My new book, Nullification, is coming June 29. Wait until you see the cover design. The design people are brilliant.
The smears that will be hurled my way are entirely predictable. No one is allowed to adopt, much less advocate, an unapproved opinion, especially one directed at the heart of the regime, and anyone doing so can expect the heretic treatment. (The Left, once a revolutionary movement, is now a bunch of shills for power and established institutions. “Question Authority” is long, long gone.) I will be portrayed as a sinister person who wants to bring back the Southern Confederacy, though why a libertarian would want to restore a regime that protected slavery and engaged in military conscription and monetary inflation is never explained. (But when Woods was in college [sixteen years ago], he…. Yes, that’s what they are actually going to pull. Nevermind all this.)
My own political philosophy, which embraces 100% self-ownership, and thus is opposed to all forms of forced labor always and everywhere, is described in this lecture (the next video in the series starts when the previous one finishes). Anyone who tries to pretend I support slavery (slavery!) is therefore not just a numbskull, but a liar. I am more antislavery and (for that matter) antiwar than any one of my critics will be. I guarantee that.
In anticipation of the parade of automatons, I’ve just added a section to my articles page called “Against the Smearbund.”
The more hysterical the attacks are, though, the better. Because then, when the inevitable person of good will reads the book and sees how reasonable and persuasive it is and how firmly grounded in American history its arguments are, he’ll start to wonder about the hysterics: what the heck is their gripe against this book? Sure, they might disagree with its conclusions, but it’s obviously not crazy or evil. Why won’t they treat its arguments on their merits? Might these people just be irrationalists who want to intimidate people into silence?
These are just the questions we want people asking. Why can’t these critics (if I am not dignifying them by assigning them such a hallowed designation) honestly debate what are obviously reasonable arguments? Why must they resort immediately to smear-and-destroy mode? Anything that discredits the smear artists is an advance for freedom.