Welcome to Mises Magazine, the official magazine of the Liberty Youth Coalition
Mises Magazine is the magazine for people of all ages to read editorial content written by people from all corners of the Liberty Movement. It is the home of anarchists, minarchists , and paleolibertarians. The mission of our editorial team is to select engaging pieces that will inform readers and spark debates in our community. The Liberty Movement is a young movement. We have many lessons to learn and debates to be had. We seek to facilitate these debates so we can reignite the fire of liberty in the heart of young and old.
–Emmanuel Ruiz, President of the LYC
IN THIS ISSUE
Ecumenical Liberty: Emmanuel Ruiz, President of the LYC
Don’t Ignore China’s Immoral Actions Related to the Green New Deal: Alvin “Chenhao” Guo
The Libertarian Answer to Unions: Ezra Wyrick, Editor-In-Chief
How The United States Has Prevented Peace in Ukraine
Ecumenical Liberty
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. -1 Corinthians 3:4-6
The Liberty Movement is made of more factions and schools than can possibly be counted. There are so many competing groups that when asked to provide the definition of libertarianism or the broader Liberty Movement, one does not hardly know where to start. This factionalism leads to disputes, excommunications, and self sabotage. The path forward requires tactical partnerships with those outside of the movement.
The factionalism of the movement should not be surprising. Pre-Marxian socialism was heavily factional. Look no further than the chaos that ensued during the First and Second International. During the Second International, the conflict between Marxists and Reformists bogged the institution down to near absolute inutility. Instead, the International became the battleground of ideological movements in Europe until the Great War and the pro-peace Zimmerwald Movement shifted the tides within socialism. Even today, there is significant factionalism on the left. The divide in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) exemplifies it. The DSA has been ravaged between those seeking cooperation with the Democratic Party and those who seek the creation of an explicitly socialist party. This factionalism is not unique to the left, of course.
Just as with the left, the right has had its own factionalism. The Liberty Movement has its own factions that often cause more division than progress for the movement. Just as the modern left is heavily split on the issue of party strategy, the Liberty Movement is split between Partyists, those who would support the Libertarian Party as the best strategic vehicle for advancing liberty, and the Paleos, those who would – perhaps begrudgingly – support the current Republican Party as the best strategic vehicle for doing so.
At the core of this debate is the issue of strategy. Should the Liberty Movement use the Republican Party or the Libertarian Party to achieve its goals? Frankly, this debate seems to be too early in the process. Rather, the Liberty Movement must examine its own position in the grander scale of politics in the US and the world. We must first know where we are to know where we must go.
The world is living in a populist moment. We are living in a world that is increasingly multi-polar, and anti-neoliberal. Old institutions are being challenged in ways they have not been before. A look at Europe will exemplify that. Germany, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and Romania- all of these European nations have seen right wing nationalist parties enter government or become significant players in their legislatures. Likewise, the United States is experiencing a wave of anti-globalism concentrated in the Heartland. For the first time in decades, there is a legitimate anti-interventionist sentiment among the American public. For the first time in decades, the term “nationalist” is no longer seen as a slur. For the first time in decades, the legality of abortion is a state issue. For the first time ever, the political establishment has been challenged with the vacating of the Speaker of the House. This is a momentous moment in American history. The Liberty Movement has an obligation to use this current moment to our advantage.
Let me be clear. Even if the world were headed in the opposite direction, the Liberty Movement should capitalize on that moment as well. The early libertarian movement has its roots in opposition to Roosevelt’s New Deal. Likewise, Rothbard’s alliance with the New Left and later with Pat Buchanan is a tremendous example of working with the opposition. By standing in opposition to popular trends and tactically allying who find themselves in opposition as well allow us secure positions of power no matter the season. Why work with these groups when they disagree with our vision so greatly? One word – strategy.
Simply put, we in the Liberty Movement must work with those we have available to us. In our opposition to wars of aggression, we should be willing to ally with leftists. In our opposition to centralization, we should be willing to ally with states-rights activists. This is not to say we condone all their actions. Rather, we should create tactical partnerships with these groups to achieve our goals.
Today in America, it is the political right, the current home of the Liberty Movement, that is challenging the political establishment. The previous examples in Europe and in America speak to this. As such, the Liberty Movement must ally with those leading this populist era to ensure position of influence and political power so as to further our reach. This means, the Liberty Movement must be willing to temporarily partner with MAGA conservatives, Christian Nationalists, paleoconservatives, protectionists, political Catholics, and other factions. These tactical partnerships are crucial, and they often take various forms, such as dual socialization, infiltration, and creation.
Dual socialization is the easiest use. No one is solely a member of any one group. All men are members of many varying social groups.We should note that one can be a Christian Nationalist, a paleoconservative, or a member of another such faction and still be considered a member of the Liberty Movement. Those who are Christian Nationalists and also members of the movement play a crucial role in uniting these two worlds. Just as gay libertarians helped unite the early libertarian movement to that of gay liberation, Christians in the movement will unite the movement to their other factions. This new unity will aid both, as resources and ideas are shared amongst them. Dual socialization will help us improve our own ideas. Understand that the Liberty Movement is young and has much polishing and refining left to be done. The movement must learn from older groups such as the Christian Church, nationalists, and others. In so doing, we achieve dual socialization; refining both ourselves and our tactical partners.
Second, these partnerships can be achieved through infiltration, the preferred method of followers of the paleo strategy. Here the movement’s members use positions of influence in a particular political party, educational institution, or other organization to aid the movement and work towards achieving its goals. This could be by means of messaging, resource allocation, or other such venues. At its most successful, the infiltration strategy will lead to a total seizure of the institution. Total seizure should not be sought at all costs. Better to have some power in a large institution than to seize it and lose all power it has. Yet if seizure is available, it should be taken. The easiest means to do this are by securing local institutions- book clubs, HOAs, town councils, and county political parties and associations. Here the paleo strategy is at its strongest.
Creation is the hardest of the three strategies, but its fruits are often the most sweet. The Liberty Movement has few institutions of its own. Those that do exist are tasked in carrying the heavy burden of leading the Movement. The Mises Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education are the best examples of this. These institutions were created by members of the Liberty Movement and are explicitly FOR the Liberty Movement. This strategy has three often fatal flaws, lack of competent leadership, lack of funding, and apathy. The first is caused by the lack of masculinity in the movement, and is solved by returning to a culture that promotes traditional Christian masculinity. The second is harder to address. Lack of funding can be caused by lack of experience in fundraising and in business, poor messaging, or general disinterest by the broader Liberty Movement. How great the number of leaders has history lost because someone chose to choose someone else or chose not to give to the movement. Apathy is our greatest foe. Too many individuals have stopped working for the movement either because of past failures or genuine apathy. “Other men will do the work, why should I?” Anyone who has ever worked on a political campaign will learn this first hand. The simplest solution is to cast off our own apathy and set our hands to the task before us – liberty in our lifetimes.
The Liberty Movement needs people of all corners of itself to help grow. Those in the GOP should not look down on those in the Libertarian Party. Debate each other often, but do not let it get in the way of the central mission. There will always be factions. Rather than allowing those factions to be an impediment to the Movement, let us use them as opportunities to expand the bounds of the Movement. We need debate amongst ourselves. We are a newly found diamond that must be polished. Internal debate is good as long as it stands in the way of our greatest task. Warring brothers set aside disputes when a madman is at the door. Our world faces an existential threat, should we place our focus on needless controversy and in-fighting or march forward together against a common enemy?
Don’t Ignore China’s Immoral Actions
Related to the Green New Deal
During the age of the radical push towards renewable/green energy, there is no doubt that the Communist government of China is one of the biggest beneficiaries from this reformation. With China’s interaction with the US, its financial, capital, as well as its social influence, China has affected the US in several noticeable ways. I will briefly discuss the trade war, the US workers, and finally the Chinese workers. The purpose of this article is to raise awareness about the negative externalities associated with China’s green campaign.
Since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), its unfair trade behavior has been a focus of many Western policymakers. After China dumped solar products, former US President Donald Trump placed a penal tariff on Solar Panels from China and the other countries involved in the production of Chinese Solar Panels; at least 100 reports were made to the WTO about China’s dumping in 2015, and to protect free trade, US officials implemented countermeasures. However, Biden’s administration stopped this penal tariff on Southeast Asia in 2023, which is an area that has seen significant investment from China. Correspondingly, China now could use its factory in South East Asia to keep its 60% global monopoly on solar panels; according to People’s News, China’s volume exports increased by 67% in 2022 after the tariff was canceled—this may also suggest that China uses South East Asia as a depot to avoid Biden’s broke tariff system by claiming a place of origin in South East Asia. Financially, China’s export yield in solar products has increased by 80% in 2022. As both the numerical and financial data suggest, China’s solar panel industry has managed to avoid Biden’s broken anti-dumping system to participate in the Green New Deal, with an increase of 67% in products and 80% in revenue from dumping products in the world, especially the US. China’s new energy efforts involve collusion with the Green New Deal and harmful actions towards the US economy in a hidden and implicit way. Biden is largely responsible for this negligence.1
While walking on the empty squares in Detroit, I saw the news on my cell phone that the city will be focusing on producing electric vehicles in the next decade. While looking at the abandoned facilities and prosperous Chinese economy on the news, I knew this glory should belong to the US motor industry. According to a Chinese governmental report, Chinese electric vehicle export boomed with an increase of 26% and kept 60% of the global EV market in 2023. Ridiculously, after the Chinese overtook the US and Japan in vehicle exports, Biden’s administration is still promoting the good of switching to Chinese EVs and ignoring the US auto workers who voted for them. The US could have kept its dominant position in the global motor industry while concurrently maintaining low gas prices had they not switched their focus to EVs. Unfortunately, this did not occur and the US has been forced to give 80% of the global vehicle market to China and Japan, without technical difficulty, but with a false commitment to an untested, unsubstantiated global warming theory. This is a sell-out of US interest to an irresponsible and aggressive foreign entity while that also defrauds the US working class in the motor industry because it makes them suffer from difficulties they do not deserve, which is a violation of morality and many Americans’ basic human rights.2 3
Regarding morality and basic human rights, China’s participation in the Green New Deal is notable. Both solar and EVs require a considerable amount of silicon as part of their key components. About 80% of the world’s silicon is mined in East Turkistan, also known as Xin Jiang, where the genocide camps for Uyghurs are located; there is a high probability that the mining involves the use of forced labor. In 2021, the US recognized China’s genocide of Uyghur people in East Turkistan. In 2022, the EU also recognized China’s genocide in East Turkistan. However, when it comes to using East Turkistan’s labor and materials for the Green New Deal, the Biden administration and its EU partners have ignored the allegations of forced labor and instead chosen to keep pushing for the Green New Deal and “valuable cooperation with China.” When we purchase and use new energy products, I hope we all think about the possible enslaved labor in China involved with producing them. I think to avoid enslaved labor, cautious people should oppose projects involving silicon products from China—most commonly found in major Green New Deal projects. Our voices and actions can be the shield of those who can not speak for themselves.4
Overall, in the new energy competition, China has played dirty and taken US treasures, stolen the US labor class’s lives, and built their prosperity on the enslavement of innocent people. To stop China from playing dirty, stealing glory, and killing innocent people, we should work to prevent China from playing a role in our energy endeavors. That starts with rejecting the push towards electric vehicles, a push that the CCP benefits from far more than the United States.
1: “光伏出口何以成为中国外贸‘新名片.’” 央广网, March 21, 2023. https://news.cnr.cn/native/gd/20230221/t20230221_526160765.shtml.
2: “我国新能源汽车产销连续8年全球第一.” 中华人民共和国中央人民政府, January 24, 2023. https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2023-01/24/content_5738622.htm.
3: “中国品牌新能源汽车市场占有率高达79.9%.” 央视网, March 31, 2023. https://news.cctv.com/2023/03/31/ARTIQgGQBRs7U9zaFClMu5nZ230331.shtml?spm=C94212.P4YnMod9m2uD.ENPMkWvfnaiV.109.
4: “Mysteel：走进中国工业硅产区系列（一）“硅谷”新疆.” 我的钢铁网, April 25, 2022. https://m.mysteel.com/22/0425/10/9981876A6395F2C1_abc.html.
The Libertarian Answer to Unions
Unions have long played a significant role in shaping labor relations in both the public and private sectors. The debate over their existence and influence is a hotly contested topic, and it’s essential to examine this issue through a libertarian lens. In light of the tentative agreement that has been reached to end the UAW strike and the conclusion of the Hollywood writer’s strike with favorable results for the Writer’s Guild, as well as the largest healthcare worker strike in history after the expiration of the Kaiser Permanente contracts, it is time to ask a fundamental question: Who exactly should libertarians be supporting in these conflicts, if anyone? More broadly, is there a “correct” libertarian perspective on the existence of labor unions in the public and private sectors or their significant influence over public policy in recent decades ? Let’s briefly get into it.
We’ll start with public sector unions, which, in theory, are meant to represent the interests of government employees who serve the public. However, for libertarians, a fundamental question arises: should these unions even exist? After all, public sector employees are – in theory – “civil servants” paid with taxpayer dollars. In this context, public sector unions are problematic as they are made up of government employees who are funded directly by taxpayers who negotiate with government entities – who are funded directly by taxpayers. This presents a very serious conflict of interest indeed, as these government employees, in essence, are simply negotiating with themselves, as has been the case in California. The legitimacy of the existence of unions for school teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other “public servants” is dubious at best.
In contrast, private sector unions are significantly different. In a free society, individuals should have the right to organize and form unions to collectively negotiate for better working conditions and wages. The libertarian perspective upholds the right of working individuals to associate freely and voluntarily. Therefore, in theory, private-sector unions should at least be allowed to exist. This much is certain, from a libertarian perspective.
That said, a serious issue arises when unions use blatantly coercive tactics to force workers into membership as a condition of employment. This practice undermines the principle of freedom of association. Therefore, it is imperative that unions be banned from coercing uninterested workers into unionizing. Workers should absolutely have the right to choose whether or not they want to join a union without fear of losing their jobs.
One key policy that can protect workers’ rights is the implementation of “Right To Work” laws. These laws exist to ensure that no one can be compelled to join or financially support a union as a condition of employment. Right To Work laws have been adopted in several U.S. states, and their expansion to all 50 states would further safeguard workers’ individual rights. While they are technically a regulation, from a libertarian perspective, they are by far one of the least problematic regulations that can exist.
What is also important to understand is that state and federal laws have established frameworks that grant unions special privileges – such as exclusive bargaining rights, ensuring that they are the sole representatives of workers in a particular workplace. For example, the National Labor Relations Act {NLRA} of 1935, a federal law, granted unions the exclusive right to represent workers in collective bargaining. This means that in workplaces where a labor union is established, that union is the sole entity authorized to negotiate terms on behalf of all employees, whether they are union members or not. This exclusive bargaining right tilts the scales in favor of the unions, limiting the ability of individual employees to negotiate their own terms independent from union influence.
Without the existence of this law and other similar state-level laws that protect the exclusive bargaining “right” of private-sector labor unions, the outlook for such unions in terms of their influence would be significantly different. From a libertarian perspective, any law that attempts to grant preferential treatment in the private marketplace should not exist. This especially applies to laws that attempt to do so in the labor market.
Additionally, the influence of union lobbyists over public policy is a significant source of concern. Union interests significantly impact legislation and regulations, which can skew policies in favor of their members at the expense of the broader public. In order to protect the labor market from unfair gatekeeping to the benefit of special interests, direct union lobbying should be strictly regulated at every level, if not outright banned.
Like a host of other issues, this is certainly not a consensus area for libertarians, but many libertarians – myself included – feel that banning corporate and union special interest groups from directly lobbying, i.e. buying politicians, would be a major step toward tackling the corruption which permeates the realm of politics at every level.
To conclude, I believe that the true libertarian perspective on unions calls for a critical evaluation of their role in both the public and private sectors. While private sector unions should be allowed to exist as an expression of free association, the public sector presents a unique issue due to the potential for blatant corruption inherent in these unions. Protecting workers’ rights to choose union membership through Right To Work laws is essential, and curbing the influence of union lobbyists over public policy is a step toward confronting what I believe is the biggest problem in politics today – corruption and special interests buying politicians, who then craft laws to benefit their new owners.
How The United States Has
Prevented Peace in Ukraine
In a recent interview, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was questioned on his envisioned ending through negotiations with Russia to the war in Ukraine. In the interview, Blinken responded by arguing the position of the United States has always been through diplomacy and peace, arguing that Russia is the one preventing peace when he claimed, “it takes two to tango.” He then commented that, “And thus far, we see no indication that Vladimir Putin has any interest in meaningful diplomacy” before adding that “If he does, I think the Ukrainians will be the first to engage, and we’ll be right behind them.”
While Blinken’s attempts to label Russia as unwilling to negotiate might be convincing to some, the reality of negotiations are not in line with Blinken’s comments.
Immediately after the war began, Volodymyr Zelensky began to give up hopes for NATO membership for the sake of peace. “We are not afraid to talk to Russia. We are not afraid to say everything about security guarantees for our state. We are not afraid to talk about neutral status. We are not in NATO now … We need to talk about the end of this invasion. We need to talk about a ceasefire.”
Talks for a ceasefire began in Belarus to discuss neutrality. While both sides continued to discuss, the United States made sure peace was not going to happen. When United States State Department spokesman Ned Price was asked about the peace talks, he replied that “Now we see Moscow suggesting that diplomacy take place at the barrel of a gun or as Moscow’s rockets, mortars, artillery target the Ukrainian people. This is not real diplomacy. Those are not the conditions for real diplomacy.”
While this attempt was a failure, negotiations again arose shortly afterwards. Then-Israeli prime minister Nafti Bennett made a visit to Moscow and spoke with Zelensky to resolve the conflict. According to Bennett, Zelensky was the one who contacted him to talk with Putin to end the conflict, with both sides being onboard of negotiating peace.
Bennett was in constant discussions with other countries like France, Germany, and the United States. The United States told him there was no chance of peace. However, Putin claimed he was willing to make concessions, including a promise to not kill Zelensky and renounced Russia’s demanded “disarmament in Ukraine.” Zelensky was also willing to make concessions like not joining NATO.
Both sides were willing to agree to a compromise that would protect the interests of both sides, including Ukraine’s desire for security by adopting “a strong, independent army that can defend itself.” Bennett revealed that in private, the United States effectively blocked it and encouraged Ukraine to keep striking Russia. While in public Ukraine was making it seem like they were surrendering, private conversations told a different story.
Yet again, the talks for negotiating peace would arise. In April 2022, officials from both countries met in Istanbul. According to reports, Russia would withdraw to the positions it held prior to the invasion on February 24. In exchange, Ukraine would not seek NATO membership and would seek security guarantees from other countries.
However, the peace negotiations were thwarted by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. In his meeting with Zelensky in early April, he reportedly told Zelenski to give up negotiating with Putin and continue to fight. According to David DeCamp, “Johnson told Zelensky that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, Kyiv’s Western backers are not. The report said that Russia was ready for a meeting between Putin and Zelensky on the potential peace deal, but it became less likely after Johnson’s visit.”
The United States also helped “throw away” the deal according to Putin. Putin claimed that United States interests were not in line with Ukraine’s and the United States made sure that they were since the war has developed into the United States and NATO’s goals.
The last point was confirmed after Responsible Statecraft reported on the Pentagon’s leaked documents.
And why did the United States and NATO allies you ask? As Ned Price put it, “This is a war, that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine.” The United States needed Ukraine to keep fighting in pursuit of NATO’s goals and its “core principles.”
Despite Ukraine and Russia’s willingness to negotiate for peace, the United States had continued to stand in its way and prevent that peace from occurring.