题和我们这个时代最重要的问题上的立场。我意识到这样一个事实:虽然许多人跳过了《引言》，但其他人却只看《引言》来判断一本书。因此，我比通常更清楚地意识到，有必要对我引言之后的内容作一个简短而准确的总结和讨论。

In several places, Hoppe restates and emphasises hisview that the basics of libertarianism are derived by achain of deductive reasoning from undeniable premises。We live in a world of scarcity。 Either resources are scarce,or the time in which to use them is scarce。 We all havedifferent ideas on how these resources are to be used。Therefore, if we wish to live in a world where conflict overresources is minimised, we must agree on rights of own-ership and transfer。

在一些地方，霍普重申并强调了他的观点，即自由意志主义的基础是从不可否认的前提中推导出的一系列演绎推理。我们生活在一个物质匮乏的世界。要么是资源稀缺，要么是使用资源的时间稀缺。对于如何使用这些资源，我们都有不同的想法。因此，如果我们希望生活在一个资源冲突最小化的世界里，我们必须就所有权和转让权达成一致。

It must be taken for granted that we own ourselves。To claim the opposite leads to obvious inhumanity。 Itraises at least the potential for unlimited conflict overwho owns whom。 Where external resources are con-cerned, the ideal solution is that they belong to whoeverfirst appropriates them from the State of Nature, and thatthey are then transferred by consent – that is, by saleor by gift or by inheritance。 This is, of course, the idealsolution。 In much of the world, landed property has beenpossessed for thousands of years, and has been repeatedlyconfiscated and reassigned。 There is not a square inch ofEngland or Western Europe the title to which derivesfrom its original appropriator。 The practical solution,then, is a rebuttable presumption in favour of existingtitles – the rebuttal being good evidence of title derivedfrom an earlier chain of possession。 The exception is stateproperty。 This should be restituted to the holders of itslast reasonable title。

我们必须理所当然地认为我们拥有自己。相反的主张会导致明显的不人道。它至少引发了关于谁拥有谁的无限冲突的可能性。就外部资源而言，理想的解决办法是，它们属于首先从自然状态中占有它们的人，然后经同意转让，即通过出售、赠与或继承。当然，这是理想的解决方案。在世界上的许多地方，土地财产已经被占有了数千年，并一再被没收和重新分配。在英格兰或西欧，没有一平方英寸的土地是由原来的占有者得来的。因此，实际的解决办法是，支持现有所有权的可反驳的推定，而反驳是源于较早占有链的所有权的良好证据。例外是国有财产。这应该归还给最后一个合理所有权的持有者。

Either this is irrefutable, or denying it leads to greaterconflict than leaving things as they are。 Here, though, theself-evident nature of libertarianism ends。 Certain further propositions derived from Economics continue the chainof self-evident truth。 But other discussions of the approachto, or the shape of, a libertarian society involve questionsof pragmatic engagement。

要么这是无可辩驳的，要么否认这一点会导致比保持现状更大的冲突。然而，在这里，自由意志主义不言而喻的本质结束了。从经济学中推演出来的某些进一步的命题延续了不言而喻的真理链。但其他关于自由意志主义社会的方式或形态的讨论涉及务实参与的问题。

If the entire human race looked alike and thoughtmore or less alike, libertarian activism would be a mat-ter of unvaried and undiscriminating outreach。 But thehuman race, as it exists, is endlessly diverse。 There aredifferences of appearance, differences of ability, differ-ences of belief and expectation。 These differences areplain between individuals。 They are plain between differ-ent groups of individuals。 We are not some tabula rasa,on which the Spirit of the Age may write as it will。 Weare born different。 We grow more different still in howwe respond to whatever is meant by the Spirit of the Age。

如果整个人类都长得很像，思想也或多或少相似，那么自由意志主义行动主义就会是一种不变的、不加区别的延伸。但是人类，就其存在而言，是无限多样的。外貌的不同，能力的不同，信仰和期望的不同。这些差异在个体之间是显而易见的。它们在不同群体的个体之间是明显的。我们不是一张白纸，时代的精神可以随心所欲地在上面书写。我们天生不同。我们在如何回应时代精神的意义上变得更加不同。

In the long term, Hoppe and his critics are in fullagreement。 They look forward to a single humanity,united in respect for life, liberty, and property, all enrichedfrom the cultural and material benefits that derive from aworld of universal freedom。 For the moment, this singlehumanity does not exist – nor is it likely to exist。 Eitherwe must take account of these facts of difference, or wewill not。 If we will not, then we shall become useless intel-lectuals – endlessly talking to each other, and to nobodyelse, about the relationship between the non-aggressionprinciple and the doctrine of contractual frustration。 Orwe shall become dangerous intellectuals – advocatingpolicies, in the name of the non-aggression principle, thatdo not reduce but increase the likelihood of conflict overresources。 If we do choose to take account of these dif-ferences, then we find ourselves firmly on the unpopu-lar side of nearly all the questions that define the age inwhich we live。

从长远来看，霍普和他的批评者完全一致。他们期待着一个统一的人类，在尊重生命、自由和财产方面团结一致，所有人都从一个普遍自由的世界所带来的文化和物质利益中得到丰裕。就目前而言，这个单一的人类并不存在，也不太可能存在。我们要么必须考虑到这些差异的事实，要么就不考虑。如果我们不这样做，那么我们就会变成无用的知识分子——没完没了地相互谈论互不侵犯原则和契约挫折原则之间的关系，而不与其他任何人讨论。否则，我们就会变成危险的知识分子——打着互不侵犯原则的幌子，鼓吹那些不会减少反而会增加资源冲突可能性的政策。如果我们确实选择考虑这些差异，那么我们就会发现，在几乎所有界定我们生活的时代的问题上，我们都坚定地站在不受欢迎的一边。

If there is room for debate over the causes, one fact isplain。 This is that the freest and most prosperous societiesever to exist are those dominated by broadly heterosexualmales descended from the hunter-gatherers who settledWestern and Central Europe and Northern Asia。 Indeed,if there is room for debate over causes, the most likelycause – something deniable usually by the products of along and expensive university education – is somethinginherent to these peoples, rather than some set of contin-gent circumstances local to the past few thousand years。

如果对原因还有争论的余地，有一个事实是显而易见的。这就是，有史以来最自由、最繁荣的社会，是那些由广泛的异性恋男性统治的社会，这些男性是定居在西欧、中欧和北亚的狩猎采集者的后裔。的确，如果对原因有争论的余地，最可能的原因——通常被长期和昂贵的大学教育的产物所否认的原因——是这些民族固有的东西，而不是过去几千年当地的一些偶然情况。

This is not to say that these groups are “better” thanothers in any abstract sense。 It is not to say that all mem-bers of these groups show equal aptitude to preserve theirtraditional or acquired social orders。 Nor is it to say thatall members of other groups are equally unable to acquireor preserve the relevant social orders。 It is certainly notto invite us to think ill of those other groups。 Hoppe hasalways been clear on this, and his Bodrum conferencesare nothing if not diverse。 It is simply a matter of facinggeneral facts。 There are bearded women。 There are menwith breasts。 Not every Englishman keeps his appoint-ments。 Not every Nigerian ignores them。 Even so, bas-ing our conduct on exceptions rather than generalities isbound, sooner or later, to prove inconvenient。

这并不是说这些群体在任何抽象意义上都比其他群体“更好”。这并不是说这些群体的所有成员都表现出同样的能力来维护他们传统的或获得的社会秩序。这也不是说其他群体的所有成员都同样不能获得和保持相关的社会秩序。当然，这并不是要我们去贬低其他群体。霍普在这一点上一直很清楚，他的博德鲁姆会议也很多样化。这只是一个面对普遍事实的问题。有留胡子的女人。有乳房的男人。不是每个英国人都赴约。并不是每个尼日利亚人都忽视他们。即便如此，将我们的行为建立在例外而非一般性的基础上，迟早会被证明是不方便的。

One consequence of this approach is that Hoppeopposes anti-discrimination laws。 If there were a law thatonly white Christian heterosexual males were allowedto practise as doctors, he would denounce this – just ashe has, at the outset of his system, denounced any kindof chattel slavery。 Such laws violate the negative corol-lary of the right to freedom of association。 If we are tobe free to associate as we choose, so we are to be free notto associate。 Sometimes, our decisions will be groundedin the social realities just mentioned, sometimes not。 In any event, they are our decisions, and they should not beprevented by law。

这种做法的一个后果是，霍普反对反歧视法。如果有一条法律规定，只有信奉基督教的异性恋白人男性才被允许从事医生工作，他会谴责这一点——就像他在他的制度开始时谴责任何形式的奴隶制度一样。这些法律违反了结社自由权利的消极含义。如果我们有选择结社的自由，那么我们也有不结社的自由。有时，我们的决定将基于刚刚提到的社会现实，有时不是。无论如何，这是我们的决定，不应该被法律阻止。

A second consequence is that there should be an endto “regime change” and “nation-building” in other parts ofthe world。 In this present collection, Hoppe mentions hisopposition to our Middle Eastern interventions in pass-ing。 But his opposition is profound and firm。 The allegedreasons of these interventions are all proven or probablelies。 Even otherwise, the project of exporting our ways toplaces where there is neither desire for them nor aptitudeto receive them can only lead to more bloodshed thanleaving people with their own ways。

第二个后果是，世界其他地区的“政权更迭”和“国家建设”应该结束。在这本作品集里，霍普顺便提到了他对我们干涉中东的反对。但他的反对是深刻而坚定的。所谓的这些干预的原因都是经过证实的或可能的。即便如此，把我们的方式输出到那些既没有欲望也没有能力接受它们的地方的计划，只会导致更多的流血，而不是让人们按照自己的方式去做。

The third consequence is that he is opposed to openborders。 This returns me to Hoppe’s point about the pragmatic application of libertarian theory。 There arelibertarians who memorise some pithy statement of thenon-aggression principle, and immediately conclude thatall borders are immoral。 This approach ignores the pres-ent realities。 Mass-immigration from outside the regionsmentioned above has plainly negative effects。 It increasescrime and disorder。 It greatly expands the roll of welfareclaimants。 It provides a growing constituency for politi-cians whose careers are one long attack on life, liberty,and property。 Open borders in themselves at the moment- and especially open borders plus a welfare state andour endless wars of aggression that produce endless wavesof refugees – are an attack on civilisation。

第三个后果是他反对开放边境。这让我回到了霍普关于自由意志主义理论的实用应用的观点。有些自由意志主义者记住了一些关于互不侵犯原则的简明扼要的陈述，然后立即得出结论:所有的边界都是不道德的。这种做法忽视了当前的现实。上述地区以外的大量移民显然有负面影响。它增加了犯罪和混乱。它极大地扩大了领取福利的人数。它为政治家提供了越来越多的支持者，他们的职业生涯是对生命、自由和财产的长期攻击。目前开放边界本身——尤其是开放边界加上福利国家和我们无休止的侵略战争，这些战争产生了无休止的难民潮——是对文明的攻击。

Nor is there any reason to believe that a truly libertarian society would allow what now passes for open borders。People have the right to trade with each other, not settle where and how they please。 One of the central claims of libertarian theory is that all costs can and should be privatised。 Well, any entrant to a libertarian community may impose costs that outweigh the benefits of his presence。 If so, it is the undeniable right of the property-owners in such a community to deter new entrants they regard –for whatever reason – as undesirable。 Those who choose not to will be open to tort actions for allowing a nuisanceon their property。 A libertarian world would be a patch-work of communities。 These would provide for every conceivable taste。 Most of them, however, would probably be rather exclusive in their entry policies。 There would be room for communities that welcomed all-comers with open arms。 Hoppe’s view, however, is that these would be a minority of communities, and that their failure would be an example to others。

也没有任何理由相信，一个真正的自由主义社会会允许现在被视为开放的边界。人们有权利相互贸易，而不是在他们喜欢的地方和方式定居。自由意志主义理论的核心主张之一是，所有成本都可以而且应该私有化。嗯，任何进入自由主义社区的人都可能带来超过其存在收益的成本。如果是这样的话，在这样一个社区里，业主有不可否认的权利阻止他们认为——无论出于何种原因——不受欢迎的新进入者。那些选择不这样做的人将因允许对其财产的妨害而面临侵权诉讼。一个自由意志主义的世界将是由社区拼凑而成的。这些可以满足所有你能想到的口味。然而，它们中的大多数在进入政策上可能相当排外。社区将有空间张开双臂欢迎所有来客。然而，霍普的观点是，这些社区将是少数群体，他们的失败将成为其他社区的榜样。

Now, this is an argument about a world that does notexist, and may not exist for a very long time。 We live ina world of nation-states, all with borders。 What is to bedone about immigration in such a world？ Hoppe acceptsthe basic illegitimacy of the present order of things, butaccepts that it is the present order。 If civilisation is to sur-vive in even its present defective condition, it is necessaryto insist that states should act as trustees for those whofund them。 This does not mean a total ban on immigra-tion or hostility to individuals on the basis of their appear-ance。 But it does mean strict control of borders and thedeportation of undesirable entrants。 It also means highercharges for the use of public property on those who havecontributed nothing to its development。 It means noaccess to such welfare as may – however unwisely – beavailable to the settled population。 Anything less than that is best described not as “equality” or “anti-discrim-ination,” but as “forced integration。”

现在，这是一个关于一个不存在的世界的争论，可能在很长一段时间内都不存在。我们生活在一个民族国家的世界里，所有国家都有边界。在这样一个世界里，我们应该对移民做些什么？霍普承认前事物秩序的基本非法性，但接受它就是当前秩序。如果文明要在目前这种有缺陷的状态下生存下去，就有必要坚持国家应该充当资助者的受托人。这并不意味着完全禁止移民，也不意味着因为外表而对个人怀有敌意。但这确实意味着要严格控制边境，驱逐不受欢迎的入境者。这也意味着对那些对公共财产的发展毫无贡献的人收取更高的费用。这意味着无法获得定居人口可能获得的福利——无论多么不明智。任何低于这一标准的东西，最好不要用“平等”或“反歧视”来形容，而是用“强制融合”来形容。

Most of Hoppe’s polemical attacks in recent yearshave been on the self-described left-libertarians。 Thesecombine an acceptance of leftist notions of equality andanti-discrimination with some belief in free markets。 At the same time, he does not regard himself in any senseas a leader of what is called the Alt-Right。 This is a broadcoalition of national socialists, white nationalists, conser-vatives of various kinds, and disenchanted libertarians。It came to prominence in 2016 for its support of Don-ald Trump。 It became notorious in 2017 for the riotousassembly it provoked at the Charlottesville Rally。

近年来，霍普的大多数争议性攻击都是针对那些自称为左翼自由意志主义者的人。他们既接受左派的平等和反歧视观念，又相信自由市场。与此同时，他在任何意义上都不认为自己是所谓的另类右翼的领袖。这是一个由民族社会主义者、白人民族主义者、各种各样的保守派和幻灭的自由意志主义者组成的广泛联盟。它在2016年因支持唐纳德·特朗普而出名。2017年，它因在夏洛茨维尔集会上引发的骚乱集会而臭名昭著。

Hoppe accepts that the Alt-Right and libertariansshare an opposition to the bloated, malevolent, warmongering elites who rule most Western countries。 He hasopened a dialogue with some of the more reasonable Alt-Right leaders。 But he remains wary of the Alt-Right as awhole。 He dislikes its frequent mysticism – its appeals toa “higher wisdom” than the cautious rationalism of theEnlightenment。 He dislikes its obsession with race ratherthan a clear view of actual differences between individu-als and groups of individuals。 He particularly dislikes itsconcessions to socialism – socialism, so long as its “ben-eficiaries” are white people。 If the Alt-Right evolves intoa broad attack on undeniable evils, so much the better。 If,as seems likely, it will become a coalition of totalitarianor semi-totalitarian cults, he wants nothing to do with it。

霍普承认，另类右翼和自由意志主义者都反对统治大多数西方国家的奢靡、恶毒、好战的精英阶层。他与一些比较理性的另类右翼领导人展开了对话。但他仍然对整个另类右翼保持警惕。他不喜欢它频繁出现的神秘主义——它呼吁一种“更高的智慧”，而不是启蒙运动时期谨慎的理性主义。他不喜欢它对种族的痴迷，而不是对个人和个人群体之间实际差异的清晰认识。他尤其不喜欢它对社会主义的让步——只要它的“受益者”是白人，那就是社会主义。如果另类右翼演变成对不可否认的邪恶的广泛攻击，那就更好了。如果(看起来很有可能)它成为极权主义或半极权主义邪教的联盟，他不想与之有任何关系。

CONCLUSION

结论

Hoppe mentions several times in this collection that heis growing older, and that he will continue working solong as his health allows。 I hope he will continue for manyyears to come。 But let us allow that all life is uncertain,and accept that he may be taken from us tomorrow。 Thiswould be a terrible loss。 At the same time, I have not theslightest doubt that, on the basis of what he has achievedso far, the intellectual world has been made a better placeby Hoppe’s presence within it。 And I both hope and believe that the inspiration his work provides will one day contribute to the emergence of a better world for allhumanity。 If this short collection of his writings, and if mybrief Introduction, can form part of this contribution, itwill not have been published in vain。

霍普在这本合集里多次提到，他正在变老，只要他的健康允许，他将继续工作。我希望他能在未来的许多年里继续这样做。但是，让我们承认所有的生命都是不确定的，并接受他明天就可能会离我们而去的事实。这将是一个可怕的损失。与此同时，我毫不怀疑，在他迄今所取得的成就的基础上，知识世界因霍普的存在而变得更加美好。我希望并相信，他的作品所带来的灵感，终有一天会为全人类创造一个更美好的世界。如果他的这个短篇作品集和我的简短介绍可以构成这个贡献的一部分，那么它的出版就不会是徒劳的。

 

Sean Gabb

Deal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

一、现实的自由意志主义

A Realistic Libertarianism

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

 

Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any atti- tude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle。 In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be — and indeed most libertarians in fact are： hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular — and still be consistent adher- ents of libertarian politics。 In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be。 Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way。 [my emphasis]

从逻辑上讲，自由意志主义几乎在所有对待文化、社会、宗教或道德原则时的态度是一致的。在严格的逻辑上，自由意志主义政治学说可以从所有其他应考量的因素中分离出来;从逻辑上讲，一个人可以是——事实上，大多数自由意志主义者都是：享乐主义者、自由意志主义者、不道德主义者、一般宗教尤其是基督教的激进敌人——但仍然是自由意志主义政治的忠实拥护者。事实上，按照严格的逻辑，一个人可以在政治上始终如一地拥护财产权，但在现实中却是一个揩油分子、一个骗子、一个小偷和一个敲诈勒索者，就像太多的自由意志主义者都是那样。严格的逻辑上，人们可以做这些事情，但在心理学上，社会学上，在实践中，它根本不是这样运作的。(我的重点)

Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory。

让我先从作为纯粹演绎理论的自由意志主义的特征开始讲起。

If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible。 Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things。 I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing。

如果世界上没有匮乏，就不可能存在人类冲突。无论何时何地，人际冲突都是关于稀缺物品的冲突。我想用某一给定的东西做X，而你想用同样的东西做Y。

First appeared on lewrockwell。com, September 30, 2014。

 

 

Because of such conflicts — and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other — we seek out norms of behavior with the pur- pose of avoiding these conflicts。 The purpose of norms is conflict-avoid- ance。 If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless。 We would simply fight and struggle。

因为这些冲突，也因为我们能够相互交流和论辩，我们就可以寻求行为规范，以避免这些冲突。规范的目的是避免冲突。如果我们不想避免冲突，那么寻找行为规范将毫无意义。我们只会战斗和争抢。

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual。 Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, with out you and me coming into conflict。

在所有利益无法完全协调的情况下，只有将所有稀缺资源作为私有的、排他性的财产分配给特定的个人，如此才能避免稀缺资源的冲突。只有这样，我才能自主地行动，我的是我的，你的是你的，区分你和我，我们才不会陷入冲突。

But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not？ First： Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly (I can control your body only in-directly, by first directly controlling my body, and vice versa) and that only he directly con trols also in particular when discussing and arguing the question at hand。 Otherwise, if body-ownership were assigned to some indirect body-controller, conflict would become unavoidable as the direct body-controller cannot give up his direct control over his body as long as he is alive; and in particular, otherwise it would be impossible that any two persons, as the contenders in any property dispute, could ever argue and debate the question whose will is to prevail, since arguing and debating presupposes that both, the proponent and the opponent, have exclusive control over their respective bodies and so come to the correct judgment on their own, without a fight (in a conflict-free form of interaction)。

第一，每个人都拥有自己的身体，只有他自己能直接控制，而其他人不能。也就是我只能直接控制我自己的身体，从而间接控制你的身体，反之亦然。特别值得一提的是，在讨论和辩论当前某一问题时，只有他能直接控制自己的身体。如果将他的身体所有权分配给一些间接的身体控制者，就不可避免地产生冲突，因为只要他活着，直接的身体控制者就不能放弃他对自己身体的直接控制。任何两个人，尤其是作为任何财产纠纷中的竞争者，都不可能争论和辩论谁的意志应占上风的问题，因为争论和辩论的前提是，他们二者都对各自的身体拥有排他性的控制权。这样，勿需战争，他们自己就会在一种没有冲突的互动形式中做出正确的判断。

And second, as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i。e。, unappropriated, body)： Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner。 For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i。e。, peacefully。 Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent。

其次，对于我们只能间接控制的稀缺资源的排他性的控制权（财权），我们应以我不被占用的身体去占有它从而先占先得，或者通过自愿（无冲突）的交换从别人那里获得该资源。资源的第一个占有者(以及所有后来通过自愿交换链与他联系在一起的所有者)，才有可能在没有冲突的和平情况下，获得并控制资源。否则，如果把排他性的控制权交给后来者，冲突就无法避免，规范也就会被违背，从而不能持久存在。

Let me emphasize that I consider this theory as essentially irrefutable, as a priori true。 In my estimation this theory represents one of the greatest — if not the greatest — achievement of social thought。 It formulates and codifies the immutable ground rules for all people, everywhere, who wish  to live together in peace。

让我强调一下，我认为这个理论在根本上是无可辩驳的，是先验正确的。在我看来，这一理论代表了社会思想最伟大的成就之一——如果不是最伟大的成就的话。它为世界各地希望和平共处的所有人民，制定和编纂了不可改变的基本规则。

 

And yet： This theory does not tell us very much about real life。 To be sure, it tells us that all actual societies, insofar as they are characterized by peaceful relations, adhere, whether consciously or subconsciously, to these rules and are thus guided by rational insight。 But it does not tell us to what extent this is the case。 Nor does it tell us, even if adherence to these rules were complete, how people actually live together。 It does not tell us how close or distant from each other they live, if, when, how  frequent and  long, and for what purposes they meet and interact, etc。 To use an analogy  here： Knowing libertarian theory — the rules of peaceful interactions — is  like knowing the rules of logic — the rules of correct  thinking  and  reason ing。 However, just like the knowledge of logic, as indispensable as it is for    correct thinking, does not tell us anything about actual human thought, about actual words, concepts, arguments, inferences and conclusions used and made, so the logic of peaceful interaction (libertarianism) does not tell us anything about actual human life and action。 Hence： just as every logician who wants to make good use of his knowledge must turn his attention to real thought and reasoning, so a libertarian theorist must turn his attention to the actions of real people。 Instead of being a mere theorist, he must also become a sociologist and psychologist and take account of “empirical” social reality, i。e。, the world as it  really is。

This brings me to the topic of “Left” and “Right。”

这让我想到了做“左”与“右”这个主题。

The difference between the Right and the Left, as Paul Gottfried has often noted, is a fundamental disagreement concerning an empirical question。 The Right recognizes, as a matter of fact, the existence of individual human differences and diversities and accepts them as natural, whereas the Left denies the existence of such differences and diversities or tries to  explain them away and in any case regards them as something unnatural that must be rectified to establish a natural state of human equality。

正如保罗·戈特弗里德(Paul Gottfried)经常指出的那样，左翼和右翼之间的区别，是关于一个经验问题上的根本分歧。事实上，右翼承认人类个体差异和多样性的存在，并将其视为自然。而左翼则否认这种差异和多样性的存在，或试图消解它们的存在，并在任何情况下都将之视为不自然的东西，为了建立人类平等的自然状态，因此必须对此加以纠正。

The Right recognizes the existence of individual human differences not just with regard to the physical location and makeup of the human envi ronment and of the individual human body (its height, strength, weight, age, gender, skin- hair- or eye-color, facial features, etc。, etc。)。 More impor- tantly, the Right also recognizes the existence of differences in the mental  make-up of people, i。e。, in their cognitive abilities, talents, psychological dispositions, and motivations。 It recognizes the existence of bright and dull, smart and dumb, short- and far-sighted, busy and lazy, aggressive and peaceful, docile and inventive, impulsive and patient, scrupulous and careless people, etc。, etc。 The Right recognizes that these mental differ- ences, resulting from the interaction of the physical environment and the physical human body, are the results of both environmental and physiological and biological factors。 The Right further recognizes that people are tied together (or separated) both physically in geographical space and  emotionally by blood (biological commonalities and relationships), by language and religion, as well as by customs and traditions。 Moreover, the Right not merely recognizes the existence of these differences and diversi- ties。 It realizes also that the outcome of input-differences will again be dif- ferent and result in people with much or little property, in rich and poor, and in people of high or low social status, rank, influence or authority。 And it accepts these different outcomes of different inputs as normal and   natural。

 

The Left on the other hand is convinced of the fundamental equality of man, that all men are “created equal。” It does not deny the patently obvious, of course： that there are environmental and physiological differences, i。e。, that some people live in the mountains and others on the seaside, or that some men are tall and others short, some white and others black, some male and others female, etc。。 But the Left does deny the existence of men tal differences or, insofar as these are too apparent to be entirely denied, it  tries to explain them away as “accidental。” That is, the Left either explains such differences as solely environmentally determined, such that a change in environmental circumstances (moving a person from the mountains to the seaside and vice versa, for instance, or giving each person identical pre- and post-natal attention) would produce an equal outcome, and it denies that these differences are caused (also) by some — comparatively intractable — biological factors。 Or else, in those cases where it cannot be denied that biological factors play a causal role in determining success or  failure in life (money and fame), such as when a 5 foot tall man cannot win an Olympic gold medal in the 100 meter dash or a fat and ugly girl cannot become Miss Universe, the Left considers these differences as pure luck and the resulting outcome of individual success or failure as undeserved。 In any case, whether caused by advantageous or disadvantageous environ mental circumstances or biological attributes, all observable individual human differences are to be equalized。 And where this cannot be done literally, as we cannot move mountains and seas or make a tall man short or a black man white, the Left insists that the undeservedly “lucky” must compensate the “unlucky” so that every person will be accorded an “equal station in life,” in correspondence with the natural equality of all men。

With this short characterization of the Right and the Left I return to the subject of libertarianism。 Is libertarian theory compatible with the world-view of the Right？ And： Is libertarianism compatible with leftist views？

在对右翼和左翼做了简短描述之后，我回到自由意志主义的主题上来。自由意志主义理论与右翼的世界观相容吗？自由意志主义与左翼观点相容吗？

As for the Right, the answer is an emphatic “yes。” Every libertarian only vaguely familiar with social reality will have no difficulty acknowledging the fundamental truth of the Rightist world-view。 He can, and in light of the empirical evidence indeed must agree with the Right’s empiri cal claim regarding the fundamental not only physical but also mental inequality of man; and he can in particular also agree with the Right’s normative claim of “laissez faire,” i。e。, that this natural human inequality will inevitably result also in unequal outcomes and that nothing can or should be done about this。

对右翼来讲，答案是肯定的。每一个对社会现实即使只有模糊了解的自由意志主义者，都会毫不费力地赞同右翼世界观的基本真理。他能够，同时根据经验证据，确实必须同意右翼的经验主义主张，即人不仅在生理上而且在心智上都是不平等的;他也能够特别同意右翼关于“自由放任”的规范性主张，即这种自然的人类不平等将不可避免地导致结果的不平等，并且人们对此无能为力，也不应该为之做什么。

There is only one important caveat, however。 While the Right may accept all human inequalities, whether of starting-points or of outcomes, as natural, the libertarian would insist that only those inequalities are nat- ural and should not be interfered with that have come into existence by following the ground-rules of peaceful human interaction mentioned at the beginning。 Inequalities that are the result of violations of these rules, however, do require corrective action and should be eliminated。 And more- over, the libertarian would insist that, as a matter of empirical fact, there exist quite a few among the innumerable observable human inequalities that are the result of such rule-violations, such as rich men who owe their  fortune not to hard work, fore sight, entrepreneurial talent or else a volun tary gift or inheritance, but to robbery, fraud or stategranted monopolis tic privilege。 The corrective action required in such cases, however, is not  motivated by egalitarianism but by a desire for restitution： he (and only he), who can show that he has been robbed, defrauded or legally disadvantaged should be made whole again by those (and only those) who have  committed these crimes against him and his property, including also cases where restitution would result in an even greater inequality (as when a poor man had defrauded and owed restitution to a rich one)。

然而，只有一个重要的警告。虽然右翼可以接受所有人类的不平等，无论是起点还是结果，认为都是自然的。但自由意志主义者坚持认为，只有那些遵循前面提到的人类和平互动的基本规则而产生的不平等是自然的，而且也不应该受到干涉。然而，违反这些规则所造成的不平等，则的确需要采取纠正行动，并应予以消除。更重要的是，自由意志主义者坚持认为，作为一个经验事实，在无数可观察到的人类不平等中，有相当多的不平等是这种违反规则的结果，比如富人的财富不是来自努力工作、远见卓见、企业家才能，或自愿的赠予、遗产，而是来自抢劫、欺诈或国家授予的垄断特权。然而，在这种情况下所需的纠正行动不是出于平等主义，而是出于恢复原状的愿望。那些能够证明自己被抢劫、欺骗或在法律上处于不利地位的人，应该得到赔偿，而赔偿应来自那些曾经对他的财产权犯下罪行的人。这种赔偿不过是恢复他们应得的，即使这个赔偿过程可能会导致更大的不平等，例如一个穷人曾经欺骗了富人，而欠富人一个赔偿的时候。

On the other hand： As for the Left, the answer is an equally emphatic “no。” The empirical claim of the Left, that there exist no significant mental differences between individuals and, by implication, between various groups of people, and that what appear to be such differences are due solely to environmental factors and would disappear if only the environment were equalized is contradicted by all everydaylife experience and mountains of empirical social research。 Men are not and cannot be made equal, and whatever one tries in this regard, inequalities will always re- emerge。 However, it is in particular the implied normative claim and activist agenda of the Left that makes it incompatible with libertarianism。 The leftist goal of equalizing everyone or equalizing everyone’s “station in life” is incompatible with private property, whether in one’s body or in external  things。 Instead of peaceful cooperation, it brings about unending conflict and leads to the decidedly unegalitarian establishment of a permanent ruling-class lording it over the rest of the people as their “material” to be equalized。 “Since,” as Murray Rothbard has formulated it, “no two people are uniform or ‘equal’ in any sense in nature, or in the outcomes of a voluntary society, to bring about and maintain such equality necessarily requires the permanent imposition of a power elite armed with devastating coercive power。” [7]

There exist countless individual human differences; and there exist even more differences between different groups of individuals, since each  individual can be fit into countless different groups。 It is the power elite that determines which of these differences, whether of individuals or of groups, is to count as advantageous and lucky or disadvantageous and unlucky (or else as irrelevant)。 It is the power elite that determines how – out of countless possible ways — to actually do the “equalizing” of the lucky and the unlucky, i。e。, what and how much to “take” from the lucky and “give” to the unlucky to achieve equality。 In particular, it is the power elite, by defining itself as unlucky, that determines what and how much to take from the lucky and keep for itself。 And whatever equalization is then achieved： Since countless new differences and inequalities are constantly re-emerging, the equalizing-job of the power elite can never ever come to  a natural end but must instead go on forever, endlessly。

The egalitarian world-view of the Left is not only incompatible with libertarianism, however。 It is so out of touch with reality that one must be  wondering how anyone can take it seriously。 The man-on-the-street certainly does not believe in the equality of all men。 Plain common sense and sound prejudice stand in the way of that。 And I am even more confi dent that no one of the actual proponents of the egalitarian doctrine really, deep down, believes what he proclaims。 Yet how, then, could the Leftist worldview have become the dominant ideology of our age？

 

At least for a libertarian, the answer should be obvious： the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite。 The ruling elite therefore enlisted the help of the “intelligentsia” (or the “chattering class”)。 It was put on the payroll or oth erwise subsidized and in return it delivered the desired egalitarian mes- sage (which it knows to be wrong yet which is enormously beneficial to its own employment prospects)。 And so the most enthusiastic proponents of the egalitarian nonsense can be found among the intellectual class。[8]

自由意志主义者轻而易举地解释了这个现象：平等主义学说获得了这样的地位，不是因为它是正确的，而是因为它为统治精英推动极权主义的社会控制提供了完美的智力掩护。一方面，统治精英们寻求“知识分子”(或“喋喋不休阶级”)的帮助， 希望“知识分子”为统治精英提供咨询。另一反面，知识分子为统治精英提供平等主义理论，根本不在乎这个理论是否是错误的。作为回报，统治精英为知识分子提供薪资或其它补贴，以及有利的职业前途。因此，在知识分子阶层中，可以找到平等主义无稽之谈最狂热的支持者。

Given, then, that libertarianism and the egalitarianism professed by the Left are obviously incompatible, it must come as a surprise — and it is  testimony to the immense ideological powers of the ruling elites and their  court intellectuals — that many who call themselves libertarian today are, and consider themselves to be, part of the Left。 How is such a thing possible？

如前所述，自由意志主义的观点和左翼宣称的平等主义观点明然是不相容的，然而，今天许多自称为自由意志主义者的人却认为自己是左翼的一部分，这确实令人感到惊讶——这也证明了统治精英及其宫廷知识分子的巨大意识形态力量。这种事情何以成为可能的呢？

What ideologically unifies these left-libertarians is their active promotion of various “anti-discrimination” policies and their advocacy of a policy of “free and non-discriminatory” immigration。 [9]

These “libertarians,” noted  Rothbard, “are fervently committed to the  notion that, while each individual might not be ‘equal’ to every other, that  every conceivable group, ethnic contingent, race, gender, or, in some cases, species, are in fact and must be made ‘equal,’ that each one has ‘rights’ that  must not be subject to curtailment by any form of ‘discrimination。’” [10]

罗斯巴德指出：这些“自由意志主义者”狂热地相信这样一种观念——虽然每个个体可能并不与其他个体“平等”，但每个可以想象的群体、民族、种族、性别，或者在某些情况下，每个物种，实际上都是而且必须是“平等的”；每个人都有“权利”，这些“权利”不应受到任何形式的“歧视”，从而受到限制。

But how is it possible to reconcile this anti-discrimination stand with pri vate property, which all libertarians are supposed to regard as the cornerstone of their philosophy, and which, after all, means exclusive property and hence, logically implies discrimination？

但是，怎样才能使这种反歧视的立场与私有财产协调一致呢？所有自由意志主义者都应该把私有财产视为他们哲学的基石，毕竟，私有财产意味着排他性财产，因此，逻辑上就隐含着歧视。

Traditional leftists, of course, do not have this problem。 They do not think or care about private property。 Since everyone is equal to everyone else, the world and everything on and in it belongs to everyone equally all property is “common” property — and as an equal coowner of the  world everyone has of course an equal “right to access” to everywhere and everything。 Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, however, you can not have everyone have equal property and equal access to everything and everywhere without leading to permanent conflict。 Thus, to avoid this pre dicament, it is necessary to institute a State, i。e。, a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making。 “Common property,” that is, requires a State and is to become “State property。” It is the State that ultimately determines not just who owns what; and it is also the State, then, that ultimately deter mines the spatial allocation of all people： who is to live where and allowed to meet and have access to whom — and private property be damned。 After all, it is they, the Lefties, who would control the State。

But this escape route is not open to anyone calling himself a libertarian。 He must take private property seriously。

但这条退路并不对任何自称自由意志主义者的人开放。他必须严肃、认真地对待私有财产。

Psychologically or sociologically, the attraction of non-discrimination  policies to libertarians can be explained by the fact that an overproportionally large number of libertarians are misfits or simply odd — or to use  Rothbard’s description, “hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion 。。。, moochers, scamsters, and petty crooks and racketeers”——who became attracted to libertarianism because of its alleged ‘tolerance’ toward misfits and outliers, and who now want to use it as a vehicle to free  themselves from all discrimination typically, in everyday life, dished out to their likes。 But how do they do it “logically？” Left-libertarians, bleeding heart libertarians and humanitarian cosmopolitan libertarians are not  simply leftists。 They know of the central importance of private property。 Yet how can they seemingly logically reconcile the notion of private property with their promotion of anti-discrimination policies and in particular their propagation of a policy of discrimination-free immigration？

为什么“平等主义”对左翼自由意志主义者有吸引力呢？从心理学和社会学的角度，我们可以做如下解释。正如罗斯巴德所说，左翼自由意志主义者中很大比例的人要么古怪要么不合群，或者他们是“享乐主义者、放纵翼、不道德主义者、宗教的激进敌对者……白吃党、诈骗分子、以及小流氓和敲诈勒索者”。他们之所以被自由意志主义所吸引，是因为自由意志主义所倡导的对不合群者和异类的“宽容。现在他们想把自由意志主义作为一种工具，让自己摆脱各种“歧视”，而这些“歧视”是他们在日常生活总会遇到的。但他们是如何“合逻辑地”做到这一点的呢？左翼自由意志主义者、热血自由意志主义者和人道主义世界自由意志主义者不仅仅是左翼，他们也知道私有财产的核心重要性。然而，他们如何在逻辑上调和私有财产的概念与他们提倡的反歧视政策？特别是他们宣传的对待移民的反歧视政策？

The short answer is： in placing all current private property and its distribution among distinct people under moral suspicion。 With this claim, the left-libertarians fall into the opposite error from that committed by the non-libertarian Right。 As indicated, the non-libertarian Right commits the error of regarding all (or at least almost all) current property holdings, including in particular also the property holdings of the State, as natural and just。 In distinct opposition, a libertarian would recognize and  insist that some present property holdings, and all (or at least most) State- holdings, are demonstrably unnatural and unjust and as such require restitution or compensation。 In reverse, the left-libertarians claim that not only all or most State-holdings are unnatural und unjust (from this admis- sion they derive their title ‘libertarian’), but that also all or most private property holdings are unnatural and unjust。 And in support for this latter claim, they point to the fact that all current private property holdings and their distribution among various people have been affected, altered and distorted by prior State action and legislation and that everything would be different and no one would be in the same place and position he currently is had it not been for such prior State-interferences。

Without any doubt, this observation is correct。 The State in its long history has made some people richer and others poorer than they would have been otherwise。 It killed some people and let others survive。 It moved  people around from one place to another。 It promoted some professions, industries or regions and prevented or delayed and changed the develop- ment of others。 It awarded some people with privileges and monopolies and legally discriminated against and disadvantaged others, and on and on。 The list of past injustices, of winners and losers, perpetrators and vic- tims, is endless。

But from this indisputable fact it does not follow that all or most cur- rent property holdings are morally suspect and in need of rectification。 To be sure, State-property must be restituted, because it has been unjustly  acquired。 It should be returned to its natural owners, i。e。, the people (or their heirs) who were coerced to ‘fund’ such ‘public’ property by surren- dering parts of their own private property to the State。 However, I will not concern myself with this particular “privatization” issue here。 [11] Rather, it is the further-reaching claim that past injustices also render all current private property holdings morally suspect, which does not follow and which is certainly not true。 As a matter of fact, most private holdings are likely just, irrespective of their history — unless and except in such cases in which a specific claimant can prove that they are not。 The burden of proof, however, is on whoever challenges the current property holdings and distribution。 He must show that he is in possession of an older title to the property in question than its current owner。 Otherwise, if a claimant cannot prove this, everything is to remain as it currently is。

虽然事实是无可辩驳的，但我们并不能从此就推论出，目前所有或大多数的财产持有，在道德上是可疑的、需要纠正的。诚然，国家财产必须归还，因为这些财产是不正当获得的。它应该归还给它的自然所有者，即那些被迫放弃自己的部分私有财产，交给国家来“资助”这种“公共”财产的人(或他们的继承人)。但是，我不想在这里讨论这个特殊的“私有化”问题。但是，我们并不能说，当前所有的私有财产状态就应该在道德上受到怀疑，说它们是不公正导致的，是不合理不正确的。事实上，大多数私人财产很可能是公正的，无论其历史如何——除非也仅除非某一特定索赔人能够证明其不是公正的。然而，举证责任落在了对目前的财产持有和分配提出质疑的人身上。他必须证明对此财产，他拥有比目前业主更早的产权。否则，如果索赔人不能证明这一点，则一切保持原样。

Or： To be more specific and realistic： From the fact that Peter or Paul or their parents, as members of any conceivable group of people, had been  murdered, displaced, robbed, assaulted, or legally discriminated against in the past and their current property holdings and social positions would  have been different if it had not been for such past injustices, it does not follow that any present member of this group has a just claim (for compen sation) against the current property of anyone else (neither from within nor from outside his group)。 Rather, in each case, Peter or Paul would have to show, in one case after another, that he personally has a better because older title to some specified piece of property than some current, named and identified owner and alleged perpetrator。 Certainly, a considerable number of cases exists where this can be done and restitution or compensation is owed。 But just as certainly, with this burden of proof on  any challenger of any current property distribution, not much mileage can  be gained for any non-discriminatory-egalitarian agenda。 To the contrary, in the contemporary Western world, replete with “affirmative action” laws that award legal privileges to various “protected groups” at the expense of various other correspondingly un-protected and discriminated groups, more — not less — discrimination and inequalities would result if, as jus tice would require, everyone who in fact could provide such individualized  proof of his victimization was actually permitted to do so by the State and  bring suit and seek redress from his victimizer。

But left-libertarians — the bleeding-heart and humanitarian-cosmo- politan libertarians — are not exactly known as “fighters” against “affirmative action。” Rather, and quite to the contrary, in order to reach the conclusion that they want to reach, they relax or dispense altogether with the requirement for someone claiming victimhood of offering individualized proof of victimization。 Typically, in order to maintain their intel- lectual status as libertarians, the left-libertarians do so quietly, surreptitiously or even unknowingly, but in effect, in giving up this fundamental requirement of justice, they replace private property and property rights and rights violations with the muddled notion of ‘civil rights’ and ‘civil rights violations’ and individual rights with ‘group rights’ and thus become closet-socialists。 Given that the State has disturbed and distorted all pri- vate property holdings and distributions, yet without the requirement of individualized proof of victimization, everyone and every imaginable group can easily and without too much intellectual effort claim somehow “victimhood” vis-à-vis anyone else or any other group。 [12]

但是，自诩为悲天悯人、人道主义、世界主义、自由意志主义的左翼自由意志主义者，并不被认为是“反对平权运动”的“斗士”。相反，为了得到他们想要的结论，他们放宽了或完全取消了对声称自己是受害者的人需提供个性化受害证据的要求。通常，为了保持他们作为自由意志主义者的智识地位，左翼自由意志主义者悄悄地、秘密地甚至不知不觉地如此行事，但实际上，在放弃这一基本正义要求的同时，他们以“公民权利”和“侵犯公民权利”的模糊概念取代了私有财产、财产权和权利侵犯，用“群体权利”取代了个人权利，从而成为了“秘密社会主义者”。鉴于国家扰乱和扭曲了所有私有财产的持有和分配，但不需要个别的受害证明，每个人和每一个可以想象到的群体都可以轻易地、不需要太多的智识努力，就能以某种方式对其他任何人或任何其他群体声称自己是某种程度上的“受害者”。

Relieved of the burden of individualized proof of victimhood, the left-libertarians are essentially unrestricted in their ‘discovery’ of new “victims” and “victimizers” in accordance with their own presupposed egalitarian assumptions。 To their credit, they recognize the State as an institutional victimizer and invader of private property rights (again, from this derives their claim to be ‘libertarians’)。 But they see far more institutional and structural injustices and social distortions, far more vic tims and victimizers, and far more need for restitution, compensation and attendant property redistribution in the current world than only those injustices and distortions committed and caused by the State and to be resolved and rectified by shrinking and ultimately dismantling and privatizing all State holdings and functions。 Even if the State were dismantled, they hold, as late and lasting effects of its long prior existence or of certain pre-State conditions, other institutional distortions would remain in place  that required rectification to create a just society。

The views held by left-libertarians in this regard are not entirely uniform, but they typically differ little from those promoted by cultural Marxists。 They assume as ‘natural,’ without much if any empirical support and indeed against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, a largely ‘flat’ and ‘horizontal’ society of ‘equals,’ i。e。, of essentially universally and  world-wide homogeneous, like-minded and -talented people of more or less similar social and economic status and standing, and they regard all systematic deviations from this model as the result of discrimination and grounds for some form of compensation and restitution。 Accordingly, the  hierarchical structure of traditional families, of sex roles and of the partition of labor between males and females, is considered unnatural。 Indeed,all social hierarchies and vertical rank orders of authority, of headsmen and clan-chiefs, of patrons, nobles, aristocrats and kings, of bishops and cardinals, of ‘bosses’ generally, and of their respective underlings or sub- ordinates, are viewed with suspicion。 Similarly, all great or ‘excessive’ dis- parities of income and wealth — of so-called ‘economic power’ — and the   existence of both a downtrodden under-class as well as of an upper class of super-wealthy people and families are deemed unnatural。 As well, large industrial and financial corporations and conglomerates are considered artificial creatures of the State。 And also suspect, unnatural and in need of repair are all exclusive associations, societies, congregations, churches and clubs, and all territorial segregation, separation and secession, whether based on class, gender, race, ethnicity, lineage, language, religion, profession, interests, customs or tradition。

From that vantage point, the ‘victim’ groups and their ‘victimizers’ are easily identified。 As it turns out, ‘victims’ make up the vast majority of mankind。 Everyone and every conceivable group is a ‘victim,’ except that small part of mankind composed of white (including northern Asian) heterosexual males, living traditional, bourgeois family lives。 They, and especially the most creative and successful ones among them, (excluding interestingly only rich sports or entertainment celebrities) are the ‘victim izers’ of everyone else。

While this view of human history strikes one as bizarre in light of the amazing civilizational achievements originating from precisely this minority group of ‘victimizers,’ it coincides almost completely with the victimology also propagated by cultural Marxists。 Both groups only differ  on the cause of this similarly identified, described and deplored ‘structural state of victimization。’ For the cultural Marxists, the cause for this state of affairs is private property and unbridled capitalism based on private prop- erty rights。 For them, the answer how to repair the damage done is clear and easy。 All necessary restitution, compensation and redistribution are to  be done by the State, which they presumably control。

For the left-libertarians this answer does not work。 They are supposed to be in favor of private property and the privatization of State-property。 They ca nnot have the State do the restitution, because as libertarians they are supposed to dismantle and ultimately abolish the State。 Yet they want more restitution than only that resulting from the privatization of all so-called public property。 Abolishing the State is not enough for them to create a just society。 More is needed to compensate the just mentioned huge  majority of victims。

对于左翼自由意志主义者来说，这个答案行不通。他们支持私有财产和国有财产的私有化。他们不允许让国家来恢复原状，因为作为自由意志主义者，他们应该瓦解并最终废除国家。然而，他们希望得到的赔偿不仅仅是来自所谓的公共财产私有化所产生的赔偿。对于他们来说，仅仅废除国家还不足以创建一个公正的社会。为了补偿上文提到的绝大多数受害者，还需要更多的措施。

But what？ And on what grounds？ Whenever there is individualized proof of victimization, i。e。, if some person A can demonstrate that an other  person B had invaded or taken A’s property, or vice versa, no problem exists！ The case is clear。 But absent any such proof, what else is it that the ‘victimizers’ owe their ‘victims,’ and on what grounds？ How to determine who owes whom how much and of what？ And how to implement this restitution scheme in the absence of a State, and without thereby trampling on someone else’s private property rights？ This poses the central intellectual problem for any self-styled left-libertarian。

Not surprisingly, the answer given by them to this challenge turns out  evasive and vague。 From all I can gather, it amounts to little more than an  exhortation。 As a keen observer of the intellectual scene has summarized it： “Be nice！” More precisely： You, you small group of ‘victimizers,’ must always be especially ‘nice,’ forgiving, and inclusive vis-à-vis all members of the vast majority of ‘victims,’ i。e。, the long and familiar list of everyone except white, heterosexual males！ And as for enforcement： All ‘victimiz- ers’ not demonstrating proper respect to some victim-class member, i。e。, victimizers who are ‘nasty,’ unforgiving or exclusive or who say ‘nasty’ or disrespectful things about them, must be publicly shunned, humiliated, and shamed into obedience！

At first sight or hearing, this proposal how to do restitution may — as  can be expected coming from ‘nice’ people — appear, well, well mean- ing, harmless and plain ‘nice’。 In fact, however, it is anything but ‘nice’ and harmless advice。 It is wrong and dangerous。

不惊诧也不意外，这个赔偿建议的确是“做好人”，看起来很有意思，很无害，很“好”。然而，事实上，这绝不是“好”的或无害的建议，这个建议不仅错误而且危险。

First off： Why should anyone be particularly nice to anyone else — apart from respecting ones’ respective private property rights in certain specified physical means (goods)？ To be nice is a deliberate action and takes an effort, like all actions do。 There are opportunity costs。 The same effort could also be put to other effects。 Indeed, many if not most of our activities are conducted alone and in silence, without any direct interaction with others, as when we prepare our meal, drive our car, or read and  write。 Time devoted to ‘niceness to others’ is time lost to do other, possi- bly more worthwhile things。 Moreover, niceness must be warranted。 Why  should I be nice to people who are nasty to me？ Niceness must be deserved。 Indiscriminating niceness diminishes and ultimately extinguishes the dis- tinction between meritorious and faulty conduct。 Too much niceness will be given to undeserving people and too little to deserving ones and the over all level of nastiness will consequently rise and public life become increasingly unpleasant。

首先，人们应该互相尊重对方对物质财富的私人产权，但除此之外，人为什么应特别地对另一个人好？友善是一种主动的行为，需要付出努力，就像所有行为一样。而主动的行为必然有机会成本，主动的友善必然会舍弃其他可能的效果。实际上，我们的许多活动（即使不是大多数），都是独自静默进行的，这些活动与他人没有直接的互动，比如我们做饭、开车或阅读和写作。在“对他人友善”上花时间，会放弃把时间用于其他可能更有价值的事情上面。此外，友善必须是有理由的，我为什么要对那些对我恶劣的人友善？友善必须是值得的，不加区分的友善会削弱甚至消灭优良行为和有缺陷行为之间的区别。如果过多的友善给予不值得的人，而对值得的人则太少，如此，社会整体将变得越来越恶劣，公共生活将变得越来越不愉快。

Moreover, there are also genuinely evil people doing real evil things to real private property owners, most importantly the ruling elites in charge of the State-apparatus, as every libertarian would have to admit。 One surely has no obligation to be nice to them！ And yet, in rewarding the vast majority of ‘victims’ with extra love, care and attention, one accomplishes precisely this： less time and effort is devoted to exhibiting nasty behavior toward those actually most deserving of it。 The power of the State will not be weakened by universal ‘niceness,’ then, but strengthened。

此外，也存在名实相符的恶人，他们对真正的私有财产所有者做了绝对邪恶的事情，其中最重要的是那些掌握国家机器的统治精英们，每个自由意志主义者都必须承认这一点。我们显然没有义务对他们友善！然而，公众对广大“受害者”报以额外的爱、关心和关注，其实际效果却是减少了用于对最恶毒的人进行批评与惩罚的时间和精力。而且，国家的权力不会因为普遍的“友善”而被削弱，而是会被加强。

And why is it in particular the small minority of white, heterosexual males, and especially its most successful members that owes some extra- kindness to the vast majority of all other people？ Why not the other way around？ After all, most if not all technical inventions, machines, tools and gadgets in current use everywhere and anywhere, on which our current liv- ing standards and comforts largely and decisively depend, originated with them。 All other people, by and large, only imitated what they had invented and constructed first。 All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the inventors’ products for free。 And isn’t it the typical white hierarchical fam- ily household of father, mother, their common children and prospective heirs, and their ‘bourgeois’ conduct and lifestyle — i。e。, everything the Left disparages and maligns — that is the economically most successful model of social organization the world has ever seen, with the greatest accumu- lation of capital goods (wealth) and the highest average standards of liv- ing？ And isn’t it only on account of the great economic achievements of this minority of ‘victimizers’ that a steadily increasing number of ‘victims’ could be integrated and partake in the advantages of a worldwide network of the division of labor？ And isn’t it only on account of the success of the traditional white, bourgeois family model also that so-called ‘alternative lifestyles’ could at all emerge and be sustained over time？ Do not most of today’s ‘victims,’ then, literally owe their lives and their current living to the achievements of their alleged ‘victimizers？’

Why not the ‘victims’ giving special respect to their ‘victimizers’？ Why  not bestow special honor to economic achievement and success instead of failure, and why not give special praise to traditional, ‘normal’ lifestyles and conduct rather than any abnormal alternative that requires, as a necessary condition of its own continued existence, a pre-existing dominant surrounding society of ‘normal’ people with ‘normal’ lifestyles？

I will come to the apparent answer to these rhetorical questions shortly。 Before, however, a second  strategic error in the left-libertarian advice  of special niceness towards ‘historic victims’ must be briefly addressed。

我将很快给出这些反问句的明显答案。然而，在此之前，我们必须简要地指出，在给“历史受害者”特别友善的建言中，左翼自由意志主义者存在第二个策略错误。

 

Interestingly, the ‘victim’ groups identified by both left-libertarians and cultural Marxists differ little if at all from the groups identified as ‘underprivileged’ and in need of compensation also by the State。 While this poses no problem for cultural Marxists and can be interpreted as an indicator of the extent of control that they have already gained of the State apparatus, for left-libertarians this coincidence should be cause for intel lectual concern。 Why would the State pursue the same or similar end of ‘nondiscrimination’ of ‘victims’ by ‘victimizers’ that they, too, want to achieve, if only by different means？ Left-libertarians are typically oblivious to this question。 And yet to anyone with only some common sense the   answer should be apparent。

有趣的是，左翼自由意志主义者和文化马克思主义者所认定的“受害者”群体，与被认定为“弱势群体”、同样需要国家补偿的群体几乎没有区别。对于文化马克思主义者来说，这并不构成问题，并且可以被解释为他们已经在很大程度上掌控了国家机器的指标。但对于左翼自由意志主义者来说，这种巧合应该引起思想上的关注。如果仅仅是因为采用的手段不同，那么国家为什么要追求“施害者”对“受害者”“不歧视”这一目的或与之类似的目的呢？左翼自由意志主义者通常对这个问题视而不见。然而，对于稍有常识的人来说，答案应该是显而易见的。

In order to reach total control over each individual person, the State must pursue a divide et impera policy。 It must weaken, undermine and   ultimately destroy all other, rival centers of social authority。 Most impor- tantly, it must weaken the traditional, patriarchic family household, and  especially the independently wealthy family household, as autonomous  decision-making centers by sowing and legislating conflicts between wives and husbands, children and parents, women and men, rich and poor。 As  well, all hierarchical orders and ranks of social authority, all exclusive  associations, and all personal loyalties and attachments — be it to a par- ticular family, community, ethnicity, tribe, nation, race, language, religion, custom or tradition — except the attachment to a given State qua citizen- subject and passport holder, must be weakened and ultimately destroyed。 And what better way to do this than to pass anti-discrimination laws！

为了达到完全控制每个人的目的，国家必须实行分而治之的政策。它必须削弱、破坏并最终摧毁所有其他与之敌对的社会权威中心。最重要的是，国家必须通过宣传和立法，在妻子和丈夫、子女和父母、女人和男人、富人和穷人之间制造冲突，以此削弱传统的父权制家庭，尤其是那些独立富裕的家庭，从而削弱这些家庭作为自主决策中心的地位。此外，国家会制造公民和护照持有人对国家的依恋，而削弱所有社会权威、等级制度、专属协会，削弱并摧毁所有的个人忠诚和情感依恋——包括对特定家庭、社区、族裔、部落、民族、种族、语言、宗教、习俗或传统的忠诚和情感依恋。要做到这些，还有什么手段会比反歧视法更加有效？

In effect, by outlawing all discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, age, race, religion, national origin, etc。, etc。, a vast number   of people are declared State-certified ‘victims。’ Anti-discrimination laws, then, are an official call upon all ‘victims’ to find fault and complain to the State about their own ‘favorite’ ‘oppressors,’ and especially the more wealthy ones among them, and their ‘oppressive’ machinations, i。e。, their ‘sexism,’ ‘homophobia,’ ‘chauvinism,’ ‘nativism,’ ‘racism,’ ‘xenophobia,’ or whatever, and for the State to respond to such complaints by cutting the ‘oppressors’ down to size, i。e。, in successively dispossessing them of their property and authority and correspondingly expanding and strengthen- ing its own monopolistic power vis-à-vis an increasingly weakened, frag- mented, fractionalized and de-homogenized society。

实际上，通过禁止基于性别、性取向、年龄、种族、宗教、国籍等的一切歧视，许多人被宣布为国家认证的“受害者”。因此，反歧视法是一种官方呼吁，要求所有“受害者”找出错误，并向国家投诉他们自己“喜欢的”“压迫者”，尤其是他们当中比较富有的人，以及他们的“压迫性”阴谋，即“性别歧视”、“同性恋恐惧症”、“沙文主义”、“本土主义”、“种族主义”、“仇外心理”或其他什么，并要求国家通过减少“压迫者”的规模来回应这些投诉，不断剥夺压迫者的财产和权威，使社会日益削弱、分裂、碎片化和异质化，如此同时，相应地扩大和加强自己的垄断权力。

Ironically, then, and contrary to their self-proclaimed goal of want- ing to shrink or even eliminate the State, the left-libertarians with their peculiar, egalitarian victimology become accomplices to the State and  effectively contribute to the aggrandizement of its power。 Indeed, the left- libertarian vision of a discrimination-free multicultural society is, to use Peter Brimelow’s phrase, Viagra to the State。

具有讽刺意味的是，与他们自己宣称的要缩小甚至消灭国家的目标相反，左翼自由意志主义者带着他们特有的平等主义受害者论，成为了国家的帮凶，并有效地促进了国家权力的扩大。的确，用Peter Brimelow的话来说，左翼自由意志主义者对无歧视的多元文化社会的愿景是国家的“伟哥”。

Which brings me to my final subject。

这就引出了我的最后一个主题。

The role of left-libertarianism as Viagra to the State becomes even more apparent when one considers their position on the increasingly virulent question of migration。 Left-libertarians are typically ardent advocates in particular of a policy of ‘free and non-discriminatory’ immigration。 If they criticize the State’s immigration policy, it is not for the fact that its entry restrictions are the wrong restrictions, i。e。, that they do not serve to protect the property rights of domestic citizen, but for the fact that it imposes any restrictions on immigration at all。

当人们考虑到左翼自由意志主义在日益严重的移民问题上的立场时，他们作为国家伟哥的作用就变得更加明显了。特别在“自由和非歧视”移民政策上，左翼自由意志主义者是典型的狂热的鼓吹分子。如果他们批评国家的移民政策，并不是因为其入境限制是错误的限制，即这些限制根本无助于保护国内公民的财产权，而完全就是因为它对移民施加了限制。

But on what grounds should there be a right to un-restricted, “free” immigration？ No one has a right to move to a place already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by the present occupant。 And if all places are already occupied, all migration is migration by invitation only。 A right to “free” immigration exists only for virgin country, for the open frontier。

但是，有什么理由允许不受限制的“自由”移民呢？除非受到目前居住者的邀请，否则任何人无权搬到已被他人居住的地方。如果所有的地方都已被占用，那么所有的移民都是受邀请的移民。“自由”移民的权利只存在于处女地和开放的边境。

There are only two ways of trying to get around this conclusion and still rescue the notion of “free” immigration。 The first is to place all current place occupants and occupations under moral suspicion。 To this purpose, much is made of the fact that all current place occupations have been affected by prior State-action, war and conquest。 And true enough, State borders have been drawn and redrawn, people have been displaced, deported, killed and resettled, and state-funded infrastructure projects (roads, public transportation facilities, etc。, etc。) have affected the value and relative price of almost all locations and altered the travel distance and cost between them。 As already explained in a slightly different context, however, from this undisputable fact it does not follow that any present place occupant has a claim to migrate to any place else (except, of course, when he owns that place or has permission from its current owner)。 The world does not belong to everyone。

只有两种方法可以试图绕过这个结论，还能挽救“自由”移民的概念。第一个是将所有现在的居住者和占有状况，置于道德怀疑之下。为了达到这个目的，很多人都提到了这样一个事实，即所有目前的地方占领都受到以前的国家行动、战争和征服的影响。的确，国家边界被重新划定，人们流离失所，被驱逐出境，被杀害和重新安置，国家资助的基础设施项目(道路，公共交通设施等)影响了几乎所有地点的价值和相对价格，并改变了它们之间的出行距离和成本。然而，正如在一个稍微不同的背景下已经做出的解释那样，从这个无可争议的事实出发，并不意味着任何现在的居住者都有权迁移到其他任何地方(当然，除非他拥有那个地方或得到了现在的所有者的许可)。这个世界并不属于每一个人。

The second possible way out is to claim that all so-called public property — the property controlled by local, regional or central government is akin to open frontier, with free and unrestricted access。 Yet this is certainly erroneous。 From the fact that government property is illegitimate because it is based on prior expropriations, it does not follow that it is un-owned and free-for-all。 It has been funded through local, regional, national or federal tax payments, and it is the payers of these taxes, then, and no one else, who are the legitimate owners of all public property。 They cannot exercise their right — that right has been arrogated by the State — but they are the legitimate owners。

第二种可能的解决方法是声称所有所谓的公共财产——即地方、地区或中央政府控制的财产类似于开放的边境，可以自由无限制地进入。然而，这显然是错误的。从政府财产是非法的这一事实来看，因为它是基于先前的剥夺、征用，但这并不意味着它是无主的，供所有人自由使用的。它是通过地方、地区、国家或联邦税款资助的，因此，是纳税人，而不是其他任何人，是所有公共财产的合法所有者。他们无法行使他们的权利——那个权利已被国家剥夺——但他们是合法的所有者。

In a world where all places are privately owned, the immigration problem vanishes。 There exists no right to immigration。 There only exists the right to trade, buy or rent various places。 Yet what about immigration in the real world with public property administered by local, regional or cen- tral State-governments？

在一个所有地方都归私人所有的世界里，移民问题不复存在。不存在移民的权利。只存在交易、购买或租用各种场所的权利。然而，在公共财产由地方、地区或中央政府管理的现实世界中，移民又该如何呢？

First off： What would immigration policies be like if the State would, as it is supposed to do, act as a trustee of the taxpayer-owners’ public property？ What about immigration if the State acted like the manager of the community property jointly owned and funded by the members of a housing association or gated community？

首先：如果国家像它应该做的那样，作为纳税人-所有者的公共财产的受托人，那么移民政策会是什么样子？如果国家扮演由住房协会或封闭式社区成员共同拥有和资助的共有财产的管理者的角色，那么移民问题又会如何呢？

At least in principle the answer is clear。 A trustee’s guideline regarding  immigration would be the “full cost” principle。 That is, the immigrant or     his inviting resident should pay the full cost of the immigrant’s use made  of all public goods or facilities during his presence。 The cost of the community property funded by resident taxpayers should not rise or its quality fall on account of the presence of immigrants。 On the contrary, if possible the presence of an immigrant should yield the resident owners a profit, either in the form of lower taxes or community-fees or a higher quality of community property (and hence all-around higher property values)。

至少在原则上，答案是明确的。受托人关于移民的指导方针将是“全额成本”原则。也就是说，移民或其邀请居民，应支付移民在其逗留期间，使用所有公共物品或设施的全部费用。由居民纳税人出资的共有财产的成本，不应该因为移民的存在而上升，或者质量下降。相反，如果可能的话，移民的存在应该给居民所有者带来利润，或者以降低税收或社区费用的形式，或者以提高社区财产质量的形式(从而全面提高财产价值)。

What the application of the full cost principle involves in detail  depends on the historical circumstances, i。e。, in particular on the immigration pressure。 If the pressure is low, the initial entry on public roads may be entirely unrestricted to ‘foreigners’ and all costs insofar associated  with immigrants are fully absorbed by domestic residents in the expectation of domestic profits。 All further going discrimination would be left to the individual resident owners。 (This, incidentally, is pretty much the state   of affairs, as it existed in the Western world until WW I。) But even then, the same generosity would most likely not be extended to the use made by immigrants of public hospitals, schools, universities, housing, pools, parks, etc。。 Entry to such facilities would not be “free” for immigrants。 To the contrary, immigrants would be charged a higher price for their use than the domestic resident-owners who have funded these facilities, so as to lower the domestic tax-burden。 And if a temporary visitor-immigrant wanted to become a permanent resident, he might be expected to pay an admission price, to be remitted to the current owners as compensation for the extra-use made of their community property。

全成本原则的详细应用取决于历史环境，即特别取决于移民压力。如果压力较小，公共道路上的初始入境可能完全对“外国人”开放，所有与移民相关的成本都由国内居民完全承担，因为他们期望从中获得国内利润。所有进一步的歧视将留给个体居民所有者自行决定。（顺便说一句，这基本上是战前西方世界的状态。）但即使在那时，对移民使用公共医院、学校、大学、住房、游泳池、公园等设施也不太可能给予同样的慷慨。移民进入这些设施不会是“免费”的。相反，移民将被要求支付比资助这些设施的国内居民所有者更高的价格，以降低国内税负。如果临时访问的移民想要成为永久居民，他可能需要支付一个“入场费”，作为对他们对社区财产额外使用所作补偿金，以转交给当前所有者。

On the other hand, if the immigration pressure is high — as currently in the entire Western, white, heterosexual male dominated world — more restrictive measures may have to be employed for the same purpose of protecting domestic resident owners’ private and common property。 There  may be identity controls not only at ports of entry, but also at the local level, in order to keep out known criminals and otherwise undesirable riffraff。 And apart from the specific restrictions imposed on visitors by individual resident-owners regarding the use of their various private properties, there may also exist more general local entry restrictions。 Some espe- cially attractive communities may charge an entrance fee for every visitor (except for resident-invited guests) to be remitted to resident-owners, or require a certain code of conduct regarding all community property。 And the requirements of permanent ownership residency for some communities may be highly restrictive and involve intensive screening and a heavy admission price, as is still the case today in some Swiss communities。

另一方面，如果移民压力很大——就像目前在整个西方、白人、异性恋男性主导的世界一样——为了保护国内居民所有者的私人和共同财产，可能不得不采取更多的限制性措施。不仅在入境口岸，而且在地方一级，也可能有身份控制，以便将已知的罪犯和其他不受欢迎的流氓拒之门外。此外，除了个别居民对访客使用其私人物业的具体限制外，可能还有更普遍的本地入境限制。一些特别有吸引力的社区，可能会向每位访客收取入场费(居民邀请的客人除外)，并将其转交给居民业主，或者要求对所有社区财产制定一定的行为准则。对某些社区的永久所有权、居住权的要求可能非常严格，包括严格的筛选和高昂的入场费，就像今天瑞士一些社区的情况一样。

But of course, then： this is not what the State does。 The immigration policies of the States that are confronted with the highest immigration pressure, of the US and Western Europe, have little resemblance with the actions of a trustee。 They do not follow the full cost principle。 They do not  tell the immigrant essentially to “pay up or leave。” To the contrary, they tell  him “once in, you can stay and use not just all roads but all sorts of public facilities and services for free or at discounted prices even if you do not pay up。” That is, they subsidize immigrants — or rather： they force domes- tic taxpayers to subsidize them。 In particular, they also subsidize domestic employers who import cheaper foreign workers。 Because such employers can externalize part of the total costs associated with their employment the free use to be made by his foreign employees of all resident public property and facilities — onto other domestic taxpayers。 And they still  further subsidize immigration (internal migration) at the expense of resident-taxpayers in prohibiting — by means of non-discrimination laws — not only all internal, local entry restrictions, but also and increasingly all restrictions concerning the entry and use of all domestic private property。

但是，当然了，这并不是国家应该做的。面临最大移民压力的美国和西欧国家的移民政策，与受托人的行为几乎没有相似之处。他们没有遵循全部成本原则。他们基本上没有告诉移民，“要么付钱，要么离开”。相反，他们告诉他，“一旦进入，即使你不付钱，你不仅可以免费或以折扣价使用所有道路，还可以使用各种公共设施和服务。”也就是说，他们补贴移民——或者更确切地说：他们迫使国内纳税人补贴移民。特别是，他们还补贴那些进口廉价外国工人的国内雇主。因为这样的雇主，可以将与他们的雇佣有关的总成本的一部分——其外籍雇员免费使用其境内所有公共财产和设施——转嫁给其他国内纳税人。他们还进一步补贴移民(国内移民)，以牺牲居民纳税人的利益为代价。他们通过不歧视法律，不仅取消所有国内和当地的入境限制，而且越来越多地取消所有有关入境和使用国内私有财产的限制。

And as for the initial entry of immigrants, whether as visitor or resident, States do not discriminate on the basis of individual characteristics (as a trustee would, and as every private property owner would, regarding his own property), but on the basis of groups or classes of people, i。e。, based on nationality, ethnicity, etc。 They do not apply a uniform admis- sion standard： of checking the identity of the immigrant, of conducting  some sort of credit check on him, and possibly charging him an entrance fee。 Instead, they allow some classes of foreigners in for free, without any  visa requirement, as if they were returning residents。 Thus, for instance, all Rumanians or Bulgarians, irrespective of their individual characteristics, are free to migrate to Germany or the Netherlands and stay there to make use of all public goods and facilities, even if they do not pay up and live  at German or Dutch taxpayers’ expense。 Similarly for Puerto Ricans vis- à-vis the US and US taxpayers, and also for Mexicans, who are effectively allowed to enter the US illegally, as uninvited and unidentified trespassers。 On the other hand, other classes of foreigners are subject to painstaking visa restrictions。 Thus, for instance, all Turks, again irrespective of their individual characteristics, must undergo an intimidating visa-procedure and may be entirely prevented from traveling to Germany or the Nether- lands, even if they have been invited and command over sufficient funds to pay for all costs associated with their presence。

Resident owner-taxpayers are thus harmed twice： once by indiscrimi- natingly including some classes of immigrants even if they can’t pay up and on the other hand by indiscriminatingly excluding other classes of immigrants even if they can。

因此，居民纳税人受到了两次伤害：一次是不分青红皂白地接纳某些类群的移民，即使他们无力支付;另一次是不分青红皂白地排斥其他类群的移民，即使他们有钱支付。

Left-libertarians do not criticize this immigration policy as contrary to that of a trustee of public property ultimately owned by private domestic taxpayer-owners, however, i。e。, for not applying the full-cost principle and hence wrongly discriminating, but for discriminating at all。 Free, non- discriminatory immigration for them means that visa-free entry and per- manent residency be made available to everyone, i。e。, to each potential immigrant on equal terms, regardless of individual characteristics or the ability to pay for the full cost of one’s stay。 Everyone is invited to stay in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland or the US, for instance, and make free use of all domestic public facilities and services。

然而，左翼自由意志主义者并不批评这种移民政策，与公共财产的受托人政策是相反，这些公共财产最终由国内私人纳税人所有，也就是说，没有应用全成本原则，因此是错误地歧视，实际上是根本没有歧视。对他们来说，自由、无歧视的移民，意味着向所有人提供免签入境和永久居留权，即平等对待每一个潜在的移民，而不论其个人特征，也不论其支付全部停留费用的能力如何。例如，每个人都被邀请留在德国、荷兰、瑞士或美国，都可以免费使用所有国内公共设施和服务。

To their credit, left-libertarians recognize some of the consequences this policy would have in the present world。 Absent any other, internal or local entry restrictions concerning the use of domestic public properties and services and increasingly absent also all entry restrictions regarding the use of domestic private property (owing to countless anti-discrimina- tion laws), the predictable result would be a massive inflow of immigrants from the third and second world into the US and Western Europe and the  quick collapse of the current domestic ‘public welfare’ system。 Taxes would  have to be sharply increased (further shrinking the productive economy) and public property and services would dramatically deteriorate。 A finan- cial crisis of unparalleled magnitude would result。

左翼自由意志主义者也认识到这一政策将对当今世界造成的一些后果，这一点值得称赞。如果没有任何其他关于使用国内公共财产和服务的内部或当地入境限制，并且越来越缺乏关于使用国内私有财产的所有入境限制(由于无数的反歧视法律)，可预见的结果将是，来自第二和第三世界的大量移民涌入美国和西欧，并导致当前国内“公共福利”制度的迅速崩溃。税收将不得不大幅增加(进一步收缩生产性经济)，公共财产和服务将急剧恶化。这将导致一场规模空前的金融危机。

Yet why would this be a desirable goal for anyone calling himself a libertarian？ True enough, the tax-funded public welfare system should be  eliminated, root and branch。 But the inevitable crisis that a “free” immi- gration policy would bring about does not produce this result。 To the con- trary： Crises, as everyone vaguely familiar with history would know, are typically used and often purposefully fabricated by States in order to fur- ther increase their own power。 And surely the crisis produced by a “free” immigration policy would be an extraordinary one。

然而，为什么这是一个自称是自由意志主义者的理想目标呢？诚然，税收资助的公共福利体系应该彻底取消。但是，“自由”移民政策所带来的不可避免的危机，并不能实现这个结果。恰恰相反，每一个对历史略知一二的人都知道，危机通常被国家利用，继而往往有意制造，以便增加它们自己的权力。毫无疑问，“自由”移民政策引发的危机将是一场非同寻常的危机。

What left-libertarians typically ignore in their nonchalant or even sympathetic appraisal of the predictable crisis is the fact that the immigrants who caused the collapse are still physically present when it occurs。 For left-libertarians, owing to their egalitarian preconceptions, this fact does not imply a problem。 For them, all people are more or less equal and hence, an increase in the number of immigrants has no more of an impact than an increase of the domestic population via a higher birthrate。 For every social realist, however, indeed for everyone with any common sense, this premise is patently false and potentially dangerous。 A million more Nigerians or Arabs living in Germany or a million more Mexicans or  Hutus or Tutsis residing in the US is quite a different thing than a million more home-grown Germans or Americans。 With millions of third- and second-world immigrants present when the crisis hits and the paychecks stop coming in, it is highly unlikely that a peaceful outcome will result and a natural, private-property-based social order emerge。 Rather, it is far  more likely and indeed almost certain that civil war, looting, vandalism, and tribal or ethnic gang warfare will break out instead — and the call for a strong-man-State will become increasingly unmistakable。

左翼自由意志主义者，面对这场可预见的危机，做出冷漠甚至同情的评价，他们显然忽略了这样一个事实：当危机发生时，造成危机的移民在危机发生时仍然存在。对于左翼自由意志主义者来说，由于他们的平等主义先入为主的观念，他们看不到这个事实蕴含的问题。对他们来说，所有人或多或少都是平等的，因此，增加移民数量的影响并不比通过提高出生率来增加国内人口的影响大。然而，对于每一个社会现实主义者来说，实际上对于每一个有常识的人来说，这个前提显然是错误的，并且具有潜在的危险。一百多万的尼日利亚人或阿拉伯人住在德国，或者一百多万的墨西哥人、胡图族人或图西人住在美国，这与一百多万土生土长的德国人或美国人是完全不同的。当危机爆发且工资停止发放时，数百万第三世界和第二世界的移民居住在当地，和平解决问题的可能性非常小，一个基于自然、私有财产的社会秩序出现的可能性也很小。相反，更有可能，几乎可以肯定，将爆发内战、抢劫、破坏和部落或种族团伙战争，并且对强大国家的呼声会变得日益明显。

Why, then, one might ask, does the State not adopt the left-libertarian “free” immigration policy and grasp the opportunity offered by the pre- dictable crisis to further strengthen its own power？ Through its internal non-discrimination policies and also its current immigration policies, the State has already done much to fragment the domestic population and so increase its own power。 A “free immigration” policy would add another, enormous dose of non-discriminatory “multiculturalism。” It would fur- ther strengthen the tendency toward social dehomogenization, division and fragmentation, and it would further weaken the traditional, white, heterosexual male dominated ‘bourgeois’ social order and culture associ- ated with the “West。”

那么，人们可能会问，为什么国家不采取左翼自由主义的“自由”移民政策，抓住可预见的危机提供的机会，进一步加强自己的权力？通过其内部的不歧视政策以及目前的移民政策，国家已经在分裂国内人口方面做了很多工作，从而增加了自己的权力。“自由移民”政策将再加上一剂非歧视性的“多元文化主义”，这将进一步加强社会异质化、分裂和碎片化的趋势，并将进一步削弱传统的、白人、异性恋男性主导的“资产阶级”社会秩序和“西方”特色的文化。

The answer as to ‘why not？’ appears simple, however。 In contrast to left-libertarians, the ruling elites are still realistic enough to recognize that besides great opportunities for State growth, the predictable crisis would also entail some incalculable risk and could lead to social upheavals of such proportions that they themselves may be swept out of power and be replaced by other, ‘foreign’ elites。 Accordingly, the ruling elites proceed  only gradually, step by step, on their path toward a “non-discriminatory multiculturalism。” And yet they are happy about the left-libertarian “free immigration” propaganda, because it helps the State not just to stay on its  present divide et impera course but to proceed on it at an accelerated pace。 Contrary to their own anti-statist pronouncements and pretensions, then, the peculiar left-libertarian victimology and its demand for undiscriminating niceness and inclusiveness vis-a-vis the long, familiar list of historical “victims,” including in particular also all foreigners qua poten tial immigrants, actually turns out to be a recipe for the further growth of State power。 The cultural Marxists know this, and that is the reason why they adopted the very same victimology。 The left-libertarians do appar- ently not know this and are thus the cultural Marxists’ useful idiots on their march toward totalitarian social control。

 

Let me come to a conclusion and return to libertarianism, and the topic of Left and Right — and thereby finally also to the answer to my earlier rhetorical questions concerning the peculiar leftist victimology and its significance。

让我来做个总结，回到自由意志主义，回到左翼和右翼的话题——从而也最终回答我之前关于特殊的左翼受害者论说及其意义的修辞问题。

You cannot be a consistent left-libertarian, because the left-libertarian doctrine, even if unintended, promotes Statist, i。e。, un-libertarian, ends。 From this, many libertarians have drawn the conclusion that libertarian- ism is neither Left nor Right。 That it is just “thin” libertarianism。 I do not accept this conclusion。 Nor, apparently, did Murray Rothbard, when he ended the initially presented quote saying： “but psychologically, sociologi- cally, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way。” Indeed, I consider  myself a right-libertarian — or, if that may sound more appealing, a real- istic or commonsensical libertarian — and a consistent one at that。

你无法成为一个始终如一的左翼自由意志主义者，因为即使不是故意的，左翼自由意志主义的信条也会促进国家主义，而这不符合自由意志主义的目标。由此，许多自由意志主义者得出结论：自由意志主义既不是左翼也不是右翼。这只是“单薄”的自由意志主义。我不接受这个结论。显然，默里•罗斯巴德(Murray Rothbard)也不这么认为，他在结束最初提出的引言时说：“但从心理学、社会学和实践角度来看，事情根本不是那样运作的。”事实上，我认为自己是一个右翼自由意志主义者——或者，如果这听起来更吸引人的话，是一个现实主义的或常识性的自由意志主义者——而且是一个始终如一的自由意志主义者。

True enough, the libertarian doctrine is a purely aprioristic and deductive theory and as such does not say or imply anything about the rival claims of the Right and the Left regarding the existence, the extent and the causes of human inequalities。 That is an empirical question。 But on this question the Left happens to be largely unrealistic, wrong and devoid of any common sense, whereas the Right is realistic and essentially correct and sensible。 There can be consequently nothing wrong with applying a correct aprioristic theory of how peaceful human cooperation is possible to a realistic, i。e。, fundamentally rightist, description of the world。 For only based on correct empirical assumptions about man is it possible to arrive at a correct assessment as regards the practical implementation and the sustainability of a libertarian social order。

的确，自由意志主义学说是一种纯粹的先验和演绎的理论，因此该理论并没有阐述或暗示任何右翼和左翼关于人类不平等的存在、程度和原因的对立主张。这是一个实证问题。但是在这个问题上，左翼恰好是大半不现实的，大半是错误的，大半是没有常识的；而右翼是现实的，本质上是正确的和理智的。因此，把人类和平合作如何可能的正确的先验理论应用于现实的，即基本上是右翼的对世界的描述，是没有错的。因为只有基于对人的正确的经验假设，才有可能对自由意志主义的社会秩序的实际应用和可持续性，做出正确的评估。

Realistically, then, a right-libertarian does not only recognize that physical and mental abilities are unequally distributed among the vari- ous individuals within each society and that accordingly each society will be characterized by countless inequalities, by social stratification and a multitude of rank orders of achievement and authority。 He also recognizes that such abilities are unequally distributed among the many different societies coexisting on the globe and that consequently also the world- as-a-whole will be characterized by regional and local inequalities, disparities, stratification and rank orders。 As for individuals, so are also not all societies equal and on a par with each other。 He notices further that among these unequally distributed abilities, both within any given society and between different societies, is also the mental ability of recognizing the requirements and the benefits of peaceful cooperation。 And he notices that the conduct of the various regional or local States and their respective power elites that have emerged from different societies can serve as a  good indicator for the various degrees of deviation from the recognition of libertarian principles in such societies。

现实地说，一个右翼自由意志主义者，不仅认识到生理和心智能力在每个社会中的不同个体之间，其分布是不等同的，因此，每个社会都将以无数的不平等、社会阶层化、众多的成就和权威等级为特征。他还意识到，这些能力在地球上共存的许多不同社会之间，同样是分布不均的，因此，整个世界也将以区域性和地方性的不平等、差异化、层级化和等级顺序为特征。与个体的不平等一样，并非所有社会都平等且处于同一水平线上。他进一步注意到，在这些不均匀分布的能力之中，不管在任何给定的社会内部，还是在不同社会之间，认识和平合作的要求和利益的心智能力，也是不同的。他注意到，不同地区或地方国家的行为，以及他们各自的权力精英的行为，可以作为一个很好的观察指标，用来观察这些社会对自由意志主义原则的认知有多大程度的偏离。

More specifically, he realistically notices that libertarianism, as an  intellectual system, was first developed and furthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies。 That it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence  to libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations from them the  least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist State policies)。 That it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the  greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess。 And that it is societies  dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most suc- cessful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards。

更具体地说，他现实地注意到，自由意志主义作为一种思想体系，最早是在西方世界，由白人男性，在白人男性主导的社会中发展起来的，并且得到了最详尽的阐述。在异性恋男性主导的白人社会中，对自由意志主义原则的坚持是最大的，对自由意志主义原则的偏离是最不严重的(从相对较少的邪恶和敲诈勒索的国家政策中可以看出)。白人异性恋男性展现出了最伟大的创造力、勤劳和经济实力。而由白人异性恋男性主导的社会，尤其是由他们中最成功的人主导的社会，生产和积累了最多的资本财，并且达到了最高的平均生活水平。

 

In light of this, as a right-libertarian, I would of course first say to my children and students： always respect and do not invade others’ private  property rights and recognize the State as an enemy and indeed the very anti-thesis of private property。 But I would not leave it at that。 I would not  say (or silently imply) that once you have satisfied this requirement “any- thing goes。” Which is pretty much what ‘thin’ libertarians appear to be say- ing！ I would not be a cultural relativist as most “thin” libertarians at least  implicitly are。 Instead, I would add (at a minimum)： be and do whatever makes you happy, but always keep in mind that as long as you are an integral part of the worldwide division of labor, your existence and well-being  depends decisively on the continued existence of others, and especial ly on the continued existence of white heterosexual male dominated societ- ies, their patriarchic family structures, and their bourgeois or aristocratic life style and conduct。 Hence, even if you do not want to have any part in that, recognize that you are nonetheless a beneficiary of this standard “Western” model of social organization and hence, for your own sake, do   nothing to undermine it but instead be supportive of it as something to be respected and protected。

有鉴于此，作为一名右翼自由意志主义者，我当然会首先对我的孩子和学生们说：永远尊重和不侵犯他人的私有财产权，并将国家视为敌人，它实际上是私有财产的对立面。但我不会就此罢休。我不会说(或默默暗示)一旦你满足了以上这个要求，“任何事情都可以”。因为这几乎就是“单薄”的自由意志主义者所说的话！我不会像大多数“单薄”的自由意志主义者那样，成为一名文化相对主义者。相反，我会至少补充说：做任何让你快乐的事，但要永远记住，只要你是世界范围内劳动分工的一个组成部分，你的存在和幸福就决定性地取决于其他人的继续存在，特别是取决于白人异性恋男性主导的社会的继续存在，取决于他们主导的父权制家庭结构，取决于他们的资产阶级或贵族的生活方式和行为。因此，即使你不想参与其中，也要认识到你仍然是这种标准的“西方”社会组织模式的受益者，因此，为了你自己的利益，不要去破坏它，而是支持它，把它作为一种值得尊重和保护的东西。

And to the long list of ‘victims’ I would say： do your own thing, live your own life, as long as you do it peacefully and without invading other people’s private property rights。 If and insofar as you are integrated into the international division of labor, you do not owe restitution to anyone nor does anyone owe you any restitution。 Your coexistence with your supposed ‘victimizers’ is mutually beneficial。 But keep in mind that while the ‘victimizers’ could live and do without you, albeit at a lower standard of living, the reverse is not true。 The disappearance of the ‘victimizers’ would  imperil your very own existence。 Hence, even if you don’t want to model yourself on the example provided by white male culture, be aware that it is only on account of the continued existence of this model that all alter- native cultures can be sustained at their present living standards and that with the disappearance of this “Western” model as a globally effective Leitkultur the existence of many if not all of your fellow ‘victims’ would be endangered。

对于一长串的“受害者”，我想说：做你自己的事，过你自己的生活，只要你和平地做，不侵犯别人的私有财产权。只要你融入了国际劳动分工，你不欠任何人任何赔偿，任何人也不欠你任何赔偿。你与你假定的“施害者”共存是互利的。但请记住，虽然“施害者”可以在没有你的情况下生活，尽管生活水平较低。但反过来却是未必，没了“施害者”将危及你的生存。因此，即使你不想以白人男性文化为榜样，也要意识到，只有这种模式的持续存在，所有其他文化才能维持目前的生活水平，而随着这种“西方”模式作为一种全球有效的主流文化的消失，许多(如果不是全部的话)你的“受害者”同胞的存在将受到威胁。

That doesn’t mean that you should be uncritical of the “Western,” white male dominated world。 After all, even these societies most closely following this model also have their various States that are responsible for reprehensible acts of aggression not only against their own domestic prop- erty owners but also against foreigners。 But neither where you live nor anywhere else should the State be confused with “the people。” It is not the “Western” State, but the “traditional” (normal, standard, etc。) lifestyle and   conduct of the western “people,” already under increasingly heavy attack by their very “own” State-rulers on their drive toward totalitarian social control, that deserves your respect and of which you are a beneficiary。

 

 

 

 

二、论民主、去文明化进程和寻找一种新的反主流文化

ON DEMOCRACY, DE-CIVILIZATION,AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW COUNTERCULTURE

 

Because every action requires the employment of specific physical means — a body, standing room, external objects — a conflict between different actors must arise, whenever two actors try to use the same physical means for the attainment of different purposes。 The source of conflict is always and invariably the same： the scarcity or rivalrousness of physical means。 Two actors cannot at the same time use the same physical means — the same bod- ies, spaces and objects — for alternative purposes。 If they try to do so, they must clash。 Therefore, in order to avoid conflict or resolve it if it occurs, an actionable principle and criterion of justice or law is required, i。e。, a princi- ple regulating the just, lawful, or “proper” vs。 the unjust, unlawful, or “improper” use and control (ownership) of scarce physical means。

Logically, what is required to avoid all conflict is clear： It is only necessary that every good be always and at all times owned privately, i。e。, controlled exclusively by some specified individual (or individual partnership or asso- ciation), and that it be always recognizable which good is owned and by whom, and which is not or by someone else。 The plans and purposes of various profit-seeking actor-entrepreneurs may then be as different as can be, and yet no conflict will arise so long as their respective  actions involve only and exclusively the use of their own, private property。

 

逻辑上来说，避免所有冲突，其所需是明确的：只需要每一种商品，总是并且在任何时候都是私人拥有的，即，由某个特定的个人(个人合伙或联合体)独家控制，并且人们总是能辨认出哪些物品是由某人所有的，哪些物品是由他人所有的。各种追求利润的行动者-企业家的计划和目的，可能会有很大的不同，但只要他们各自的行动只涉及并仅限于使用自己的私有财产，冲突就不会产生。

Yet how can this state of affairs： the complete and unambiguously clear privatization of all goods, be practically accomplished？ How can physical things become private property in the first place; and how can conflict be  avoided in these initial acts of privatization？

A single — praxeological — solution to this problem exists and has been essentially known to mankind since its beginnings — even if it has only been slowly and gradually elaborated and logically re-constructed。 To avoid conflict from the start, it is necessary that private property be founded through acts of original appropriation。 Property must be established through acts (instead of mere words, decrees, or declarations), because only through actions, taking place in time and space, can an objective intersubjectively ascertainable  link be established between a particular person and a particular thing。 And only the first appropriator of a previously unappropriated thing can acquire this thing as his property without con flict。 For, by definition, as the first appropriator he can  not have run into conflict with anyone in appropriating the good in question, as everyone else appeared on the scene only later。

This importantly implies that while every person is the exclusive owner of his own physical body as his pri- mary means of action, no person can ever be the owner of any other person’s body。 For we can use another per- son’s body only indirectly, i。e。, in using our directly appropriated and controlled own body first。 Thus, direct appropriation temporally and logically precedes indirect appropriation; and accordingly, any non-consensual use of another person’s body is an unjust misappropriation of something already directly appropriated by someone else。

All just (lawful) property, then, goes back directly         or indirectly, through a chain of mutually beneficial

— and thus conflict-free — property title transfers, to prior and ultimately original appropriators and acts of appropriation。 Mutatis mutandis, all claims to and uses   made of things by a person who had neither appropriated or previously produced these things, nor acquired them through a conflict-free exchange from some previous owner, are unjust (unlawful)。

 

所有正当的(合法的)财产，透过一系列互利的(因而无冲突的)财产所有权转移，最终都可直接或间接地回溯到先前和最初的占有者和他们的占有行为。如果一个人既没有先占或者未生产过这些物品，也没有通过无冲突的交换从以前的某个所有者那里获得，那么，他对这些东西的所有要求和使用都是不公正的(非法的)。

Let me emphasize, that I consider these elementary  insights argumentatively irrefutable and hence, a pri- ori true。 If you want to live in peace with other persons — and you demonstrate that you wish to do so by engaging in argumentation with them — then only one solution exists： you must have private (exclusive) property in all things scarce and suitable as means (or goods) in the pursuit of human ends (goals); and private property in such things must be founded in acts of original appropriation — the recognizable embordering or enclosure of scarce resources — or else in the voluntary transfer of such property from a prior to a later owner。

我要强调，我认为这些基本见解在论证上是无可辩驳的，因此必定先验正确。如果你想与其他人和平共处——通过与他们论辩来证明你希望这样做——那么唯一的解决办法：所有稀缺的和适合追求人类目的(目标)，作为手段(或商品)的东西，你必须拥有私有(排他性)财产权；这些事物作为私有财产，必须建立在最初的占有行动之上——可识别的对稀缺资源的占有或圈定——或者建立在自愿的转让基础之上，即这些财产从前一个所有者自愿转让给后一个所有者。

We can say, then, that these rules express and explicate the “natural law。” “Natural,” given the uniquely human goal of peaceful interaction; and “natural,” because these laws are “given” and merely discovered as such by man。 That is, they are emphatically not laws that are made- up, contrived, or decreed。 In fact, all man-made (rather than discovered or found) law, i。e。, all legislation, is not law at all, but a perversion of law： orders, commands, or prescriptions that do not lead to peace, but to conflict, and hence are dysfunctional of the very purpose of laws。

因此，我们可以说，这些规则表达和阐释了“自然法则”。这里的“自然”是指对于人类独特的和平互动目标，这些法则是“本就存在”的；它们是由人类发现的，而非创造、设计或颁布的。事实上，所有人造的（而不是被发现或找到的）法律，即所有立法，实际上不是真正的法律，而是法律的扭曲：这些是命令、指令或规定，并不会带来和平，而只会导致冲突，因此与法律的真正目的背道而驰。

This does not mean that, with the discovery of the principles of natural law, all problems of social order are solved and all friction will disappear。 Conflicts can and do occur, even if everyone knows how to avoid them。 And, in every case of conflict between two or more contending parties, then, the law must be applied — and for this jurisprudence and judgment and adjudication (in contrast to juris-diction) is required。 There can be dis- putes about whether you or I have misapplied the prin-ciples in specific instances regarding particular means。 There can be disagreements as to the “true” facts of a case： who was where and when, and who had taken possession of this or that at such and such times and places？ And it can be tedious and time-consuming to establish and sort out these facts。 Various prior-later disputes must be investigated。 Contracts may have to be scrutinized。 Dif- ficulties may arise in the application of the principles to  underground resources, to water and to air, and especially to flows of water and air。 Moreover, there is always the  question of “fitting” a punishment to a given crime, i。e。, of finding the appropriate measure of restitution or retribution that a victimizer owes his victim, and of then enforc- ing the verdicts of law。

 

Difficult as these problems may occasionally be, how- ever, the guiding principles to be followed in searching for a solution are always clear and beyond dispute。

尽管这些问题有时会很困难，然而，寻求解决办法时所应遵循的指导原则总是清晰且无可争议。

 

In every case of conflict brought to trial in search of  judgment, the presumption is always in favour of the current possessor of the resource in question and, mutatis mutandis, the burden of a “proof to the contrary” is always on the opponent of some current state of affairs and cur rent possessions。 The opponent must demonstrate that he, contrary to prima facie appearance, has a claim on some specific good that is older than the current possessor’s claim。 If, and only if an opponent can successfully demonstrate this must the questionable possession be restored as property to him。 On the other hand, if the opponent fails to make his case, then not only does the  possession remain as property with its current owner, but the current possessor in turn has acquired a lawful  claim against his opponent。 For the current possessor’s  body and time was misappropriated by the opponent during his failed and rejected argument。 He could have done other, preferred, things with his body-time except  defend himself against his opponent。

And importantly also： the procedure to be selected for  dispensing justice along the just indicated lines is clear and implied in the very goal of peaceful, argumentative    conflict resolution。 Because both contenders in any property dispute — John and Jim — make or maintain opposite truth claims — I, John, am the lawful owner of  such and such a resource versus no, I, Jim, am the lawful owner of this very same resource — and hence, both John and Jim are interested, partial or biased in favour of a particular outcome of the trial, only some disinterested or neutral third party can be entrusted with the task of dispensing justice。 This procedure does not guarantee that justice will always be done, of course。 But it assures            that the likelihood of unjust verdicts is minimized and      errors of judgment most likely and easily be corrected。 In short, then, for each and every property dispute between two (or more) contending parties it must hold： No party may ever sit in judgment and act as final judge in any dis- pute involving itself。 Rather, every appeal to justice must always be made to “outsiders,” i。e。, to impartial third- party judges。

We may call the social order emerging from the application of these principles and procedures a “natural  order,” a “system of natural justice,” a “private law society,” or a “constitution of liberty。”

我们可以把应用这些原则和程序所产生的社会秩序，称为“自然秩序”、“自然正义体系”、“私法社会”或“自由宪法”。

Interestingly, although the prescriptions and requirements of a natural order appear intuitively plausible and reasonably undemanding on its constituent parts, i。e。, on us as individual actors, as a matter of fact, however, we  inhabit a world that sharply deviates from such an order。 To be sure, there are still traces of natural law and justice to be found in civil life and the handling of civil dis putes, but natural law has become increasingly deformed, distorted, corrupted, swamped, and submerged by ever higher mountains of legislative laws, i。e。, by rules and procedures at variance with natural law and justice。

It is not too difficult to identify the root cause for this increasingly noticeable deviation of social reality from a natural order and to explain this transformation  as the necessary consequence of one elementary as well  as fundamental original error。 This error — the “original sin,” if you will — is the monopolization of the function of judgeship and adjudication。 That is, the “original sin” is to appoint one person or agency (but no one else！) to  act as final judge in all conflicts, including also conflicts involving itself。

The institution of such a monopoly apparently ful fills the classic definition of a State as a monopolist of   ultimate decision-making and of violence over some  territory that it acquired neither through acts of origi- nal appropriation nor through a voluntary transfer from a previous owner。 The State — and no one else！ — is appointed and permitted to sit in judgment of its own actions and to violently enforce its own judgment。

这种垄断制度显然完全符合国家的经典定义，即某一领土内的最终决策者和暴力垄断者，而该领土，既不是通过原始占有行为获得，也不是来自先前所有者的自愿转让。国家——而不是其他任何人！——被任命且被允许对其自身的行为进行裁决，并以暴力方式强制执行它的裁决。

This involves in and of itself a twofold violation of      natural law and justice。 On the one hand, because the State thus prohibits everyone involved in a property dispute with itself from appealing for justice to any potential     outside third-party judge; and mutatis mutandis, because the State excludes everyone else (except itself) from proffering his adjudication services in such conflicts。

这本身就涉及到对自然法和正义的双重违反。一方面，国家禁止任何与自己有财产纠纷的人，通过向任何可能的外在第三方法官上诉寻求正义;同时另外一方面，国家不允许除自己之外的任何人在这种冲突中提供裁决服务。

 

Moreover, from the original error predictable consequences follow。 As a universal rule, each and every monopoly, shielded from competition, leads to higher prices and a lower quality of the product or service in question than would otherwise be the case。 In the special case of a judicial monopoly and the particular service of adjudication, this means on the one hand that the quality of law and justice will fall and natural law will be successively replaced by monopolist made legislation, i。e。, perversions of law。 Predictably, the monopolist will use his position as ultimate decision-maker not only to  resolve conflict between contending property owners, but  increasingly also to initiate or provoke conflicts with private property owners, in order to then decide such conflicts in his own favor, i。e。, to expropriate the just property of others to his own advantage on the basis of his own         made-up laws。 And on the other hand, the price to be paid for justice will rise。 In fact, the price of justice will  not simply be a ‘higher price’ that justice seekers may or may not be willing to pay (as would be the case for any other monopoly), but a tax that  justice seekers must pay  whether they agree to it or not。 That is, private property  owners involved in property disputes with the State will         not only be expropriated via legislation, but they must also pay the State for this “service” of expropriating them, thus  adding insult to injury。

In effect, with the establishment of a judicial monopoly all private property becomes essen- tially fiat property, i。e。, State-granted private property。 Private property is only provisionally private and left under private control, i。e。, only until some State-made  law or regulation does not decree otherwise, thus creat- ing an environment of permanent legal uncertainty and  causing an increase in the social rate of time-preference。

Let me term this process that is set in motion with the  institution of a State： the progressive deviation from  a natural order and system of justice and the increasing   erosion of all private property rights and corresponding growth of the legislative and regulatory powers of the State, the process of de-civilization。

While steady in its direction, the process of de-civ ilization begun with the establishment of a State may proceed at different speeds at different times or places, sometimes more slowly and sometimes at a faster pace。 However, another, additional, error can be identified that  will result in an acceleration of the process of de-civilization。 This second error is the transformation of the    State into a democratic State。 This transformation does  not involve any change in the status of the State as judi cial monopolist。 Yet it still involves a significant twofold change： entry into the State and the position of ultimate  judge is opened for every (adult) inhabitant of a given territory and the function as final judge is exercised only temporarily, for some short fixed period by the winner of      regularly recurring secret and anonymous one-man-one- vote  elections。

一个国家建立开始，其去文明化进程的方向是稳定的，但在不同的时间、不同的地点，可能以不同的速度进行，时慢时快。然而，可以确定另一个额外的错误，它会导致加速去文明化进程。这第二个错误就是，国家转变成为民主国家。这种转变，不涉及国家作为司法垄断者地位的任何改变。然而，它仍然涉及一个重大的双重变化：进入国家以及通向最终裁决者宝座的大门，向这一领土上的每个(成年)居民开放。至于最终裁决者的职能，只能由获胜者在固定的短时间内被临时行使，这些获胜者来自反复举行的秘密的、匿名的一人一票的定期选举。

Predictably, this change will lead to a systematic acceleration of the process of de-civilization。

可以预见，这种变化将系统性的加快去文明化进程。

 

On the one hand, as Helmut Schoeck above all has amply demonstrated, the feeling of envy is one of the most widespread and powerful of de-civilizing motivational forces。 All major (high) religions have therefore condemned the desire for the property of one’s neighbours as sinful。 In a natural order or a system of natural law and justice, people too, some more and others less, are tempted to expropriate the property of others to their own advantage。 But in a natural order, quite in               accordance with religious prescriptions, such temptations are considered immoral and illegitimate and everyone is expected to suppress any such desires。 With a State in place, some — a few — people are permitted to give  in to such immoral desires for an indeterminate period  and use legislation and taxation as means to satisfy their own desire for the property of others。 Only with democracy, however, i。e。, the free and unrestricted entry into the  State, are all moral restraints and inhibitions against the  taking of others’ lawful property removed。 Everyone is free to indulge in such temptations and propose and pro mote every conceivable measure of legislation and taxation to gain advantages at other people’s expense。 That is, whereas in a natural order everyone is expected to spend his time exclusively on production or consumption, under democratic conditions, increasingly more time is spent instead on politics, i。e。, on the advocacy and promotion of activities that are neither productive nor consumptive, but exploitative and parasitic of and on the property of others。 Indeed, even the opponents of such a development must waste their time increasingly on unproductive      endeavors, i。e。, on politics, if only to defend themselves  and their property or take precautionary actions against such incursions。 In fact, under democratic conditions, a new class of people emerges — politicians — whose profession it is to propose and promote law—— decrees and       taxes designed to expropriate the property of some to the  advantage of others (including and foremost themselves)。

Moreover, owing to regularly recurring elections, the politicization of society  never comes to an end but is  constantly reignited and continued。 Legal uncertainty or lawlessness is thus heightened and social time preferences will rise still further, i。e。, increasingly shortening the time     horizon taken into consideration in one’s action-plans。 And in the process of political competition, i。e。, in the competition for the position of ultimate decision-maker, such politicians and political parties will rise to the top  who have the least moral scruples and the best skills as   demagogues, i。e。, of proposing and propagating the most                   popular assortment of immoral and unlawful demands from a near limitless supply of such demands on offer in public opinion。

此外，由于定期举行选举，社会的政治化永远不会结束，而是不断被重新点燃、持续下去。因此，法律上的不确定性或无法无天的情况就会加剧，社会时间偏好将进一步上升，即在个人行动计划中考虑的时间跨度日益缩短。在政治的竞争过程中，即在角逐最终裁决者宝座的过程中，那些最缺乏道德底线，最擅长于蛊惑人心的政客和政党将崭露头角。也就是说，公众舆论中提出的近乎无限的这种诉求，煽动者从中提炼并宣扬各种最受欢迎的不道德和非法的口号。

On the other hand — as the other side of the same coin — democracy will lead to increasing corruption。 With open entry into the State, the resistance against State-rule is reduced and the size of the State will grow。 The number of State employees and administrators will increase, and because their income and livelihood is dependent on the continuation of the State’s power of legislation and taxation, they will, not necessarily, but in all likelihood, become reliable and loyal supporters of the  State。 In particular, the class of intellectuals, i。e。, the producers of words (wordsmiths) in contrast to the producers of things (manufacturers), will be thus bought off and corrupted。 Because there is only little and fickle market    demand for words rather than things, intellectuals are always desperate for any help they can get to stay afloat, and the State, in permanent need of ideological support  for its relentless onslaught against natural law and justice, is only too willing to offer such help and employ them as public educators in exchange for the appropriate propaganda。

Yet it is not only State employees that are so corrupted。 Tax-revenue and the State’s range of control over other, non-monetary assets and holdings will far exceed what is             necessary to employ and equip its workers。 The State can also disperse income and assistance to various members   of civil society。 The loyalty of the poor and downtrodden  can be assured through so-called social welfare programs, and the rich and the captains of banking and industry, and indirectly also their employees, can be corrupted                             through government privileges, contracts, and interest    bearing governments bonds。 And this same policy can be  used also for the purpose of “dividing” the members of                             civil society, so as to more easily control an increasingly   factionalized or “atomized” population。 Divide et impera！

While the principal direction of social evolution can  be safely predicted based on a few elementary assumptions about the nature of man, the State, and of democ racy in particular, all details concerning the process of de-civilization remain uncertain and unclear。 To be more specific, history must be consulted。 In particular, about  the last hundred years must be looked at, i。e。, the history since the end of WWI in 1918, when modern democracy came into its own displacing the former monarchical State。

While this history confirms the general prediction, the actual results are truly horrendous, surpassing the worst fears。 As far as moral degeneration and corruption is concerned, and taking only the US as the dominant example and model of a democratic State into consider ation, a few indicators may suffice as illustration。

In the US, a Code of Federal Regulations — a document listing all government rules and regulations

— did not exist at the beginning of the period (until 1937)。 By 1960, the Code had reached 22,877 pages, and by 2012 it had swollen to a total of 174,545 pages, subdivided into 50 titles, regulating in minutest detail the production of everything imaginable, from agriculture and aeronautics to transportation, wildlife, and fisheries。 Whereas natural law is comprised of only three princi ples： self-ownership, original appropriation, and contrac- tual property transfer from a prior to a later owner, then, today, after a hundred years of democracy, no aspect of production and consumption is left free and unregulated。 As well, at the beginning of the period no more than a handful of “federal crimes” existed, concerning matters such as “treason” or the “bribery of federal officials” (while all “normal” crimes were defined and prosecuted by the individual States)。 By 1980 the number of “federal crimes” had already grown to about 3,000, and by 2007 it had reached 4,450, criminalizing not just ever more non- tortious actions and victimless crimes but increasingly  also motives, thoughts, words, and speech。

As a second indicator for the degree of corruption it is revealing to contrast the total population number with the number of State-dependents。 Presently, the total population of the US is about 320 million, or about 260 million, if we subtract the number of people below age 18 and ineligible to vote。 By contrast, the number of people wholly or mostly dependent for their livelihood on State-funding includes the following： The number of State-employees (of all levels of governments) is about 22 million。 Forty-six million people receive “food stamps。” Sixty-six million people are “Social Security” recipients。 Eight million people receive “unemployment insurance。” Federal government spending alone on for-profit firm s amounts to some $500 billion, accounting according to an estimate by Charles Murray for about 22 percent of the American workforce or about 36 million people。

作为腐败程度的第二个指标，比较人口总数与依赖国家的人数，可以揭示问题。目前，美国总人口约为3。2亿，如果减去未满18岁且没有资格投票的人数，约为2。6亿。相比之下，完全或大部分依靠国家资金维持生计的人数包括：国家雇员（各级政府部门）的人数约为2200万。4600万人领取“食品券”。6600万人是“社会保障”受益人。800万人领取“失业保险”。另外，联邦政府也对某些营利性企业进行补贴或资助，据查尔斯·默里(Charles Murray)估计，仅联邦政府在营利性企业上的支出就高达5000亿美元，约占美国劳动力的22%，约3600万人。

Lastly, non-profit organizations and NGOs, with annual revenues of $2 trillion and almost 12 million employees, receive about a third of their funding from government, accounting for about another 3 million dependents — thus bringing the total of State-dependents to about 181 million people。 That is, only 79 million people or about one third of the adult (above 18) US population of 260 million (or about 25 percent of the total population of 320 million) can be said to be financially wholly or largely independent of the State, whereas close to 70 percent of the US adult population and 57 percent of the total popu lation are to be counted as State-dependents。

最后，年收入达2万亿美元和雇员近1 200万的非营利组织和非政府组织，其经费约有三分之一来自政府，另外约有300万受扶养者。根据前面的疏枝，我们会发现受国家扶养者的总数达到约1。81亿人。也就是说，只有7900万人，或者是2。6亿成年美国人(18岁以上)的三分之一(总人口3。2亿的25%左右)，可以说在经济上完全或大部分独立于国家，而将近70%的美国成年人和总人口的57%被视为受国家抚养。

Finally, as a third indicator of moral degeneration and corruption, a look at the top of the democratic State system is instructive： at the politicians and political parties who run and direct the democratic show。 In this regard, whether we look at the US or any of its satellite States in Europe and all around the globe, the picture is   equally unambiguous and clear — and equally bleak。 If measured by the standards of natural law and justice, all politicians, of all parties and virtually without any excep tion, are guilty, whether directly or indirectly, of murder, homicide, trespass, invasion, expropriation, theft, fraud, and the fencing of stolen goods on a massive and ongoing scale。 And every new generation of politicians and parties  appears to be worse, and piles even more atrocities and perversions on top of the already existing mountain, so     that one feels almost nostalgic about the past。

最后，作为道德沦丧和腐败的第三个指标，审视民主国家体系的顶层，即主导民主运作的政客和政党，是很有启发性的。在这方面，无论我们是看美国还是其在欧洲及全球各地的卫星国家，情况都同样明显和清楚 — 但同样令人沮丧。如果按照自然法和正义的标准来衡量，所有政客、所有政党，几乎无一例外，都直接或间接地犯有谋杀、杀人、侵入、侵犯、征用、偷窃、欺诈和大规模的侵吞罪行。而且每一代新的政客和政党似乎都更糟糕，积累了更多的暴行和堕落，以至于人们居然会怀念过去。

They all should be hung, or put in jail to rot, or set to making compensation。

他们都应该被绞死，或者被送进监狱，或者做出赔偿。

But： Instead, they parade around in public and broad daylight and proclaim themselves — pompously, pretentiously, arrogantly, and self-righteously — as saintly do-gooders： as good Samaritans, selfless public servants,benefactors, and saviors of mankind and human civiliza- tion。 Assisted by a hired intelligentsia, they tell the public in endless loops and variations that as in Alice’s wonder- land nothing is what it seems：

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less。”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many dif- ferent things。”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s  all。”

但是，朗朗乾坤之下，他们却大摇大摆地在公众面前炫耀自己——傲慢地、自命不凡地、自大地、自以为是地——自称为圣洁的行善者：善良的撒玛利亚人、无私的公仆、恩人、人类和人类文明的救世主。在雇佣的知识分子的帮助下，他们周而复始、巧舌如簧地告诉公众，一如梦游爱丽丝仙境般，所视非所见。

“当我用一个词的时候，”胖墩儿用一种相当轻蔑的语气说，“它的意思就是我赋予它的意思——不多也不少。

“问题是，”爱丽丝说，“你能否赋予文字这么多不同的意思。”

“问题是，”胖墩儿说，“谁是话事人——这才是重点。”

And it is the politicians, who are the masters, and who stipulate that aggression, invasion, murder, and war      are actually self-defense, whereas self-defense is aggres- sion, invasion, murder, and war。 Freedom is coercion, and coercion is freedom。 Saving and investment are con- sumption, and consumption is saving and investment。 Money is paper, and paper is money。 Taxes are voluntary payments, and voluntarily paid prices are exploit ative taxes。 Contracts are no contracts, and no contracts  are contracts。 Producers are parasites, and parasites are      producers。 Expropriation is restitution, and restitution is expropriation。 Indeed, what we can see, hear, or otherwise sense does not exist, and that which we cannot see, hear, or otherwise sense does。 The normal is anormal and the anormal normal。 Black is white and white is black。 Male is female and female male, etc。

Worse, the overwhelming majority of the public, far exceeding even the number of State-dependents, falls for this nonsense。 Politicians are not despised and ridiculed but held in high esteem, applauded, admired, and even glorified by the masses。 In their presence, and in particular vis-à-vis “top” politicians, most people show themselves awestruck, submissive, and servile。 Indeed, even those opposing or denouncing one particular politician or party do so almost always only to propose or hail yet another, different but equally absurd and confused politician or party。 And the intelligentsia, finding its own verbal mumbo-jumbo echoed in the blabbering of this or that politician or political party, virtually drools over them。

更糟糕的是，绝大多数民众，甚至远远超过依赖国家抚养的人数，对这种无稽之谈信以为真。政治家不是被鄙视和嘲笑，而是受到群众的高度尊重、欣赏、赞美、甚至膜拜。面对他们，特别是面对“顶级”政客，大多数人表现出敬畏、顺从和奴性。事实上，即使是那些反对或谴责某个特定政治家或某一特定政党的人，这样做的目的，也几乎总是为了推荐或呼唤另一个同样荒谬和糊涂的政治家或政党。知识分子，发现他们晦涩难懂的辞藻，被某个政客或政党的胡言乱语所复述时，简直恨不得跪舔对方。

And on the other hand： The number of those who still hold on to the principles of natural law and justice as  the basis of all moral judgment, and who assess the contemporary world accordingly as an “Absurdistan,” i。e。, an              insane asylum run by crazed megalomaniacs, makes up no more today than a minuscule minority of the popu lation, smaller in size even than the infamous 1 percent of the “super rich” of leftists’ fame (and with little if any overlap with this latter group)。 And tinier still is the minority of those, who recognize also, however vaguely, the systematic cause of this outcome。 And all of these — the few sane people left within the asylum —, then, are   under constant threat by the guardians and wardens of this “Absurdistan” called democracy, and are branded as Neanderthals, reactionaries, extremists, pre-enlightement dumb-dumbs, sociopaths, or scum。

另一方面：那些仍然坚持自然法与公正的原则是道德判断的基础的人们，并据此评估当代世界是一个“荒诞世界（Absurdistan）”，一个由狂妄自大的疯子经营的疯人院。今天，他们只占人口的极少数，甚至比左翼口中声名狼藉的占人口1%的“超级富豪”还要少（而且前者与后者几乎没有交集）。而能稍微意识到这一结果的系统性原因的人，更是这少数人中的极少数者。而所有这些人——精神病院里剩下的少数神志正常的人——则不断受到威胁，这种威胁来自被称为民主的“荒诞世界”的守护人和监狱长，同时，他们还被贴上各色标签：尼安德特人、反动分子、极端分子、未被启蒙的聋哑人、反社会分子或人渣。

Which brings me to the Property and Freedom Society (PFS)。 Because it purposefully assembles precisely such outcast Neanderthals： people who can see through the “Schmierentheater” (fleapit) going on before their eyes, who have had it with all blathering politicians and mass-media darlings, and who have consequently just one wish： to exit, i。e。, to opt out of the legal system imposed on them by the democratic State。

这就让我想到了“财产与自由协会”（PFS）。因为它有意地聚集了这样一群被驱逐的“尼安德特人”，他们能看穿了眼前所发生的荒诞闹剧（Schmierentheater），看透这个肮脏的跳蚤窝（fleapit）），他们忍受不了喋喋不休的政客和大众传媒的宠儿，因此只有一个愿望——退出，即退出民主国家强加给他们的法律体系。

But wherever these Neanderthals happen to reside, they find themselves in the same predicament： the exit is barricaded or entirely barred。 Secession from the State’s territory is not permitted。 One may emigrate from one country to another and thus leave one State-jurisdiction  A for another jurisdiction B。 But one’s immovable property remains thereby subject to the jurisdiction of A, also and especially in the case of sale, and likewise remains the  transfer of all moveable property subject to A’s jurisdiction。 That is, no one, anywhere, can exit with his prop erty left intact, whether in staying or moving elsewhere。 And not only is secession prohibited and considered trea sonous by politicians, but it is viewed as illegitimate, as shirking one’s duties, also by the overwhelming bulk of the ‘educated’ or rather brain washed public。 Thus, matters              appear hopeless for Neanderthals。

但无论这些尼安德特人碰巧居住在哪里，他们都发现自己处于同样的困境：出口被堵塞或被完全封锁。脱离本国领土，是不允许的。一个人可以从一国移居到另一国，从而离开一个国家的司法管辖区A，前往另一个司法管辖区B。但是，他的不动产仍然受A的司法管辖，特别是在出售的情况下，同样，所有动产的转让也仍然受A的司法管辖。也就是说，任何地方的任何人，都不能在财产完好无损的情况下离开，无论是离去还是留下。脱离被认为是叛国行径，从而被政客们禁止，同样的，绝大多数“受过教育”或被洗脑的公众，也视脱离行为是不合法的，是逃避个人责任的行为。因此，尼安德特人似乎没有希望了。

The PFS can not offer a way out of this predicament, of course。 Its gatherings, too, must take place on the ground and are as such subject to State-law and jurisdic- tion。 It cannot even be taken for granted that meetings             such as ours will be always and everywhere permitted to take place。 PFS meetings can offer no more, then, than a brief escape and reprieve from our real life as inmates of an insane asylum, if not on the ground then at least in the  virtual reality of ideas, thought, and argument。

But, of course, these meetings have a real purpose。 They want to accomplish a change in the world of things。 At the very minimum, they want to prevent the Neander thal culture, i。e。, the culture of natural law, order, and jus- tice, from going entirely extinct。 They want to help sustain and provide intellectual nourishment for this increasingly rare species of people and culture。

More ambitiously, however, the PFS wants to help these Neanderthals and their culture regain strength in public opinion by putting them on open display and showcasing them as a uniquely attractive and fascinating species and counterculture。

然而，更雄心勃勃的是，PFS希望通过公开展示尼安德特人和他们的文化，把他们作为一个独特的、有吸引力的、迷人的物种和反主流文化展示出来，帮助他们重新获得公众舆论的支持。

To achieve this goal, the PFS, seemingly paradoxi cally, engages in a policy of strict discrimination, i。e。, of exclusion and inclusion。 Thus, on the one hand, the PFS systematically excludes and discriminates against all representatives and promoters of the present, domi nant democratic State-culture： against all professional politicians, State-judges, -prosecutors, -jailers, -killers,-tax-collectors, and -bankers, all warmongers, and all advocates of socialism, legal positivism, moral relativ- ism and egalitarianism, whether of “outcome” or “oppor tunity。” On the other hand, positively, the PFS seeks out and admits only people, who have adopted for themselves Thomas Jefferson’s dictum that “There is not a truth exist ing which I fear … or would wish unknown to the whole world,” who accordingly know of no intellectual “taboo” and of no “political correctness,” and who are committed instead to uncompromising intellectual radicalism, will ing to follow the dictates of reason wherever these may lead。 More specifically, the PFS seeks out and admits only  people dedicated to the recognition of justly acquired pri vate property and property rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association and of dis-association, free trade, and peace。

Following this strict policy of discrimination the PFS, after ten years of its existence, has established itself as a veritable monopoly in the world of intellectual societies： a society made up of exceptional individuals of all ages, intellectual and professional backgrounds and nations, free and unpolluted by all Statists and everything statist, unrivalled in the interdisciplinary breadth and depth of its radicalism, gathered in beautiful surroundings and united in a spirit of conviviality and comradeship; a soci- ety smeared, despised, and even hated (and yet secretly envied) by all the usual suspects, and yet hailed by all those who have had the wisdom and fortune to see and experience it。

Unlike other, ‘regular’ monopolies, however, it is not my goal to preserve and maintain the PFS’s current     monopoly position。 Quite to the contrary。 In setting an  example, by producing an appealing and indeed beautiful  product — a privately produced public good, if you will— it is my hope that the PFS’s present monopoly posi- tion will only be a temporary one, and that its example will serve as an inspiration to others, that more and more similar associations and meetings will spring up, that the dominant democratic unculture will thus be put increas- ingly on the defensive and opened up to public ridicule, and that ultimately they, the proponents and exponents of the reigning democratic un-culture, will be considered outcasts in polite society。

然而，与其他“常规”垄断不同，我的目标不是保留和维持PFS目前的垄断地位。恰恰相反，这是在树立榜样，通过生产一个具有吸引力的，确实美丽的产品——一种私人生产的公共物品，如果你愿意——我希望PFS目前的垄断地位只是暂时的，作为例子，将会激励其他人，那样，越来越多类似的协会和会议将不断涌现，占主导地位的民主非文化（un-culture），将因此越来越处于守势，并受到公众的嘲笑。最终，那些占主导地位的民主非文化的支持者和倡导者，他们会被上流的智识社会视为弃儿。

There are some positive signs： the one-day Mises Circle events across major US cities, Rahim Taghiza- degan’s Wertewirtschaft gatherings in Austria and Andre Lichtschlag’s Eigentuemlich-Frei conferences in Germany。 However, I am afraid that to match the        accomplishment of the PFS will be a difficult task and that it is to maintain its unique status for quite a while。 Personally, I am planning to continue this project as  long as my and especially also Gülçin’s  strength holds up  and, even more importantly, as long as you keep coming and effectively supporting the intellectual product and enterprise that is the PFS。

目前有一些积极的迹象：在美国主要城市举行的为期一天的米塞斯圈活动，在奥地利举行的拉希姆·塔吉扎·德根（Rahim Taghiza- degan）的Wertewirtschaft聚会，以及在德国举行的安德烈·利希奇拉格（Andre Lichtschlag）的Eigentuemlich-Frei会议。然而，我担心，追赶PFS的成就，将是一项艰巨的任务，它将在相当长的一段时间内保持其独特的地位。就我个人而言，只要有我的力量支持，尤其是Gülçin的力量支持，更重要的是，只要你继续参与，有效地支持PFS这个知识产品和企业，我会一直坚持这个项目。

三、自由意志主义与另类右翼：寻找社会变革的自由意志主义策略

LIBERTARIANISM AND THE ALT-RIGHT： IN SEARCH OF A LIBERTARIAN STRATEGY FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

 

We know the fate of the term liberal and liberalism。 It has been affixed to so many different people and different positions that it has lost all its meaning and become an  empty, non-descript label。 The same fate now increasingly also threatens the term libertarian and libertarianism that was invented to regain some of the conceptual precision lost with the demise of the former labels。

我们清楚自由意志主义者和自由主义学说这两个词的命运。它被贴在太多不同的人、不同的定位上，以至于失去了所有的意义，成了一个空洞的、没有描述性的标签。如今，同样的命运也日益威胁着“自由意志主义者”和“自由意志主义”这两个词，它们的发明，是为了重新获得一些随着前面提到的两个标签的消亡而失去的概念精确性。

However, the history of modern libertarianism is still quite young。 It began in Murray Rothbard’s living room and found its first quasi-canonical expression in his For A New Liberty： A Libertarian Manifesto, published in 1973。 And so I am still hopeful and not yet willing to give up on libertarianism as defined and explained by Rothbard with unrivalled conceptual clarity and precision, not with- standing the meanwhile countless attempts of so-called libertarians to muddy the water and misappropriate the good name of libertarianism for something entirely dif ferent。

The theoretical, irrefutable core of the libertarian doctrine is simple and straightforward and I have explained it already repeatedly at this place。 If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts or more precisely physical clashes would be impossible。 Interpersonal conflicts are always conflicts concerning scarce things。 I want to do A with a given thing and you want to do B with the same thing。 Because of such conflicts — and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other — we seek out norms of behaviour with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts。 The purpose of norms is conflict-avoid- ance。 If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless。 We would simply fight and struggle。

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts  regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if  all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to    some specified individual or group of individuals。 Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from  you, with your own things, without you and me clashing。 But who owns what scarce resource as his private  property and who does not？ First： Each person owns his physical  body that only he and no one else controls directly。 And second, as for scarce resources that can be con- trolled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our  own nature-given, i。e。, unappropriated, body)： Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that   person who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner。 For only the first appropriator of   a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i。e。, peacefully。 Other- wise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent。

Before this audience I do not need to go into greater detail except to add this： If you want to live in peace with other people and avoid all physical clashes and, if such clashes do occur, seek to resolve them peacefully, then you must be an anarchist or more precisely a private property anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist, or a proponent of a private law society。

And by implication, then, and again without much further ado： Someone, anyone, is not a libertarian or merely a fake libertarian who affirms and advocates one or more of  the following： the necessity of a State, any State, of ‘public’ (State) property and of taxes in order to live in peace; or   the existence and justifiability of any so-called “human rights” or “civil rights” other than private property rights, such as “women rights,” “gay rights,” “minority rights,” the “right” not to be discriminated against, the “right” to free and unrestricted immigration, the “right” to a guaranteed minimum income or to free health care, or the “right” to be free of unpleasant speech and thought。 The proponents of any of this may call themselves whatever they want, and as libertarians we may well cooperate with them, insofar as such a cooperation offers the promise of bringing us closer to our ultimate goal, but they are not libertarians or only fake libertarians。

Now, “a funny thing happened on the way to the forum。” While Rothbard and I, following in his footsteps, never went astray from these theoretically derived core beliefs, not just non-libertarians but in particular also fake libertarians, i。e。, people claiming (falsely) to be libertarians, and even many possibly honest yet dimwitted libertarians have selected and vilified us as their favorite betes noires and incarnates of evil。 Rothbard, the spiritus rector of modern libertarianism, has been branded by this so-called “anti-fascist” crowd as a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, an authoritarian, an elitist, a xenophobe, a fascist and, to top it all off, a self-hating Jewish Nazi。 And I have inherited all of these honorary titles, plus a few more (except for the Jewish stuff )。 So what funny thing has happened here？

Trying to develop an answer to this question brings me to the topic of this speech： the relationship between libertarianism and the alternative right or “Alt-Right,” which has gained national and international notoriety after Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential election campaign, identified it as one of the inspirational sources behind the “basket of deplorables” rooting for Trump (and whose leadership, to its credit, after Trump’s election victory, quickly broke with Trump when he turned out to be just another presidential warmonger)。

为了寻找这个问题的答案，让我想到了这次演讲的主题：自由意志主义与非主流右翼（the alternative right）或“另类右翼”(Alt-Right)之间的关系。在2016年总统选举期间，希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton) 将“另类右翼”视为支持特朗普的“一群可怜虫”，此后“另类右翼”在国内外的声名都臭了大街。幸好，“另类右翼”领导层迅速与特朗普决裂，事实证明特朗普其实不过是一个好战的总统。

The Alt-Right movement is essentially the successor of the paleoconservative movement that came to prominence in the early 1990’s, with columnist and best-selling author Patrick Buchanan as its best known representative。 It went somewhat dormant by the late 1990s, and it has recently, in light of the steadily growing damage done to America and its reputation by the successive Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama administrations, reemerged more vigorous than before under the new label of the Alt- Right。 Many of the leading lights associated with the Alt- Right have appeared here at our meetings in the course of the years。 Paul Gottfried, who first coined the term, Peter Brimelow, Richard Lynn, Jared Taylor, John Der byshire, Steve Sailer, and Richard Spencer。 As well, Sean Gabb’s name and mine are regularly mentioned in connection with the Alt-Right, and my work has been linked also with the closely related neoreactionary movement inspired by Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) and his now defunct blog Unqualified Reservations。 In sum,these personal relations and associations have earned me several honourable mentions by America’s most famous smear-and-defamation league, the SPLC (aka Soviet Poverty Lie Center)。

另类右翼运动，本质上是久负盛名的旧保守主义运动的继任者，这个运动在1990年代初崭露头角，以专栏作家和畅销书作者帕特里克·布坎南最为人所知，它在二十世纪90年代后期有所消退。最近，鉴于老布什（Bush I）、克林顿、小布什（Bush II）和奥巴马政府对美国及其声誉造成的持续不断的损害，在“右翼”的新标签下，他们比以前更有活力地重新出现。多年以来，许多与另类右翼运动有关的主要人物，都出现在我们的会议上。是保罗·戈特弗里德（Paul Gottfried）首先创造了这个词，同样使用这词的人，还有彼得·布里梅洛（Peter Brimelow），理查德·林恩（Richard Lynn），贾里德·泰勒（Jared Taylor），约翰·德比希尔（ John Der byshire），史蒂夫·塞勒（ John Der byshire）和理查德·斯宾塞（ John Der byshire）。同样，肖恩·加布（Sean Gabb）和我的名字，经常与另类右翼联系在一起，我的工作也曾与新反动运动（neoreactionary movement）联系在一起，该运动受柯蒂斯·亚文（Sean Gabb）(又名孟子·莫德巴格)和他现在已经关闭的博客（ Unqualified Reservations）所启发，并且与之密切相关。总而言之，这些私人关系和联系，使我在美国最著名的诽谤和中伤联盟（smear-and-defamation league）——SPLC(又名苏联贫困谎言中心（Soviet Poverty Lie Center）)中受到了多次荣誉提名。

Now： How about the relationship between libetarianism and the Alt-Right and my reasons for inviting leading representatives of the Alt-Right to meetings with libertarians？ Libertarians are united by the irrefutable theoretical core beliefs mentioned at the outset。 They are clear about the goal that they want to achieve。 But the libertarian doctrine does not imply much if any thing concerning these questions： First, how to maintain a libertarian order once achieved。 And second, how to  attain a libertarian order from a non-libertarian starting point, which requires (a) that one must correctly describe this starting point and (b) correctly identify the obstacles posed in the way of one’s libertarian ends by this very starting point。 To answer these questions, in addtion to theory, you also need some knowledge of human psychology and sociology or at least a modicum of common sense。 Yet many libertarians and fake libertarians are plain ignorant of human psychology and sociology or even devoid of any common sense。 They blindly accept, against all empirical evidence, an egalitarian, blankslate view of human nature, of all people and all societies and cultures being essentially equal and interchangeable。

While much of contemporary libertarianism can be characterized, then, as theory and theorists without psychology and sociology, much or even most of the Alt-Right can be described, in contrast, as psychology and sociology without theory。 Alt-Righters are not united by a commonly held theory, and there exists nothing even faintly resembling a canonical text defining its meaning。 Rather, the Alt-Right is essentially united in its description of the contemporary world, and in particular the US and the so- called Western World, and the identification and diagnosis of its social pathologies。 In fact, it has been correctly noted that the Alt-Right is far more united by what it is against than what it is for。 It is against, and indeed it hates with a passion, the elites in control of the State, the MSM, and academia。 Why？ Because they all promote social degener acy and pathology。 Thus, they promote, and the Alt-Right vigorously opposes, egalitarianism, affirmative action (aka “non-discrimination”), multiculturalism, and “free” mass immigration as a means of bringing multiculturalism about。 As well, the Alt-Right loathes everything smacking of cultural Marxism or Gramscianism and all “political correctness” and, strategically wise, it shrugs off, without any apology whatsoever, all accusations of being racist, sexist, elitist, supremacist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc。, etc。 And the Alt-Right also laughs off as hopelessly naïve the programmatic motto of so-called libertarians (which my young German friend Andre Lichtschlag has termed as “Liberallala-Libertarians”) of “Peace, Love, and Liberty,” appropriately translated into German by Lichtschlag as “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen。” In stark contrast to this, Alt-Righters insist that life is also about strife, hate, strug gle and fight, not just between individuals but also among various groups of people acting in concert。 “Millennial Woes” (Colin Robertson) has thus aptly summarized the Alt-Right： “Equality is bullshit。 Hierarchy is essential。 The races are different。 The sexes are different。 Morality matters and degeneracy is real。 All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are。 Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism。 Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious。 This is the Alt-Right。”

Absent any unifying theory, however, there is far less agreement among the Alt-Right about the goal that it ultimately wants to achieve。 Many of its leading lights have distinctly libertarian leanings, most notably those that have come here (which, of course, was the reason for hav ing invited them here), even if they are not 100-percenters and would not identify themselves as such。 All Alt-Right ers that have appeared here, for instance, have been famil iar with Rothbard and his work, all the while the most recent presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party had  never even heard of Rothbard’s name, and all of them, to the best of my knowledge, were outspoken supporters of Ron Paul during his primary campaign for the Republi can Party’s nomination as presidential candidate, all the while many self-proclaimed libertarians attacked and tried to vilify Ron Paul for his supposedly (you already  know what’s coming by now) “racist” views。

However, several of the Alt-Right’s leaders and many of its rank and file followers have also endorsed views incompatible with libertarianism。 As Buchanan before and Trump now, they are adamant about complementing a policy of restrictive, highly selective, and discriminating immigration (which is entirely compatible with libertaranism and its desideratum of freedom of association and opposition to forced integration) with a strident policy of restricted trade, economic protectionism, and protective tariffs (which is antithetical to libertarianism and inimi cal to human prosperity)。 (Let me hasten to add here that, despite my misgivings about his “economics,” I still consider Pat Buchanan a great man。)

Others strayed even further afield, such as Richard Spencer, who first the term Alt-Right。 In the meantime, owing to several recent publicity stunts, which have gained him some degree of notoriety in the US, Spencer has laid claim to the rank of the maximum leader of a supposedly mighty unified movement (an endeavour, by the way, that has been ridiculed by Taki Theodoracopulos, a veteran champion of the paleoconservative-turned-Alt-Right movement and Spencer’s former employer)。 When Spencer appeared here, several years ago, he still exhibited strong libertarian leanings。 Unfortunately, however, this has changed and Spencer now denounces, without any qualification whatsoever, all libertarians and everything libertarian and has gone so far as to even put up with socialism, as long as it is socialism of and for only white people。 What horrifying disappointment！

其他人甚至走得更远，比如理查德·斯宾塞(Richard Spencer)，是他首先普及了“另类右翼”一词。与此同时，由于最近几次的宣传噱头，斯宾塞在美国赢得了一定程度的恶名，他声称自己是一场看似强大的统一运动的最高领导人(顺便说一句，这一运动遭到了塔基·西奥多拉科普洛斯(Taki Theodoracopulos)的嘲笑，他是旧保守派转向另类右翼运动的资深拥护者，也是斯宾塞的前雇主)。几年前，当斯宾塞出现在这里时，他仍然表现出强烈的自由意志主义倾向。然而，不幸的是，情况有所变化，斯宾塞现在毫无保留地谴责所有的自由意志主义者以及一切自由意志主义的事物，并且他还走的更远，甚至容忍社会主义，只要它是白人的社会主义。多么令人震惊的失望啊！

 

Given the lack of any theoretical foundation, this split of the Alt-Right movement into rival factions can hardly be considered a surprise。 Yet this fact should not mislead one to dismiss it, because the Alt-Right has brought out many insights that are of central importance in approaching an answer to the two previously mentioned questions unanswered by libertarian theory： of how to maintain a  libertarian social order and how to get to such an order from the current, decidedly un-libertarian status quo。 The Alt-Right did not discover these insights。 They had been established long before and indeed, in large parts they are no more than common sense。 But in recent times such insights have been buried under mountains of egalitarian, leftist propaganda and the Alt-Right must be credited for  having brought them back to light。

由于缺乏理论基础，另类右翼运动分裂成对立派别的情况几乎可以说是意料之中。然而，这一事实不应误导人们轻视它，因为另类右翼带来了许多重要的见解，这些见解对于回答自由意志主义理论所未能解答的两个问题至关重要：如何维护自由意志主义的社会秩序；以及如何从当前明显非自由意志主义的现状走向这样的秩序。另类右翼并非“发现”了这些洞见，其实这些原则早已确立，而且在很大程度上不过是常识。但是在最近的时期，这些见解都被埋没在大量的平等主义、左翼宣传的大山之下，另类右翼必须得到赞扬，因为他们重新将这些见解带回到人们的视野之中。

To illustrate the importance of such insights, let me  take the first unanswered question first。

为了说明这些见解的重要性，我先来回答第一个没有回答的问题。

Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP)。 Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of “live and let live” should hold。 Yet surely, while this “live and let live” sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this “live and let live” is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for  people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or  rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbours and cohabtants of the same community。

A simple example suffices to make the point。 Assume a new next-door neighbour。 This neighbour does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a “bad” neighbour。 He is littering on his own neighbouring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he  turns his house into a “Freudenhaus,” a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language, etc。, etc。 Your life is turned into a nightmare。 Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you。 What can you do？ You can shun and ostracize him。 But your neighbour does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little if any difference to him。 You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbour a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave。 (So much for the libertarians who, in addition to their “live and let live” ideal also hail the motto “respect no authority！”)

The lesson？ The peaceful cohabitation of neighbours and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory — a tranquil, convivial social order— requires also a commonality of culture： of language, religion, custom, and convention。 There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a “strong man” and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order。

And moreover： Just as a libertarian order must always be on guard against “bad” (even if non-aggressive) neigh bours by means of social ostracism, i。e。, by a common “you are not welcome here” culture, so, and indeed even more vigilantly so, must it be guarded against neighbours who openly advocate communism, socialism, syndicalism, or democracy in any shape or form。 They, in thereby posing an open threat to all private property and property owners, must not only be shunned, but they must, to use a by now somewhat famous Hoppe-meme, be “physically removed,” if need be by violence, and forced to leave for other pastures。 Not to do so inevitably leads to — well, communism, socialism, syndicalism, or democracy and hence, the very opposite of a libertarian social order。

此外，正如自由意志主义秩序必须采用社会排斥的方式才能得到守卫，即通过一种普遍的“这里不欢迎你”的文化，始终警惕“坏”(即使是非侵略性的)邻居一样，它也必须更加警惕地防范这样一些邻居——他们公开提倡共产主义、社会主义、工团主义以及形形色色的民主。他们对私有财产和财产所有者，构成了公开的威胁，因此，我们不仅必须避开他们，而且还必须——用一个现在有些出名的霍普梗来说（Hoppe-meme）——“物理清除”，如果需要，可以使用暴力，迫使他们离开，迁往他处。非如此，则不可避免地会导致共产主义、社会主义、工团主义或民主，因此，不可避免地会导致一个与自由意志主义的社会秩序截然相反的结果。

With these “rightist” or as I would say, plain commonsensical insights in mind I turn now to the more challenging question of how to move from here, the status quo, to there。 And for this it might be instructive to first briefly consider the answer given by the liberallala, the peace-love-and-liberty, the Friede-Freude-Eierkuchen, or the capitalism-is-love libertarians。 It reveals the same fundamental egalitarianism, if in a slightly different form, as that exhibited also by the live-and-let-live libertarians。 These, as I have just tried to show, define what we may call the “bad neighbour problem” — and what is merely  a shorthand for the general problem posed by the coexistence of distinctly different, alien, mutually disturbing, annoying, strange, or hostile cultures — simply out of existence。 And indeed, if you assume, against all empirical evidence, that all people, everywhere, are essentially the same, then, by definition, no such thing as a “bad neighbour problem” exists。

The same egalitarian, or as the liberallala-libertarians themselves prefer to call it, “humanitarian” spirit also comes to bear in their answer to the question of a libertar ian strategy。 In a nutshell, their advice is this： be nice and talk to everyone — and then, in the long run, the better                            libertarian arguments will win out。

Outside egalitarian fantasy lands, however, in the real world, libertarians must above all be realistic and recognize from the outset, as the Alt-Right does, the inequality not just of individuals but also of different cultures as an ineradicable datum of the human existence。 We must further recognize that there exist plenty of enemies of liberty as defined by libertarianism and that they, not we, are in charge of worldly affairs; that in many parts of the contemporary world their control of   the populace is so complete that the ideas of liberty and of a libertarian social order are practically unheard of or considered unthinkable (except as some idle intellectual play or mental gymnastics by a few “exotic” individuals); and that it is essentially only in the West, in the countries of Western and Central Europe and the lands settled by its  people, that the idea of liberty is so deeply rooted that these enemies still can be openly challenged。 And confining our strategic considerations here only to the West, then, we can identify, pretty much as the Alt-Right has effectively done, these actors and agencies as our principal enemies。 They are, first and foremost, the ruling elites in control of the State apparatus and in particular the “Deep State” or the so-called “Cathedral” of the military, the                      secret services, the central banks and the supreme courts。 As well, they include the leaders of the military-industrial complex, i。e。, of nominally private firms that owe their very existence to the State as the exclusive or dominant buyer of their products, and they also include the leaders of the big commercial banks, which owe their privilege of creating money and credit out of thin air to the existence of the central bank and its role as a “lender of last resort。” They together, then, State, Big-Business, and Big-Bank ing, form an extremely powerful even if tiny “mutual  admiration society,” jointly ripping off the huge mass of taxpayers and living it up big time at their expense。

The second, much larger group of enemies is made  up of the intellectuals, educators, and “educrats,” from the   highest levels of academia down to the level of elementary schools and kindergartens。 Funded almost exclusively, whether directly or indirectly, by the State, they, in their  over whelming majority, have become the soft tools and willing executioners in the hands of the ruling elite and its designs for absolute power and total control。 And third there are the journalists of the MSM, as the docile prod ucts of the system of “public education,” and the craven  recipients and popularizers of government “information。” Equally important in the development of a libertaian strategy then is the immediately following next question： who are the victims？ The standard libertarian answer to this is： the taxpayers as opposed to the tax-consumers。

Yet while this is essentially correct, it is at best only part of the answer, and libertarians could learn something in this respect from the Alt-Right： because apart from the narrowly economic aspect there is also a wider cultural aspect that must be taken into account in identifying the victims。

然而，尽管这在本质上是正确的，但它充其量只是答案的一部分，自由意志主义者在这方面可以从另类右翼那里学到一些东西：因为在确定受害者时，除了狭隘的经济方面之外，还必须考虑到更广泛的文化方面。

In order to expand and increase its power, the ruling elites have been conducting for many decades what  Pat Buchanan has identified as a systematic “culture war,” aimed at a transvaluation of all values and the destruction of all natural, or if you will “organic” social bonds and institutions such as families, communities, ethnic groups, and genealogically related nations, so as to create an increasingly atomized populace, whose only shared characteristic and unifying bond is its common existential dependency on the State。 The first step in this direction, taken already half a century or even longer ago, was the introduction of “public welfare” and “social security。” Thereby, the underclass and the elderly were turned into State-dependents and the value and importance of family and community was correspondingly diminished and weakened。 More recently, further-reaching steps in this direction have proliferated。 A new “victimology” has been proclaimed and promoted。 Women, and in particular single mothers, Blacks, Browns, Latinos, homosexuals, lesbians, bi- and transsexuals have been awarded “victim” status and accorded legal privileges through non-dis- crimination or affirmative action decrees。 As well, most recently such privileges have been expanded also to for- eign-national immigrants, whether legal or illegal, insofar as they fall into one of the just mentioned categories or are members of non-Christian religions such as Islam, for instance。 The result？ Not only has the earlier mentioned “bad neighbour problem” not been avoided or solved, but systematically promoted and intensified instead。 Cultural homogeneity has been destroyed, and the freedom of association, and the voluntary physical segregation and separation of different people, communities, cultures, and traditions has been replaced by an all-pervasive system of forced social integration。 Moreover, each mentioned “victim” group has thus been pitted against every other, and all of them have been pitted against white, heterosexual, Christian males and in particular those married and with children as the only remaining, legally unprotected group of alleged “victimizers。” Hence, as the result of the transvaluation of all values promoted by the ruling elites, the world has been turned upside down。 The institution of a family household with father, mother, and their children that has formed the basis of Western civilization, as the freest, most industrious, ingenious, and allaround accomplished civilization known to mankind, i。e。, the very institution and people that has done most good in human history, has been officially stigmatized and vilified as the source of all social ills and made the most heavily disadvantaged, even persecuted group by the enemy elites’ relentless policy of divide et impera。

Accordingly, given the present constellation of affairs, then, any promising libertarian strategy must, very much as the Alt-Right has recognized, first and foremost be tailored and addressed to this group of the most severely victimized people。 White married Christian couples with children, in particular if they belong also to the class of taxpayers (rather than tax-consumers), and everyone most closely resembling or aspiring to this standard form of social order and organization can be realistically expected to be the most receptive audience of the libertarian message (whereas the least support should be expected to come from the legally most “protected”groups such as, for instance, single Black Muslim mothers on welfare)。

Given this constellation of perpetrator-enemies vs。 victims in the contemporary West, then, I can now come to the final task of trying to outline a realistic libertarian strategy for change, the specifics of which will have to be prefaced by two general considerations。 For one, given that the class of intellectuals from the tops of academia to the opinion-moulding journalists in the MSM are funded by and firmly tied into the ruling system, i。e。, that they are a part of the problem, they also should not be expected to play a major if any role in the problem’s solution。 Accordingly, the so-called Hayekian strategy for social change, that envisions the spread of correct libertarian ideas start ing at the top, with the leading philosophers, and then  trickling down from there to journalists and finally to the  great unwashed masses, must be considered fundamen tally unrealistic。 Instead, any realistic libertarian strategy for change must be a populist strategy。 That is, libertarians must short-circuit the dominant intellectual elites and address the masses directly to arouse their indignation     and contempt for the ruling elites。

And second, all the while the main addressees of a populist libertarian message must be indeed the just mentioned groups of dispossessed and disenfranchised native whites, I believe it to be a serious strategic error to make “whiteness” the exclusive criterion on which to base one’s strategic decisions, as some strands of the Alt-Right have suggested to do。 After all, it is above all white men that make up the ruling elite and that have foisted the current mess upon us。 True enough, the various protected “minorities” mentioned before take full advantage of the legal privileges they have been accorded and they have become increasingly emboldened to ask for ever more “protection,” but none of them and all of them together did not and do not possess the intellectual prowess that  would have made this outcome possible, if it were not for        the instrumental help that they received and are receiving from white men。

Now, taking our cues from the Buchanan-, the Paul- and the Trump-movements, on to the specifics of a populist strategy for libertarian change, in no specific order  except for the very first one, which has currently assumed the greatest urgency in the public mind。

现在，我们从布坎南(Buchanan)运动、保罗(Paul)运动和特朗普(trump)运动中得到启示，看看民粹主义的自由意志主义策略变革的具体细节，除了第一个之外没有具体的顺序，这是公众心目中目前最紧迫的问题。

One： Stop mass immigration。 The waves of immigrants currently flooding the Western world have burdened it  with hordes of welfare parasites, brought in terrorists, increased crime, led to the proliferation of no-go areas, and resulted in countless “bad neighbours” who, based on their alien upbringing, culture, and traditions, lack any understanding and appreciation of liberty and are bound to become mindless future supporters of welfare-Statism。 No one is against immigration and immigrants per se。

。没有人反对移民和移民人员本身。

But immigration must be by invitation only。 All immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments。 To ensure this, they or their inviting party must place a bond with the com- munity in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden。 As well, every immigrant, inviting party, or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement。 Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or “good neighbourli ness”) — with the empirically predictable result of mostly, but by no means exclusively, western-white immigrant- candidates。 And any known communist or socialist, of any colour, denomination, or country of origin, must be barred from permanent settlement — unless, that is, the community where the potential immigrant wants to settle officially sanctions the looting of its residents’ property by new, foreign arrivals, which is not very likely to say the least (even within already existing ‘commie’ communes)。 (Brief message to all open-border and liberallala libertarians, who will surely label this, you guessed it, “fascist”： In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration。 Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will。 And “public property” has borders as well。 It is not unowned。 It is the property of domestic taxpayers and most definitely not the property of foreigners。 And while it is true that the State is a criminal organization  and that to entrust it with the task of border control will  inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic  residents and foreigners, it is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry。)

Two： Stop attacking, killing, and bombing people in foreign countries。 A main cause, even if by no means the only one, for the current invasion of Western countries by hordes of alien immigrants, are the wars initiated and conducted in the Middle East and elsewhere by the US’s ruling elites and their subordinate Western puppet-elites。 As well, the by now seemingly ‘normal’ and ubiquitous terrorist attacks in the name of Islam across the Western world are in large measure the “blow-back” of these wars  and the ensuing chaos throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa。 There should be no hesitation to call these Western rulers what they are： murderers or accessories to mass murder。 We must demand, and cry out loud instead for a foreign policy of strict non-interventionism。 Withdraw from all international and supranational organizations such as the UN, NATO, and the EU that  intricate one country into the domestic affairs of another。 Stop all government-to-government aid and prohibit all weapon sales to foreign States。 Let it be America First！, England First！, Germany First！, Italy First！, and so on, i。e。, each country trading with one another and no one interfering in anyone else’s domestic affairs。

Three： Defund the ruling elites and their intellectual bodyguards。 Expose and widely publicize the lavish salaries, perks, pensions, side-deals, bribes, and hush monies received by the ruling elites： by the higher-ups in government and governmental bureaucracies, of supreme courts, central banks, secret services and spy agencies, by politicians, parliamentarians, party leaders, political advisors and consultants, by crony-capitalists, “public educrats,” university presidents, provosts, and academic “stars。” Drive home the point that all their shining glory and luxury is funded by money extorted from taxpayers, and consequently urge that any and all taxes be slashed： income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, etc。, etc。

第三，剥夺统治精英及其知识精英护卫队的经费。揭露并广泛宣传统治精英们（包括政府高层及政府官僚机构、最高法院、中央银行、特工机构和间谍机构、政客、议员、政党领袖、政治顾问和智囊团、裙带资本家、公共教育官僚、大学校长、教务长和学术“明星”等）所获得的丰厚薪水、特权、退休金、私下交易、贿赂和封口费。强调他们所有的光环和奢华都是由向纳税人勒索的税金所支持的。为此，人民应该要求削减任何税收、所有税收，包括所得税、财产税、销售税、遗产税等等。

Four： End the FED and all central banks。 The second source of funding for the ruling elites, besides the money extorted from the public in the form of taxes, comes from the central banks。 Central banks are allowed to create paper money out of thin air。 This reduces the purchasing power of money and destroys the savings of average people。 It does not and cannot make society as a whole richer, but it redistributes income and wealth within soci- ety。 The earliest receivers of the newly created money, i。e。, the ruling elites, are thereby made richer and the later and latest receivers, i。e。, the average citizen, are made poorer。 The central bank’s manipulation of interest rates is the cause of boom-bust cycles。 The central bank permits the accumulation of ever greater “public debt” that is shifted as a burden onto unknown future taxpayers or is simply inflated away。 And as the facilitators of public debt, the central banks are also the facilitators of wars。 This mon strosity must end and be replaced by a system of free, competitive banking built on the foundation of a genuine commodity money such as gold or silver。

Five： Abolish all ‘affirmative action’ and ‘non-discrimination’ laws and regulations。 All such edicts are blatant violations of the principle of the equality before the law that, at least in the West, is intuitively sensed and recognized as a fundamental principle of justice。 As private property owners, people must be free to associate or disassociate with others： to include or exclude, to integrate or  segregate, to join or separate, to unify and incorporate, or  to disunite, exit, and secede。 Close all university deparments for Black-, Latino-, Women-, Gender-, Queer- Studies, etc。, etc。, as incompatible with science and dismiss its faculties as intellectual imposters or scoundrels。 As well, demand that all affirmative action commissars, diversity, and human resources officers, from universities on down to schools and kindergartens, be thrown out onto the street and be forced to learn some useful trade。

Six： Crush the “Anti-Fascist” mob。 The transvaluation of all values throughout the West： the invention of ever  more “victim groups,” the spread of “affirmative action” programs, and the relentless promotion of “political correctness,” has led to the rise of an “anti-fascist” mob。 Tacitly supported and indirectly funded by the ruling elites, this self-described mob of “social justice warriors” has taken upon itself the task of escalating the fight against “white privilege” through deliberate acts of terror directed against anyone and anything deemed “racist,” “right- wing,” “fascist,” “reactionary,” “incorrigible,” or “unreconstructed。” Such “enemies of progress” are physically assaulted by the “anti-fascist” mob, their cars are burnt  down, their properties vandalized, and their employers threatened to dismiss them and ruin their careers — all  the while the police are ordered by the powers that be to “stand down” and not to investigate the crimes commit- ted or prosecute and punish the criminals。 In view of this outrage, public anger must be aroused and there must be clamoring, far and wide, for the police to be unleashed  and this mob be beaten into submission。

(Query for liberallala-libertarians, who are sure to object to this demand on the ground that the police asked to crush the “anti-fascist” mob are State-police： Do you also object, on the same grounds, that the police arrest murderers or rapists？ Aren’t these legitimate tasks per formed also in any libertarian order by private police？ And if the police are not to do anything about this mob, isn’t it ok。 then that the target of its attacks, the “racist Right,” should take the task upon itself of giving the “social justice warriors” a bloody nose？)

(问一问古典自由意志主义者（liberallala-libertarians），他们肯定会反对这一要求，理由是要求镇压“反法西斯”暴徒的警察是国家警察：但是，你也会以同样的理由反对警察逮捕杀人犯或强奸犯吗？这些合法的任务不也是由私人警察按照自由意志主义的秩序来执行的吗？如果警察对这群暴徒不采取任何行动，那么他们攻击的目标，“种族主义右翼”，自己承担起打爆“社会正义战士”鼻子的任务，难道不可以吗？)

Seven： Crush the street criminals and gangs。 In dispensing with the principle of the equality before the law and awarding all sorts of group privileges (except to the one group of married white Christian men and their families) the ruling elites have also dispensed with the principle of equal punishment for equal crime。 Some State-favored groups are handed more lenient punish ment for the same crime than others, and some especially favored groups are simply let run wild and go practically unpunished at all, thus actually and effectively promot ing crime。 As well, no-go areas have been permitted to develop where any effort at law-enforcement has essentially ceased to exist and where violent thugs and street gangs have taken over。 In view of this, public furor must be provoked and it be unmistakably demanded that the police crack down quick and hard on any robber, mugger, rapist, and murderer, and ruthlessly clear all current no-go areas of violent gang-rule。 Needless to say that this policy should be color-blind, but if it happens to be, as it in fact does, that most street criminals or gang members are young Black or Latino males or, in Europe, young immigrant males from Africa, the Middle East, the Bal- kans, or Eastern Europe, then so be it and such human specimens then should be the ones that most prominently get their noses bloodied。 And needless to say also that in order to defend against crime, whether ordinary  street crime or acts of terrorism, all prohibitions against the ownership of guns by upstanding citizen should be abolished。

Eight： Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums。 To cement their own position, the ruling class has put the  underclass on the dole and thus made it a most reliable  source of public support。 Allegedly to help people rise and move up from the underclass to become self-supporting actors, the real — and actually intended — effect of the State’s so-called “social policy” is the exact oppo site。 It has rendered a person’s underclass status more permanent and made the underclass steadily grow (and with this also the number of tax-funded social workers and therapists assigned to “help and assist” it)。 For,in accordance with inexorable economic law, every subsidy awarded on account of some alleged need or defi- ciency produces more, not less, of the problem that it is supposed to alleviate or eliminate。 Thus, the root cause of a person’s underclass status： his low impulse control and high time preference, i。e。, his uncontrolled desire for immediate gratification, and the various attendant manifestations of this cause, such as unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, divorce, female headed households, out-of-wedlock births, rotating shack-up male companions, child abuse, negligence, and petty crime, is and are not alleviated or eliminated  but systematically strengthened and promoted。 Instead of continuing and expanding this increasingly unsightly social disaster, then, it should be abolished and be loudly demanded that one take heed of the biblical exhortation that he who can, but will not work, also shall not eat, and that he who truly cannot work, due to severe mental or physical deficiencies, be taken care of by family, commu- nity, and voluntary charity。

Nine： Get the State out of education。 Most, if not all, social pathologies plaguing the contemporary West have their common root in the institution of “public educa- tion。” When the first steps were taken, more than two centuries ago, in Prussia, to supplement and ultimately replace a formerly completely private system of education with a universal system of compulsory “public education,” the time spent in State-run schools did in most cases not exceed four years。 Today, throughout the entire Western world, the time spent in institutions of “public educa- tion” is, at a minimum, around ten years, and in many cases, and increasingly so, twenty or even thirty years。 That is, a large or even the largest part of time during the most formative period in a person’s life is spent in State-funded and State-supervised institutions, whose primary purpose from the very beginning was not to raise an enlightened public, but to train “good soldiers” and “good public servants：” not independent and mature or “mündige Bürger,” but subordinate and servile “Staats-Bürger。” The result？ The indoctrination has worked： the longer the time a person has spent within the system of public education, the more he is committed to leftist-egalitarian ideas and has swallowed and wholeheartedly internalized the official doctrine and agenda of “political correctness。” Indeed, in particular among social science teachers and professors, people not counting themselves as part of the Left have practically ceased to exist。 Consequently, it must be demanded that the control of schools and universities be wrest away from the central State and, in a first step, be returned to regional or better still local and locally-funded authorities, and ultimately be completely privatized, so as to replace a system of compulsory uniformity and conformity with a system of decentralized education that reflects the natural variation, multiplicity, and diversity of  human talents and interests。

Ten： Don’t put your trust in politics or political par- ties。 Just as academia and the academic world can not be expected to play any significant role in a libertarian strategy for social change, so with politics and political parties — after all, it is the ultimate goal of libertarianism to put an end to all politics, and to subject all interpersonal relations and conflicts to private law and civil law procedures。 To be sure, under present, all-pervasively politicized conditions an involvement in politics and party politics cannot be entirely avoided。 However, in any such involvement one must be keenly aware of and guard against the corrupting influence of power and the lure of money and perks that comes with it。 And to minimize this risk and temptation, it is advisable to concentrate one’s efforts on the level of regional and local rather than national politics, and there to promote a radical agenda of decentralization： of nullification and peaceful separation, segregation, and secession。 Most importantly, however, we must take heed of Ludwig von Mises’s life-motto： Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it。 That is, we must speak out whenever and wherever, whether in formal or informal gatherings, against anyone affronting us with by now only all-too-familiar “politi cally correct” drivel and left-egalitarian balderdash and unmistakably say： “No。 Hell no。 You must be kidding。” In the meantime, given the almost complete mind-control  exercised by the ruling elites, academia, and the MSM, it    already requires a good portion of courage to do so。 But  if we are not brave enough to do so now and thus set an  example for others to follow, matters will become increas- ingly worse and more dangerous in the future, and we, Western civilization and the Western ideas of freedom and liberty will be wiped out and vanish。

四、跟随默里成长

COMING OF AGE WITH MURRAY

 

I first met Murray Rothbard in the summer of 1985. I was then 35 and Murray was 59. For the next ten years, until Murray’s premature death in 1995, I would be associated with Murray, first in New York City and then in Las Vegas, at  UNLV, in closer, more immediate and direct  contact than anyone else, except his wife Joey, of course.

我第一次见到默里·罗斯巴德，是在1985年夏天。当时默里59岁，我35岁。在之后的十年里，直到1995年默里过早去世，我一直和他在一起。我们先是在纽约，然后在拉斯维加斯。在拉斯维加斯大学，我俩比任何人都有更密切、更直接的联系，当然除了他的妻子乔伊。

Being almost as old now as Murray was at the time of his death I thought it appropriate to use this occasion  to speak and reflect a bit on what I learned during my ten  years with Murray.

现在，我已经和默里去世时差不多老了，我想利用这个合适的机会，谈谈和反思一下我在默里身边的十年里所学到的东西。

I was already an adult when I first met Murray, not  just in the biological but also in the mental and intellectual sense, and yet, I only came of age while associated with him — and I want to talk about this experience.

当我初识默里时，我已成年，不仅仅在生理上，而且在精神和智力上都是如此。然而，我只有在和他交往后，才变得成熟——我想谈谈这段经历。

Before I met Murray I had already completed my Ph.D. and attained the rank of a Privatdozent (a tenured  but unpaid university professor), the same rank incidentally that Ludwig von Mises once held in Vienna. Apart from my doctoral dissertation (Erkennen und Handeln),  I  had already completed two books. One (Kritik der kausal- wissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung), that revealed me as a Misesian, and another, about to be published in the following year (Eigentum, Anarchie und Staat), that revealed me as a Rothbardian. I had already read all of Mises’s and Rothbard’s theoretical works. (I had not yet read Murray’s voluminous journalistic work, however, which was essentially unavailable to me at the time.) Thus, it was not my personal encounter with Murray, then, that made me a Misesian and Rothbardian. Intellectually, I was already a Misesian and Rothbardian years before I ever met Mur- ray personally. And so, notwithstanding the fact that I am myself foremost a theoretician, I do not want to speak here about the grand Austro-libertarian intellectual edifice that Mises and, in his succession, Rothbard have  handed down to us, or about my own small contributions to this system, but about my long personal experience with Murray： about the practical and existential lessons  that I learned through my encounters with him and that  turned me from an adult to a man who had come of age. I moved to New York City, because I considered Murray the greatest of all social theorists, certainly of the 20th century and possibly of all times, just as I considered Mises the greatest of all economists, and, with Mises hav ing long gone and out of the picture, I wanted to meet, get to know, and work with this man, Rothbard. I still hold this view concerning the greatness of Mises and Rothbard. Indeed, even more so today than 30 years ago. And since then, there has been no second Mises or Rothbard. Not even close, and we may have to wait for a long time for this to happen.

So I moved to NYC knowing Murray’s work, but knowing almost nothing about the man. Remember, this was 1985. I was still writing in longhand and then using a mechanical typewriter, acquainting myself with a computer for the first time only during the following year at UNLV. And Murray never used a computer but stayed with an electric typewriter until the end of his life. There were no cell phones, there were no emails, no internet, no Google, no Wikipedia, and no Youtube. At the beginning, even fax machines did not exist. My correspondence with Murray preceding my arrival in NYC, then, was by old, regular snail-mail. Murray expressed his enthusiasm about my wish to meet and work with him and immediately offered to enlist the help of Burton Blumert, and  indeed, Burt then was of instrumental help in facilitating my move from Europe to the US. (The wonderful Burt Blumert, owner of Camino Coins, and founder of the original Center for Libertarian Studies that would ultimately be merged with the Mises Institute, was one of Murray’s dearest friends and confidants. He was also a   great benefactor and dear friend to me.)

因为知道默里的成就，所以我搬到了纽约，但对这个人却几乎一无所知。我记得那是1985年。我还在用手写写作，后来使用机械打字机，直到在内华达大学拉斯维加斯分校（UNLV）的第二年，我才第一次接触到电脑。默里从未使用过电脑，直到他生命的尽头，一直都在使用电动打字机。没有手机，没有电子邮件，没有互联网，没有谷歌，没有维基百科，也没有Youtube。一开始，甚至连传真机都没有。在我到达纽约之前，我和默里的通信是用老旧的、普通的蜗牛邮件（snail-mail）。默里表达了希望与我见面，一起工作的热情，并且立即寻求伯顿·布鲁默特（Burton Blumert）的帮助，事实上，我从欧洲搬到美国的过程中，伯顿帮了我很大忙。(牛逼的伯特·布鲁默特是卡米诺币的所有者，也是自由意志主义研究中心最初的创始人，该中心最终与米塞斯研究所合并。他是默里最亲密的朋友和知己之一，他同样也是我的恩人和好朋友。)

I had seen some photos of Murray, I knew that he, like Mises, was Jewish, that he taught at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute (subsequently renamed New York Polytechnic University and nowadays Polytechnic Institute of NYU), that he was the editor of the much admired Journal of Lib ertarian Studies, and that he was closely associated, as its academic director, with the Ludwig von Mises Institute  that Lew Rockwell had recently, 35 years ago, in 1982, founded. That was about it.

我曾经看过默里的一些照片，知道他和米塞斯一样，都是是犹太人。他在布鲁克林理工学院（Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute）(后来更名为纽约理工大学（ New York Polytechnic University），就是现在的纽约大学理工学院（Polytechnic Institute of NYU）)任教，他是备受推崇的《自由意志主义研究杂志》（ Journal of Lib ertarian Studies,）的编辑。作为该杂志的学术负责人，他与路德维希·冯·米塞斯研究所（Ludwig von Mises Institute）一直保持着密切的联系，该研究所是卢·罗克韦尔（Lew Rockwell）在35年前，也就是1982年创立的。我之前对默里的了解，就只有这么多。

And so, both unprepared, we met for the first time in Murray’s university office. Here was I, the ‘cool blonde from the North,’ to cite a popular advertisement for bitter tasting northern German beers, young, tall and athletic, somewhat unsociable, dry and with a dry sense of humour, and more on the blunt, sarcastic, and confrontational side. Perfect Wehrmacht-material, if you will. And there was Murray： the ‘big-city neurotic,’ to use the German title of Woody Allen’s comedic Annie Hall, a generation older, short and round, non-athletic, even clumsy (except for typing), gregarious and hilarious, never moping but ever joyful, and, in his personal dealings (quite unlike in his writings), always non-confrontational, well- tempered, or even tame. Not exactly Wehrmacht-material. Personality-wise, then, we could hardly have been more different. Indeed, we were quite an odd couple — and yet, we hit it off from the start.

就这样，默里和我第一次见面，就在默里的大学办公室里，我俩都没有做什么准备。当时我俩的差异很大。我自己嘛，就像德国北部苦啤酒的广告词，“来自北方的酷酷的金发郎”——年轻，高大，健壮，有点不合群，冷漠，带着一种冷峻的幽默感，当然也有直率、讽刺和对抗的一面。看看我像不像一个典型的德国军人坯子？而默里呢？他有点像伍迪·艾伦(Woody Allen)的喜剧《安妮·霍尔》(Annie Hall)的德语标签，是“大城市的神经质患者”。默里比我年长了一代，他又矮又胖，不擅长运动，甚至有些笨拙(除了打字)。他还爱好交际，善于搞笑，从不忧郁，永远乐呵呵。他在与人交往时总是客客气气，平易近人，甚至逆来顺受。他本人与他的作品大不一样，当然也完全不是当德军的料。的确，我们是相当奇怪的一对——然而，我们一见如故。

Given the long, special relationship between Germans and Jews, especially during the 12-year period of  National Socialist Party rule in Germany, from 1933–45, I, as a young German meeting an older Jew in America, had been afraid that this history might become a poten tial source of tension. Not so. Quite to the contrary.

众所周知，德国人和犹太人之间有长期而特殊的关系，尤其是在1933年至1945年国家社会党(National Socialist Party)统治德国的12年期间。我是一名年轻的德国人，默里是一位年长的犹太人，我和他在美国见面时，我一直担心这段历史有可能是造成我们关系紧张的潜在因素。然而，事实却恰恰相反。

On the subject of religion itself, there was general agreement. We were both agnostics, yet with a profound interest in the sociology of religion and quite similar views on comparative religion. Yet Murray greatly deep- ened my understanding of the role of religion in history      through his unfortunately uncompleted great work, during the last decade of his life, on the history of economic  thought.

关于宗教本身的问题，我俩的观点是一致的。我们都是不可知论者，但对宗教社会学有着浓厚的兴趣，关于比较宗教学的观点也非常相似。然而，默里在他生命的最后十年里，通过他那本未能完稿的伟大的经济思想史著作，极大地加深了我对宗教在历史中所起作用的理解。

Moreover, in our countless conversations, I learned from Murray about the importance of complementing Austro-libertarian theory with revisionist history in order to come up with a truly realistic assessment of historic events and global affairs. And it was I, then, as some one who had grown up in defeated and devastated post-WWII West Germany with the then (and still) ‘official history’ taught across all German schools and universities of (a) feeling guilty and ashamed of being German and German history and (b) believing that America and America’s democratic capitalism was ‘the greatest thing’ since or even before the invention of sliced bread, who had to revise his formerly still, despite all Austro-libertarian theory, rather naïve views about world affairs in general and US-American and German history in particular. As a matter of fact, Murray made me fundamentally change my rather rosy view of the US (despite Vietnam and all that) and helped me, for the first time, to feel consoled, content, and even happy about being German, and to develop a special concern for Germany and the fate of the German people.

此外，在我们无数次的交谈中，我从默里处看到了修正主义史学的重要性。我们为了对历史事件和全球事务做出真正现实的评价，需要用修正主义史学来补充奥地利自由意志主义理论。我是一个在二战战败后满目疮痍的西德长大的人，无论是我读大学的时代，还是现在，德国的大学都教授着这样的“官方历史”：(a)作为德国人对德国历史感到内疚和羞愧，(b)相信美国和美国的民主资本主义是自切片面包发明以来，甚至也是发明之前最伟大的东西。现在我不得不修改我以前的观点，尽管那是奥地利自由意志主义的理论。我过去对世界事务的看法，尤其是对美国和德国历史的看法，是幼稚的。遇到默里之前，尽管美国深陷越战的泥泞，我依然对美国有相当乐观的看法，但是默里彻底改变了我的观点，并帮助我第一次感到欣慰、满足，甚至为我是德国人感到高兴，并对德国和德国人民的命运产生了特别的关注。

To my initial surprise, then, — and ultimately my   great and pleasant relief — Murray was quite a Germanophile. He knew and highly appreciated the German contributions to philosophy, mathematics, science, engineering, scholarly history, and literature. His beloved teacher Mises had originally written in German and was a product of German culture. Murray loved German music, he loved German baroque churches, he loved the Bavarian beergarden atmosphere and the from-church-to-beer- garden-we-go tradition.  His wife Joey was of German  ancestry, her maiden name being JoAnn Schumacher, and Joey was a member of the Richard Wagner Society and a lifelong opera buff. As well, most of Murray’s friends that I would eventually meet turned out to be Germanophiles. Foremost among them Ralph Raico, the great historian of classical liberalism, whom I had hoped to see   again at this occasion but who sadly left us forever almost a year ago now. I met Ralph only a few months after my arrival in NYC, at a party held at Murray’s apartment on  the upper Westside. I immediately took to his caustic sar casm and over the years we developed a close friendship. Apart from our many meetings at various Mises Institute events, I still fondly remember in particular our extended  joint travels in northern Italy and especially when, at a conference in Milano, sponsored by some friends and affiliates of the once (but no longer) secessionist Lega Nord, some self-proclaimed — who would have guessed that?! — “anti-fascist” demonstrators appeared in front of  the conference hotel to denounce us, to our great amusement, as ‘libertari fascisti.’ Ralph was also the one who introduced me to the revisionist scholarship concerning WWI and WWII as well as the entire inter warperiod, and it was Ralph who taught me about the history of German liberalism and in particular its radical 19th century libertarian representatives that had been almost completely forgotten in contemporary Germany.

最初让我感到惊讶，而最终却让我感到欣喜与宽慰的是，默里是一个非常亲德的人。他了解并高度赞赏德国在哲学、数学、科学、工程学、学术历史和文学方面的贡献。他敬爱的老师米塞斯，作为德国文化的产物，最初是用德语写作的。默里喜欢德国音乐，喜欢德国巴洛克式教堂，同时他也喜欢巴伐利亚啤酒花园的风格和从教堂到啤酒花园的传统。他的妻子乔伊具有德国血统，娘家姓乔安·舒马赫，乔伊是理查德·瓦格纳协会的成员，一生都是歌剧迷。而且，我后来见到的默里的大多数朋友都是亲德派。其中最重要的是拉尔夫·雷科（Ralph Raico），一位伟大的古典自由主义的历史学家，我曾希望这次能再次见到他，但遗憾的是，他在大约一年前永远地离开了我们。到达纽约的几个月后，我在默里位于上西区的公寓举行的一次聚会上认识了拉尔夫。我立刻喜欢上了他那尖锐的讽刺，此后的多年，我们有了亲密的友谊。除了我们在米塞斯研究所举办的各种活动上的多次会面外，我至今仍对我们在意大利北部的长时间联合旅行记忆犹新，尤其是在米兰举行的一次会议上，那次会议是由曾经(但已不再)分裂主义的北方联盟(Lega Nord)的一些朋友和分支机构主办的，其中一些人自称是——谁能猜到呢?——“反法西斯”示威者出现在会议酒店前，谴责我们是“自由法西斯主义者”（‘libertari fascisti.’），这让我们感到啼笑皆非。拉尔夫还向我介绍了关于第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战，以及整个战争期间的修正主义学术。拉尔夫还教我了解德国自由主义的历史，尤其是19世纪激进的自由意志主义代表，这些代表在当代德国几乎被完全遗忘了。

Incidentally, Lew Rockwell, too, early on showed his Germanophile credentials. When we first met in NYC in the fall of 1985, he drove a Mercedes 190, he then went   astray for a few years, driving an American-made pickup truck, but ultimately returned to the fold by driving a Mini Cooper, produced by BMW.

顺便说一句，卢·罗克韦尔(Lew Rockwell)也很早就亮明了亲德派的身份。1985年秋天，我们第一次在纽约见面时，他开着一辆奔驰190。后来他误入歧途几年，开了一辆美国制造的皮卡，但最终还是重回正道，开了一辆宝马生产的Mini Cooper。

But above all it was Murray who taught me never to trust official history, invariably written by the victors, but to conduct all historical research instead like a detective  investigating a crime. Always, first and foremost and as a first approximation, follow the money in search of a motive. Who is to gain, whether in terms of money, real estate, or sheer power from this measure or that? In most cases, answering this question will lead you directly to the very actor or group of actors responsible for the measure or policy under consideration. Simple as it is to ask this question, however, it is much more difficult and requires often arduous research to answer it, and to unearth, from under a huge smokescreen of seemingly high-minded rhetoric and pious propaganda, the hard facts and indicators — the money flows and welfare gains — to actually prove a crime and to identify and ‘out’ its perpetrators. Murray was a master in this, and that at a time when you did not have access to computers, the internet, and search machines such as Google. And to do this detective’s work, as I learned from Murray, you must go beyond official  documents, the MSM, the big and famous names, the academic ‘stars,’ and the ‘prestigious’ journals — in short： everything and everyone deemed ‘respectable’ and ‘politi cally correct.’ You must also, and in particular, pay atten- tion to the work of outsiders, extremists, and outcasts, i.e., to ‘disrespectable’ or ‘deplorable’ people and ‘obscure’ publication outlets that you are supposed to ignore or not even know about. To this day, I have heeded, and indeed relished following this advice. Anyone who could see my list of bookmarks of frequently visited websites would likely be surprised, and any establishmentarian or leftist in particular would likely be shocked and shudder in dis gust.

With this general perspective and outlook on things, revisionists such as Murray (and myself) are regularly charged, contemptuously, as some nutty conspiracy theorists. To this charge, Murray would typically respond： First, put bluntly and sarcastically, even if one were a certified paranoid this can not be taken as proof that no one was actually after you and your money. And second and more systematically： Conspiracies are less likely, of course, the larger the number of supposed conspirators. Also, it is naïve to assume the existence of just one big all- encompassing conspiracy run by one all-powerful group of conspirators. But conspiracies, often rival or even contradictory conspiracies, i.e., confidential efforts of various groups of people acting in concert in the pursuit of some common goal, are indeed an ever-present feature of social reality. As any action, such conspiracies can succeed or they can fail and can lead to consequences that were un-intended by the conspirators. But realistically speaking, most if not all historical events are more or less exactly what some identifiable people or group of people acting in concert intended them to be. Indeed, to assume the   opposite is to assume, incredibly, that history is nothing  but a sequence of unintelligible accidents.

默里、我、我们这样的修正主义者，我们对历史有这样的总体看法和视角，因而总是被轻蔑地指责为是疯狂的阴谋论者。对于这些指责，默里的回应通常是这样的。第一，他说，就算一个人被证明是偏执狂，就没有人窥探他？就没人觊觎他的钱财？第二，他系统地分析阴谋的来源。如果大多数人搞阴谋，那还成什么阴谋？如果一个全能大神搞阴谋，搞一个包揽一切的大阴谋，这个人是不是也太天真了？当我们发现现实中总是有些事情是相互竞争甚至是相互矛盾的，顺着利益这条线索我们就可以发现这背后有可以识别的这一群人或那一群人。不同群体为了追求某种共同目标而努力采取一致的秘密行动，确实是社会现实中永远存在的一种特征。这样的一群人秘密行动，就是阴谋。当然，阴谋作为一种行动，可能成功，也可能事与愿违。如果我们不去考虑历史事件背后的利益相关者和他们的行为，历史就只能是一系列难以理解的杂乱事件的罗列。

Moreover, in learning from Murray about the necessity of complementing Austro-libertarian theory with revisionist history so as to gain a complete, realistic picture of the world and worldly affairs, I also received constant training from him in the art of prudent and judicious judgment and evaluation of people, actions, and events. Pure theory allows us to make rather clearcut judgments of true or false, right or wrong, and effective, leading to the goal intended, or ineffective. But many if not most actions and events provoking or eliciting our judgments do not fall into the category of matters that can be thusly evaluated. We are surrounded, or better still： encircled, by a class of people — politicians and stateagents — that, day-in and day-out, renders and enforces decisions that systematically impact and affect our property and consequently our entire conduct of life without our consent and even against our explicit protestation. In short： we are confronted by an elite of rulers, instead of, in contradistinction, an elite of agents. And confronted with politicians and political decisions, then, our judg- ment concerns the evaluation of, at best, second-bests. The question is not true or false, right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Rather, it is this： Given that political decisions are per se false, wrong, and ineffective, which of these decisions is less false, wrong, and effective and comparatively closer to the truth, the right, and the good, and which person represents a lesser evil or a greater one than another. Such questions do not allow for a scientific answer, because answering them involves the comparative evaluation of countless immeasurable and incommensurable variables. And in any case, newly discovered facts about the past or future developments may well reveal any such judgment as mistaken. But the answer is also not arbitrary. What is true, right, and effective is given, as fix-points, and reasons must be supplied, whether based on logic or empirical evidence, for locating various second-bests as closer or more distant to such points. Rather, judgment-making in matters such as these is a difficult art, much like entrepreneurship is not a science but an art. And just as some people are good at entrepreneurship and others bad, indicated by monetary profits or losses, then, so are some people good at judging political events and actors and others bad, gaining or los ing in the reputation as wise and prudent judges.

此外，我从默里那里了解到有必要用修正主义的历史来补充奥地利自由意志主义理论，以获得一个完整的、现实的世界和世界事务的图景，同时，我还受到了思想与技艺训练，学会审慎且明智地判断和评价人与事。纯理论允许我们对真与假、对与错、达到预期目标有效或无效，做出相当明确的判断。但是，许多(如果不是大多数的话)引发或引出我们判断的行为和事件，并不属于可以这样评价的事物范畴。政客和国家代理人，就是这样的一群人，他们日复一日地包围着我们，对我们的抗议置若罔闻，再二再三地执行那些系统性地影响和损害我们的财产的行为，从而影响了我们的整个生活。简而言之：我们面对的是统治精英，而不是代理人精英。面对政客和政治决策，我们的判断最多只能是次优的评价。这不是一个真或假，对或错，有效或无效的问题。相反，这个问题应该这样思考：政客推行的政策本身就是错误的、有问题的、无效的，那么我们就只能做这样的最不坏的考量——哪个决策会错得少些，问题少些，效果相对好一些，这个政策就离真理、正义和善良相对不那么远；至于政客本人也同样，他的邪恶会因此多点或少点。这些问题不可能有科学的答案，因为回答这些问题，需要对无数无法测量和不可通约的变量进行比较评估。无论对于过去的事务的新认识，还是对未来发展的事实的评价，我们都可能出错。但是答案也不是武断的。那就是找到一个理论上真实、正确且有效的固定参考点，然后将各种次优选择以逻辑的或经验的证据，用来与固定参考点比较，才能判断它到底是离参考点近还是远。显然，在这类问题上做出判断是一门困难的艺术，就像创业不是一门科学而是一门艺术一样。正如有些人擅长创业，有些人不擅长(以金钱的盈亏来衡量)一样，有些人擅长判断政治事件和政治人物，而有些人则不擅长，他们通过明智和谨慎的判断来赢得或失去声誉。

Murray was of course not unfailing in his judgments. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, for instance, he misjudged the antiwar stand of the New Left as more principled than it really was, something that he after- wards readily admitted as a mistake. And I know of at least one, rather personal case, where Joey’s judgment was better and more on the mark than his. This notwithstand ing however, I have not encountered anyone of sounder, subsequently vindicated judgment than Murray.

With this I want to come to the second major lesson I learned during my long association with Murray. While  the first lesson in revisionism concerned matters of practice and method, the second lesson concerned existential matters.

说到这里，我想谈谈在与默里的长期交往中学到的第二个重要教训。修正主义的第一课是关于实践和方法的问题，第二课是关于存在主义的问题。

Before I met Murray, I knew of course that he was a radical outsider in a predominantly leftist-liberal aca demia and I expected (and was willing to accept for myself) that this would involve some sacrifices, i.e., that one would have to pay a price for being a Rothbardian, not only, but also in terms of money. But I was quite surprised to realize how high this price was. I knew that Brooklyn Polytechnic was not a prestigious university, yet I expected Murray to occupy there a comfortable, well- paying post. Moreover, at the time I still fancied the US as a bastion and bulwark of free enterprise and consequently expected that Murray, as the foremost intellectual champion of capitalism and the personified antithesis to Marx, would be held in high esteem, if not in academia then cer tainly outside of it, in the world of commerce and busi ness, and accordingly be rewarded with a certain degree of affluence.

在认识默里之前我就明白，在以左翼自由主义为主的学术界，默里是一个激进的局外人，我自己也差不多会牺牲在学术圈的利益，不过我不在乎。换句话说，一个人要成为罗斯巴德主义者，不仅要付出代价，而且要付出金钱的代价。让我意外的是，这个代价的价格是如此之高。虽然我知道布鲁克林理工学院并不是一所著名的大学，但我仍希望默里能在那里找到一份舒适、待遇优厚的工作。那时我还仍然幻想美国是自由企业的堡垒，因此我期望，默里作为资本主义最重要的知识斗士，马克思化身的对立面，即使不是在学术界，也肯定会在学术界之外的商业和商业领域，受到高度尊重，并相应地获得一定程度的富裕。

 

In fact, at Brooklyn Polytechnic Murray occupied a small, grungy, and windowless office that he had to share with a history professor. In Germany, even research assistants enjoyed more comfortable surroundings, not to speak of full professors. Murray ranked among the lowest paid full professors at his school. Indeed, my Ger- man National Science Foundation grant at the time — a Heisenberg scholarship — turned out to be considerably higher than Murray’s university salary (something that I was too ashamed to reveal to him after I had discov- ered it). And Murray’s apartment in Manhattan, large and filled to the ceiling with books, was dark and run-down. Certainly nothing like the penthouse that I had imagined him to occupy. This situation improved significantly with his move in 1986, at age 60, to Las Vegas and UNLV. While my salary went down there as compared to my previous compensation, Murray’s went sharply up, but was still below $100,000, and he could afford to buy a roomy but    spartan house. Even as the holder of an endowed chair at  UNLV, however, Murray did not have command of any research assistants or a personal secretary.

事实上，在布鲁克林理工学院，默里只有一间又小又脏、且没有窗户的办公室，同时还不得不和一位历史教授共用。在德国，即使是研究助理也能享有更舒适的环境，更不用说全职教授了。在他的学校，默里是收入最低的全职教授之一。事实上，我当时得到的德国国家科学基金会资助——海森堡奖学金——比默里的大学薪水高得多(在我发现这件事后，我羞于向他透露)。默里在曼哈顿的公寓很大，里面堆满了书，但是却又黑又破旧，全然不像我想象中他住的顶层公寓。1986年，60岁的他搬到拉斯维加斯和UNLV后，这种情况得到了显著改善。虽然我的薪水与之前相比低了，默里的薪水却大幅提升，但仍低于10万美元，他有能力买一套宽敞但简朴的房子。然而，即使作为UNLV的特聘教授，默里也没有任何研究助理或私人秘书。

Yet Murray never complained or showed any bitterness or signs of envy but always plugged along joyfully and pushed ahead instead with his writings. This was a hard lesson for me to learn and I am still having difficulties following it at times.

然而，默里从来没有抱怨过，也没有表现出任何不满或嫉妒的迹象，他一直坚持写作，并且乐此不疲。这对我来说是很难学会的，很多时候，我仍然做不到这一点。

A propos, Joey and Murray once told me laughingly how, at the time when they were still dating, both had expected the other to be a good catch. Joey, because Mur ray was Jewish, and Murray, because Joey was gentile — only to then find out that they were both wrong in their  expectations.

乔伊和默里曾经笑着告诉我，在他们还在约会的时候，他们都希望对方是一个好对象。乔伊对默里的期望满满，因为默里是犹太人；默里也对乔伊期望满满，因为乔伊是非犹太人——结果发现他们的期望都错了。

Moreover, despite his towering achievements as an intellectual champion of free market capitalism, Murray never won any prizes, awards, or honours to speak of. That he did not win a Nobel prize in economics was not surprising, of course. After all, the great Mises also did not win it. But in the US alone there existed dozens of institutions — think-tanks, foundations, business associ- ations, research centers, and universities — that professed their dedication to free markets and liberty, and yet none of them ever awarded Murray any significant prize or honorary award, all the while they showered people with money and awards who had done little more than to suggest — “daringly” — some incremental reform such as, let’s say, lowering the marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 30 or cutting the budget of the EPA by some percent- age points, or who had simply expressed their “personal love” of “freedom” and “free enterprise” often, loudly, and  emphatically enough.

None of this fazed Murray in the slightest. Indeed, he expected nothing else, for reasons that I still had to learn.

这一切，丝毫都没有让默里感到不安。的确，他对别的事完全不在意，至于原因，我还没有弄清楚。

What Murray realized and I still had to learn was that the most vociferous and ferocious rejection and opposition to Austro-libertarianism would not come from the  traditional socialist Left, but rather from these very selfproclaimed “anti-socialist,” “limited government,” “minimal state,” “pro-private enterprise,” and “pro-freedom” outfits and their intellectual mouthpieces, and above all from what has become known as the Beltway Libertar ians. They simply could not stomach the fact that Murray had demonstrated with plain logic that their doctrines were nothing but inconsistent intellectual clap-trap, and that they were all, to use Mises’s verdict vis-a-vis Milton Friedman and his company, a “bunch of socialists,” too, notwithstanding their vehement protestations to the contrary. For, as Murray argued, once you admitted the existence of a State, any State, defined as a territorial  monopolist of ultimate decision-making in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving the State itself, then all private property had been effectively abolished, even if it remained provisionally, qua State-grant, nominally private, and had been replaced instead by a system of “collective” or rather State-property. State, any State, means socialism, defined as “the collective ownership of factors of production.” The institution of a State is praxeologically incompatible with private prop- erty and private property based enterprise. It is the very anti-thesis of private property, and any proponent of pri vate property and private enterprise then must, as a matter of logic, be an anarchist. In this regard (as in many others) Murray was unwilling to compromise, or “intransigent,” as his detractors would say. Because in theory, in thinking, compromise is impermissible. In everyday life, compromise is a permanent, and ubiquitous feature, of course. But in theory, compromise is the ultimate sin, a strict and absolute ‘no no.’ It is not permissible, for instance, to compromise between the two incompatible propositions that 1+1=2 or that 1+1=3 and accept that it is 2.5. Either some proposition is true or it is false. There can be no “meeting in the middle” of truth and falsehood. Here, regarding Murray’s uncompromising radicalism, a little anecdote told by Ralph Raico seems apropos.

默里已经意识到，而我仍然需要了解的是，对奥地利自由意志主义最激烈、最大声的拒绝和反对，不是来自传统的社会主义左派，而是来自这些自我标榜的“反社会主义”、“有限政府”、“最小国家”、“亲私营企业”和“亲自由”的机构及其知识分子喉舌，尤其是那些被称为“环城自由主义者”（the Beltway Libertarians）的人。默里用清晰的逻辑证明了他们的学说只不过是前后矛盾的智力陷阱，这一点，他们根本无法接受。而且，米塞斯曾对米尔顿·弗里德曼（Milton Friedman）之流断言，说他们都是“一群社会主义者”，当然遭到他们的激烈反对。正如默里所说，如果你承认国家的存在，承认国家是拥有最终裁决权的领土垄断者，承认国家即使自己也是利益冲突一方时也有最终裁决权，那么私人财产权也就岌岌可危了。无论你有什么私有财产，那不过暂时保留的国家授予的名义上的私有财产。最终，私有财产会被集体财产制度，更确切的说是国家财产制度所替代。国家，任何国家，都意味着社会主义，被定义为“生产要素的集体所有制”。国家制度在行为学上与私有财产和以私有财产为基础的企业是不相容的。它是私有财产的对立面，因此，从逻辑上讲，任何私有财产和私有企业的支持者，都必须是无政府主义者。在这方面(正如在许多其他方面一样)，默里不愿意妥协，或者用他的批评者话来说，他是“不妥协的”。因为在理论上，在思想上，妥协是不允许的。当然，在日常生活中，妥协是一个永久且普遍存在的特征。但从理论上讲，不是A就是非A，在这之间妥协是一种最大的恶。例如，不允许在1+1=2或1+1=3这两个不相容的命题之间妥协而接受它是2.5。某个命题不是为真就是为假。真理与谬误不可能“在中间相遇”。在这里，关于默里不妥协的激进主义，拉尔夫·雷科（Ralph Raico）讲的一件小轶事似乎很合适。

To quote Ralph：

Murray was someone special. I recognized that fact the first night I met him. It was after the Mises seminar; a buddy of mine and I  had been invited to attend, and afterwards Murray suggested we have coffee and talk. My friend and I were dazzled by the great Mises, and Murray, naturally, was pleased to see our enthusiasm. He assured us that Mises was at least the greatest economist of the century, if not the whole history of economic thought. As far as politics went, though, Murray said, lowering his voice con- spiratorially： “Well, when it comes to poli tics, some of us consider Mises a member of the non-Communist Left.” Yes, it was easy to see we’d met someone very special.

引用拉尔夫的话：

默里是个特别的人，我第一次见到他的那晚就意识到了这一点。那是在米塞斯研讨会之后，我和我的一个朋友被邀请参加。此后，默里建议我们喝杯咖啡聊聊天。我和我的朋友被伟大的米塞斯迷得眼花缭乱，默里自然很高兴看到我们的热情。他向我们保证，米塞斯即使不是整个经济思想史上最伟大的经济学家，至少也是本世纪最伟大的经济学家。默里说，就政治而言，压低了自己的声音：“嗯，说到政治，我们中的一些人认为米塞斯是非共产主义左派的一员（the non-Communist Left）。”是的，很容易看出我们遇到了一个非常特别的人。

Unlike Murray, quite a few individuals who had learned essentially everything they ever knew from Murray, in particular his Man, Economy and State, were will ing to make such intellectual compromises, and they were richly rewarded for their intellectual “flexibility” and “tolerance.” But that was not Murray! And consequently, he was (and still is) ignored, excluded, or denounced by the chieftains of the “limited-government-free-market- industry.” And he was essentially left without any institutional support, as a lone fighter, until the arrival of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute.

与默里不同，有相当一部分人基本上是从默里那里学到了他们所知道的一切，尤其是他的那本《人、经济与国家》，他们愿意做出这样的智力妥协，他们也因为智力上的“灵活性”和“宽容”得到了丰厚的回报。但默里不是这样的人!结果，他一直被“有限政府-自由市场-产业”的领袖们故意忽视、排斥或谴责，过去如此，现在依然如此。默里一直是一个孤独的斗士，基本上没有得到任何机构的支持，直到卢·罗克韦尔（Lew Rockwell）和米塞斯研究所的到来。

I experienced this Rothbard-phobia second- handedly, if you will. For as soon as word had gotten out that the new German arrival was Murray’s boy and also appeared rather “intransigent,” I found myself immedi- ately placed on the same blacklists with him. Thus, I had quickly learned a first important real-life lesson of what it means to be a Rothbardian.

不瞒您说，我亲身经历过罗斯巴德恐惧症（Rothbard-phobia）。“这个新来的德国人是默里的死忠粉，而且看起来相当刺头”。这样的消息一经传出，我立马发现自己和他一样，被列入了黑名单。因此，我很快就学到了第一堂重要的现实生活课，作为一个罗斯巴德主义者到底意味着什么。

Another lesson was in humility. Murray had a huge library, had read and digested an enormous amount of literature and was consequently a humble man. He was always reluctant and highly sceptical to assume or rec- ognize any “originality” claims. “Originality” claims, he knew, are made most frequently by people with tiny libraries and little reading. In distinct contrast, Murray was highly generous in giving credit to others. And  he was equally generous in giving advice to anyone asking. Indeed, on almost any conceivable subject, he was prepared, off the top of his head, to provide you with an extensive bibliography. As well, he encouraged any sign of productivity even among his lowliest students.

我学到的另一课是，谦卑。默里有一个巨大的图书馆，他阅读并消化了大量的文学作品，因此是个谦虚的人。他总是不情愿地、高度怀疑地假定或承认任何“独创性”的主张。他明白，所谓的“独创性”往往是那些图书馆很小、读书很少的人说出来的。与之形成鲜明对比的是，默里非常慷慨地赞扬别人。他也同样慷慨地给任何询问的人提供建议。事实上，在几乎任何你能想到的主题上，他都有所准备，可以不加思索地给你提供大量的参考书目。此外，他鼓励任何有创造力的思考，哪怕是他水平最低的学生。

While I always tried to follow this example, I could not bring myself to go quite as far as Murray did, how- ever. Because I thought and still think that Murray’s humility was excessive, that he was humble almost to a fault. His students at Brooklyn Polytechnic, for instance, mostly engineering majors (or, as Murray described Mises’s students at NYU, “packaging majors”), had no idea  who he was, because he never mentioned his own works. They were genuinely surprised to find out from me who their jolly professor was when I substituted teaching Murray’s class while he was out of town. And at UNLV the situation was not much different. While I actively  promoted him as his unofficial PR-agent, Murray continued in his self-deprecation. Although he had written on almost any imaginable subject in the social sciences, he would, when he suggested or assigned term papers to his students, mention his own related writings, if at all, only as some sort of afterthought or upon specific request.

虽然我一直努力以默里为榜样，但无论如何，我无法让自己做得像默里那样。因为我一直认为默里过于谦虚了，他的谦虚几乎低到了尘埃里。例如，他在布鲁克林理工学院(Brooklyn Polytechnic)的学生大多是工程专业的(或者，用默里的话说，米塞斯在纽约大学的学生是“包装专业的”)，他们不知道他是谁，因为他从来没有提到过自己的作品。当我在默里出城时替他代课，他们从我那里得知他们那令人愉悦的教授是何方神圣时，他们真的很惊讶。在UNLV，情况并没有太大不同。当我积极推动他成为他的非官方公关经纪人时，默里继续他的自我贬低。尽管他写过几乎所有能想到的社会科学领域的文章，但只有当他向学生建议或布置学期论文时，他才会提到自己的相关文章，即使提到，也只是作为事后的想法或应特定的要求。

Yet Murray’s extreme modesty had also another, unfortunate effect. When we moved to Las Vegas in 1986, we had expected to turn UNLV into a bastion of Austrian economics. At the time, UNLV’s basketball team, the Runnin’ Rebels, under coach Jerry Tarkanian, were a national powerhouse, always slightly scandalous, but impossible to overlook. We had hoped to become the Runnin’ Rebels of economics at UNLV. Several students had transferred and enrolled at the university in anticipation of such a development. But these hopes were quickly disappointed. Already at our arrival at UNLV the composition of the economics department had significantly changed, and then majority rule, democracy, set in. To balance the Austrian influence, only one year later, the department majority decided, against our opposition, to hire a no-name Marxist. I urged Murray to use his position and reputation to interfere with the university’s higher-ups and prevent this appointment. Except for Jerry Tarkanian, Murray was the only nationally recog nized person at UNLV. He held the only endowed chair at the university. We knew the university’s president and provost socially and were on cordial terms with both of  them. Accordingly, I believed that there was a realistic chance to overturn the department’s decision. But I could not persuade Murray of his own powers.

After this missed opportunity matters became worse. The department continued to hire anyone but an Austrian or Austrian sympathizer. Our students were maltreated and discriminated against. The department and the dean of the business college denied me tenure (which decision was overruled by the university’s provost and president, not least because of massive student protests and the intervention of several university donors). The department chairman wrote an outrageous, nasty, and insulting annual evaluation of Murray’s professorial performance (upon which the university administration forced the chairman to resign from his position). As a consequence, a second chance for us arose to turn matters around. Plans were developed and were discussed with the provost to split the department and establish a separate economics department in the College of Liberal Arts. This time Murray became involved. But the initial momentum to our advantage had been lost in the meantime, and after the first signs of resistance, Murray quickly resigned and gave up. He was not willing to take off his gloves, and our  secessionist project soon fizzled out in defeat.

错失这个机会之后，事情变得更糟了。该系继续雇用除了奥地利学派或奥地利学派同情者以外的任何人。我们的学生又受到不公正对待和歧视。经济系和商学院院长拒绝授予我终身教职(因为大规模的学生抗议，再加上几位大学捐赠者的干预，该校教务长和校长否决了这个决定。)。系主任对默里的授课业绩写了一份令人发指的、恶毒的、侮辱性的年度评估报告(随后，大学行政部门迫使该系主任辞去了职务)。结果，我们有了第二次扭转局面的机会。他们制定了计划，并与教务长进行了讨论，打算把这个系分开，在文理学院建立一个独立的经济学系。这一次默里也参与了进来。但与此同时，我们失去了最初的优势，在最初的抵抗迹象出现后，默里很快就放弃了。他不愿意弄脏自己的手（ take off his gloves），于是我们的分离主义计划很快就以失败告终。

Only to quickly finish our UNLV saga： After Murray’s death in 1995, I continued working at UNLV for another decade in an increasingly hostile environment. The once protective university administration had changed, and I felt ever more unappreciated and out of place. Even my  great popularity among students was used against me, as proof of the “danger” emanating from my teaching. In 2004, I became embroiled in a scandal. In a lecture I had hypothetically suggested that homosexuals, on average, and owing to their characteristic lack of children, had a comparatively higher degree of time preference, i.e., of  present-orientation. A cry-baby student complained, and the university’s affirmative action commissar immediately, as if he had only waited for this opportunity, initiated official proceedings against me, threatening severe punitive measures if I were not to instantly and publicly recant and apologize. “Intransigent” as I was, I refused to do so. And I am certain that it was only this steadfast refusal of mine to beg for forgiveness that, after a full year of administrative harassment, I ultimately emerged victorious from this battle with the thought police, and  the university administration suffered an embarrassing defeat. A year later I resigned from my position and left UNLV and the US for good.

我们在拉斯维加斯大学的传奇故事很快迎来结局：默里在1995年去世后，尽管环境越来越恶劣，我在拉斯维加斯大学仍然继续工作了10年。曾经保护我的大学管理层已经改变了，我感到越来越不受重视，以及越来越格格不入了。有些人甚至利用我在学生中的声望来对付我，证明我的教学存在“危险”。2004年，我卷入了一桩丑闻。在一次演讲中，我假设同性恋者，特别是由于他们没有孩子，平均而言，有相对较高程度的时间偏好，即现在取向。一个小P孩学生向校方投诉，学校的平权行动委员立即对我提起了正式诉讼，仿佛他一直在等待这个机会一般，威胁说如果我不立即公开撤回并道歉，就会采取严厉的惩罚措施。我仍然不妥协，我拒绝撤回发言也拒绝道歉。我确信，正是由于我坚定地拒绝乞求原谅，在经历了整整一年的行政骚扰之后，与思想警察的战斗中我最终取得了胜利，而大学行政部门则遭遇了尴尬的失败。一年后，我辞去职位，永远离开了拉斯维加斯大学和美国。

Coming back to Murray： Naturally, I was disappointed about the developments at UNLV. But they did not have the slightest effect on our continued cooperation. Maybe Murray had been right and more realistic all along and it was I, who had suffered from too much youthful optimism? And in any case, there was one more important lesson about the larger scheme of things that I still had to learn.

Whereas most people tend to become milder and more ‘tolerant’ in their views as they grow older, Murray grew increasingly more radical and less tolerant over time. Not in his personal dealings, as I already emphasized. In this regard Murray was and remained to the end a ‘softie,’ but in his speeches and writings. This radicalization and increasing ‘intransigence’ came in response to developments in the world of US politics at large and in particular within the “limited-government-free-market” industry and among the so-called libertarians assembled around Washington, DC’s Beltway. There, everywhere, a slow yet   systematic drift toward the Left and leftist ideas could be observed. A drift that ever since, up to this day, has only further gained in momentum and grown in strength. Constantly, new “rights” were ‘discovered’ and adopted in particular also by so-called libertarians. “Human rights” and “civil rights,” “women rights” and “gay rights,” the “right” not to be discriminated against, the “right” to free and unrestricted immigration, the “right” to a free lunch and free health care, and the “right” to be free of unpleasant speech and thought. Murray demolished all this allegedly “humanitarian” or, to use a German term, this “Gutmenschen” talk as intellectual rubbish in demonstrating that none of these supposed “rights” were compatible with private property rights. And that, as libertarians above all people should know, only private property rights, i.e., the right of every person in the ownership of his physical body and the ownership of all external objects justly (peacefully) acquired by him, can be argumentatively defended as universal and compossible human rights. Everything except private property rights, then, Murray demonstrated again and again, are phony, non-universalizable rights. Every call for “human rights” other than private property rights is ultimately motivated by egalitarianism and as such represents a revolt against human nature.

Moreover, Murray moved still further to the right — in accordance with Erik von Kuehneldt-Leddihn’s dictum that “the right is right” — in pointing out that in order to establish, maintain, and defend a libertarian social order more is needed than the mere adherence to the non- aggression principle. The ideal of the left- or “modal”- libertarians, as Murray referred to them, of “live and let live as long as you don’t aggress against anyone else,” that sounds so appealing to adolescents in rebellion against  parental authority and any social convention and control, may be sufficient for people living far apart and dealing and trading with each other only indirectly and from afar. But it is decidedly insufficient when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbours and cohabitants of the same community. The peaceful cohabitation of neighbours and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory requires also a commonality of culture： of language, religion, custom, and convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, can not exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased conflict, and ultimately the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order.

此外，默里还进一步右转——与埃里克·冯·库涅尔特-莱迪恩（Erik von Kuehneldt-Leddihn）的名言“权利是正确的”相一致——他指出，为了建立、维持和捍卫一个自由意志主义的社会秩序，需要的不仅仅是坚持互不侵犯原则。正如默里所说，左派或“模态”自由意志主义者的理想是，“只要你不侵犯他人，你就过自己的生活，也让别人过自己的生活”，这对反抗父母权威、反抗任何社会习俗和控制的青少年来说，听起来很有吸引力。对于那些生活在遥远的地方，彼此之间只能间接地、远距离地打交道和交易的人来说，同样也可能已经足够。但是，当涉及到作为邻居和同一社区的共同居者而彼此生活得很近时，这显然是不够的。邻居之间的和平共处，以及在某些领土上彼此经常直接接触的人们，也需要一种共同的文化：语言、宗教、习俗和惯例。不同的文化可以在遥远的、物理上分离的领土上和平共处，但多元文化主义、异质文化，不可能共存于同一个地方和同一块领土，这种共存不可能不导致社会信任的减少，也不可能不导致冲突的增加，最终会破坏任何类似自由意志主义社会秩序的东西。

If Murray had been ignored, neglected, or resented before by the usual suspects, now, with this stand against everything deemed “politically correct,” he was vilified and met with undisguised hatred. The by now only all- too-familiar litany of denunciatory terms followed： Murray was a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, an authoritarian, an elitist, a xenophobe, a fascist and, to top it all off, a self-hating Jewish Nazi.

如果说默里以前被人忽略、忽视或憎恨，那么现在，由于他反对一切被认为是“政治正确”的东西，他受到诋毁，同时也遭到毫不掩饰的仇恨。到目前为止，人们再熟悉不过的谴责词接踵而来：默里是一个反动派、一个种族主义者、一个性别歧视者、一个威权主义者、一个精英主义者、一个仇外者、一个法西斯主义者，最重要的是，他是一个自我憎恨的犹太纳粹。

Murray shrugged it all off. Indeed, he laughed about it. And indeed, to the consternation of the “smear bund,” as Murray referred to the united popular front of his “anti-fascist” detractors, his influence only grew and has continued to grow still further since his death. It may not be widely recognized, but without Murray there would be  no Ron Paul as we know him — and I say this without wishing thereby to diminish or belittle Ron Paul’s own, personal role and extraordinary achievements in the slightest —, there would be no Ron Paul movement, and there would be no popular or, as the “smear bund” prefers  to say, no “populist” libertarian agenda.

As for me, my own views radicalized, too, along with Murray’s. My Democracy： The God That Failed was the first major documentation of this intellectual development, and if anything, my radical intolerance regarding anything left-libertarian and “politically correct” has been growing still ever since. Almost needless to say that I, too, then have been awarded the same and even a few extra honorary titles by the “smear bund” as Murray (except for the self-hating Jewish stuff ). Yet I had learned to shrug all of it off, too, as I had seen Murray do it, and as Ralph Raico had always encouraged and continued to advise me. In addition, remembering a popular German saying helped me： “viel Feind, viel Ehr.” And indeed, the ongoing success of my annual Property and Freedom Society conference-salon, now in its 12th year, held and conducted in a genuinely Rothbardian spirit, has demonstrated the utter failure of all defamation campaigns directed at me. If anything, they have helped rather than hindered me in attracting an ever larger circle of intellectual friends, affiliates, and supporters.

至于我，我自己的观点也和默里的一样激进。我的《民主：失败的上帝》是这一思想发展的第一个主要文本。如果说有什么不同的话，那就是我对任何左翼自由主义和“政治正确”的极端不容忍，从那以后就一直在增长。不用说，我也被“诽谤联盟”授予了与默里相同甚至更多的“荣誉头衔”(除了自我憎恨的犹太人)。然而，我也学会了对这一切不以为意，就像我看到默里所做的那样，就像拉尔夫·雷科一直鼓励并持续建议我那样。此外，记住一句流行的德国谚语对我也很有帮助：“再见，费恩，再见，厄尔。”（“viel Feind, viel Ehr。”）事实上，我的财产与自由社会年度会议沙龙(Property And Freedom Society conference-salon)获得了持续的成功，到现在已经是第12个年头了，它本着真正的罗斯巴德精神举办和组织。这一事实证明，所有针对我的诽谤活动都彻底失败了。如果说有什么不同的话，那就是它们帮助而不是阻碍了我吸引越来越多的知识分子朋友、附属机构和支持者。

I should add that during the last decade or so, under the wise and strict guidance of my lovely wife Gülçin, I have also made great strides in combining uncompromising intellectual radicalism with personal lovability, even though nature and natural disposition have prevented me from coming anywhere close to Murray in this regard.

还应该补充一点，过去的十年左右时间，在我可爱的妻子Gülçin明智和严格的指导下，在将不妥协的激进主义思想与个人的可爱相结合方面，我也取得了长足的进步，尽管在这方面，我的天性和性格使我无法与默里相提并论。

I have said far too little here about Lew, and I sincerely apologize. But this I must say： Lew, apart from Murray  has been one of the most important people helping me  become the man that I am today. And to Murray, who I am sure is watching us today from up high, I say： thank you Murray, you are my hero, “I shall not look upon his like again,” and I hope you are happy with your student. I always felt tremendous joy when you told me “great Hans, Attaboy,” and even if I can’t hear you right now, nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you said it again right now up there, where the kings of thought are gathered.

关于卢，我在这里说得太少了，我表示真诚的歉意。但我必须说：除了默里，卢是帮助我成为今日之我的最重要的人之一。同时，我相信此时此刻，默里一定在天上望着我们，我想对他说：谢谢你，默里，你是我的英雄，“我再也不会看到像你那样的人了”，我希望你对你的学生感到满意。当你对我说“伟大的汉斯，好样的”时，我总是感到无比的快乐。即使我现在已听不见你说话，但如果现在你出现在这里，在这个思想帝王聚集的地方，再说一遍那句话，我依然会感到非常高兴。

[1] “The Private Property Order: An Interview with Hans-HermannHoppe,” Austrian Economics Newsletter 18, no。 1 (2014)。 Available here:https://mises。org/library/private-property-order-interview-hans-her-mann-hoppe – checked, November 2015。

《私有财产秩序:汉斯-赫尔曼·霍普访谈》，《奥地利经济通讯》，第18期。1(2014)。https://mises。org/library/private-property-order-interview-hans-her-mann-hoppe -检查，2015年11月。

[2] See, for example, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “The Ultimate Justifica-tion of the Private Property Ethic,” Liberty, September 1988。 Availablehere: http://www。hanshoppe。com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty。pdf – checked November 2015。

例如，见Hans-Hermann Hoppe，《私有财产伦理的终极正当性》，《自由》，1988年9月。可在这里:http://www。hanshoppe。com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty。pdf – 2015年11月检查。

[3] “The Private Property Order。”

《私有财产法令》。

[4] Symposium, “Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics: Break-through or Buncombe？” Liberty, November 1988。 Available at http://www。libertyunbound。com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_November_1988。pdf – checked November 2015。

研讨会，“汉斯-赫尔曼·霍普的论证伦理学:突破还是毁灭？”自由，1988年11月。可在http://www。libertyunbound。com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_November_1988。pdf -检查2015年11月。

[5] Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God that Failed (New Bruns-wick, N。J。: Transaction Publishers, 2001), p。 211。

汉斯-赫尔曼·霍普，《民主:失败的上帝》(New Bruns-wick, n。j。: Transaction Publishers, 2001)，第211页。

[6] Ibid。, pp。 216-17。

同上，第216-17页。

[7] “Egalitarianism and the Elites”,Review of Austrian Economics 8, no。 2 (1995)： 45。

[8] Murray Rothbard has listed them： “academics, opinion-molders, journalists, writers, media elites, social workers, bureaucrats, counselors, psychologists, personnel consultants, and especially for the ever accelerating new group-egalitarianism, a veritable army of ’ther- apists’ and sensitivity trainers。 Plus, of course, ideologues and researchers to dream up and discover new groups that need egalitarianizing。” (Ibid。, p。 51)

默里·罗斯巴德列出了他们:“学者、舆论塑造者、记者、作家、媒体精英、社会工作者、官僚、顾问、心理学家、人事顾问，尤其是不断加速的新群体平等主义，一支名副其实的‘治疗师’和敏感性培训师大军。”当然，理论家和研究人员还需要设想和发现需要平等主义化的新群体。(同上，第51页)

[9] As for who among today’s so-called libertarians is to be counted as a leftist, there is a lit- mus test： the position taken during the recent presidential primaries on Dr。 Ron Paul, who is easily the purest of libertarians to ever gain national and even international attention and recognition。 Beltway libertarians around Cato, George Mason, Reason, and various other outfits of the ‘Kochtopus’ dismissed Ron Paul or even attacked him for his “racism” and lack of social “sensibility” and “tolerance,” i。e。, in short： for being an upstanding “right- wing bourgeois,” leading an exemplary personal and professional life。

至于今天所谓的那些自由意志主义者，谁能被算作左派，有一个关键的测试:在最近的总统初选中，罗恩·保罗博士(Dr。 Ron Paul)所采取的立场，他无疑是最纯粹的自由意志主义者，获得了全国乃至国际的关注和认可。围绕着卡托、乔治·梅森、理性和其他各种各样的“科奇托普斯”的自由意志主义者们对罗恩·保罗不屑一顾，甚至攻击他的“种族主义”和缺乏社会“敏感性”和“宽容”，也就是说，简而言之，他是一个正直的“右翼资产阶级”，过着堪称典范的个人和职业生活。

[10] Ibid。, p。 102。。

同上，第102页。

[11] See on this subject Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Of Private, Common and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization,” Libertarian Papers 3。, no。1 (2011)。 http：//libertarian- papers。org/articles/2011/lp-3-1。pdf

参见Hans-Hermann Hoppe，“私有财产、公共财产和公共财产以及全面私有化的基本原理”，《自由意志论者论文》第3期。,第一(2011)。http://libertarian- papers。org/articles/2011/lp – 3 – 1。 – pdf

[12] Characteristically, this stealthy transformation of libertarianism into closet-socialism via the confused notion of ‘civil rights,’ has been identified decades ago already by Murray Rothbard。 To quote him： “Throughout the Official Libertarian Movement [of left-libertar- ians], ‘civil rights’ has been embraced without question, completely overriding the genuine rights of private property。 In some cases, the embrace of a ‘right not to be discriminated against’ has been explicit。 In others, when libertarians want to square their new-found with their older principles, and have no aversion to sophistry and  even absurdity, they take the sneakier path blazed by the American Civil Liberties Union： that if there should be so much as a smidgen of government involved, whether it be use of the public streets or a bit of taxpayer funding, then the so-called ‘right’ of ‘equal access’ must override either private property or indeed any sort of good sense。” Ibid。, pp。 102/03。

罗斯巴德(Murray Rothbard)几十年前就已经发现了，通过使用“公民权利”这一令人困惑的概念，将自由意志主义悄悄转变成了隐蔽的社会主义的特点。引用他的话:“在整个官方自由意志主义运动中(左翼自由意志主义者)，‘公民权利’被毫无疑问地接受，完全凌驾于私有财产的真正权利之上。在某些情况下，对“不受歧视的权利”的接受是明确的。在另一些地方，当自由意志主义者想要将他们的新发现与他们的旧原则结合起来，并且不忌讳采用荒谬的诡辩，他们会选择美国公民自由联盟(American Civil Liberties Union)开辟的更为隐蔽的道路:如果应该有一点点政府介入，无论是公共街道的使用还是纳税人的一点资金，那么所谓的“平等使用”的“权利”必须凌驾于私有财产或任何理智之上。同上，第102/03页。

[13] “文化马克思主义者”是一个具有特定含义的词组。它指的是一种政治观点或理论，认为社会问题和不平等主要源自于文化领域，而非经济领域。这个概念起源于20世纪后期，在西方国家的学术界和政治讨论中被广泛使用。

 

atmosphere这个词你翻译成氛围，我在这里没有字典不知道该怎么翻译更为贴切，我个人到时认为翻译成“穹顶”可能合适些