By Allen Gindler
Image by Krapulat – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikipedia [Resized]
Among the more paradoxical developments in contemporary political discourse is the growing prevalence of anti-Israel, and sometimes explicitly antisemitic, rhetoric in certain libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in the output of the Mises Institute, an organization otherwise known for its staunch commitment to Austrian economics, individual liberty, and stateless social theory. What, then, explains this convergence of radical anti-statism with a selective hostility toward a small state, thousands of miles away, with no jurisdiction over them? The answer, I propose, lies in a psychological mechanism as old as politics itself: scapegoating. I am leaving the obvious explanation—blatant antisemitism—aside for now.
The Ideological Context: Anarcho-Capitalism and the Cult of the Stateless Utopia
Anarcho-capitalism, as promoted by the Mises Institute, represents the most radical wing of the libertarian tradition. Unlike classical liberals or minarchists, who accept a limited state, anarcho-capitalists reject the legitimacy of the state in all its forms. All governance, taxation, public infrastructure, and even national defense are deemed coercive and immoral. In their view, the only legitimate social order is one founded entirely on voluntary associations, private property, and market exchange.
Classical liberals and minarchists who were the founders of libertarianism, fully support private property, a market economy, and individual freedom. They view the state as a necessary evil and recognize the dangers of state overreach, but they do not feel existentially oppressed or coerced by its presence; they simply see themselves as suboptimally governed. Thus, they utilize democratic political procedures to improve, slim down, constrain or optimize the state as far as voters will allow.
With anarcho-capitalists, the story is different. Their grievance is often amplified by the rhetorical intensity with which leading figures describe the state. Hans-Hermann Hoppe characterizes the state as,
an institution run by gangs of murderers, plunderers and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners, propagandists, sycophants, crooks, liars, clowns, charlatans, dupes and useful idiots—an institution that dirties and taints everything it touches.
This language does more than critique government; it portrays the state as a morally irredeemable force of corruption.
However, the fact remains: the only contemporary societal model that has endured over time is the state, with all its imperfections. Anarcho-capitalists still owe us an explanation as to why human social evolution has consistently favored it over stateless alternatives if the state is indeed a flawed or unnecessary construct. The idea that the state is merely an evolutionary error is unconvincing for two reasons: first, it fails to explain the independent emergence of states in nearly every corner of the globe; second, in evolutionary terms, errors typically lead to extinction, not global replication. Just ask any biologist.
Anarcho-capitalists have written thousands of pages condemning the state and cataloging its many transgressions, yet not a single paper convincingly outlines a viable mechanism for transitioning society from statehood to a truly stateless condition.
None of them are practitioners of what they preach. Not one has retreated into the wilderness to build a functioning anarcho-capitalist community. None has led by example. On the contrary, some have accepted roles as presidents of institutes and think tanks, served as professors at state schools, enjoyed their positions in hierarchical institutions, or lived comfortably within authoritarian regimes, despite their anti-state rhetoric.
Why is this the case? Perhaps the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) prohibits them from taking active part in political or direct actions to defeat their supposed existential evil—the state? The answer is no. The NAP forbids the initiation of aggression, but it does permit self-defense. If the state is indeed a constant aggressor, why not adopt an active defensive stance and attempt to free themselves from its coercion?
In contrast, at least their leftist counterparts, such as anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists, attempted to realize their visions. The anarchists in Ukraine (1917–1920) under Nestor Makhno and the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain (1936–1939) made real efforts to construct stateless, collectivist societies. Although these experiments ultimately failed, they represent earnest attempts to “walk the walk.” Contemporary left anarchists continue to engage in revolutionary activism, often expressing their frustration through protest and direct action.
But anarcho-capitalists are a different species. Most of their efforts remain confined to theory and critique. Their hostility toward the state is expressed primarily through intellectual output such as books, articles, lectures, and conferences, rather than through organized action aimed at systemic change. This often results in a situation where intense anti-state rhetoric is coupled with minimal real-world impact, reinforcing a condition of perpetual grievance rather than constructive movement. They are trapped in a state of permanent dissatisfaction with no legitimate outlet. This creates a condition of political paralysis, a dogmatic commitment to liberty that results in strategic impotence.
Chronic Frustration and the Need for Emotional Catharsis
This impasse breeds deep psychological frustration. Adherents of anarcho-capitalism feel oppressed by what they perceive as an omnipresent Leviathan, the state that taxes them, regulates them, surveys them, and wages wars in their name. Yet, by their own principles, they can do nothing but write essays and blog posts in response. Unlike other political ideologies that channel dissatisfaction into political action, anarcho-capitalism breeds passive resentment. The state becomes an abstract, untouchable enemy, and over time, this cultivated anger demands emotional release.
But where can that aggression go if the actual state is too vast, entrenched, or risky to confront directly?
Israel as Scapegoat: A Convenient Target
Here enters the mechanism of scapegoating—a well-documented process in psychology and sociology. Scapegoating involves projecting blame, anger, or frustration onto an external group, often one that is vulnerable, marginalized, or symbolically loaded. The target is held responsible for internal problems, real or imagined.
Israel becomes a perfect symbolic target for the anarcho-capitalist’s redirected rage. Though small and geographically distant, it embodies several features that trigger anarcho-capitalist antipathy:
- It is a state—and therefore illegitimate by anarcho-capitalist standards.
- It is a militarized, nationalist state with compulsory service and strong border policies—anathema to individualist ideology.
- It is a Jewish state, and despite formal disavowals, antisemitic tropes often find a foothold in critiques of Zionism, especially when devoid of political nuance.
- It is an ally of the United States, receiving military and financial aid, making it an extension of the very imperialist state anarcho-capitalists loathe.
- It is a strong example of the state doing what it was mainly designed to do—protect its residents from existential threats.
- It is safe to criticize—doing so carries no political risk and offers moral capital in radical intellectual circles.
Thus, Israel becomes a proxy target, an external object upon which anarcho-capitalists can safely displace their accumulated hostility toward the idea of the state, without confronting their own government or their own inability to effect change.
Moralizing the Scapegoat
The current hostility towards Israel seen in parts of the libertarian movement does not reflect a coherent or consistent application of theory. The critique of Israel is rarely framed as mere frustration. It is dressed in moral universalism, with Israel labeled a “colonial oppressor,” “apartheid state,” or “imperialist client.” After the October 7 tragedy, caused by Hamas aggression, Mises Institute writers did not grant Israel the right to self-defense, but instead accused the IDF of committing “war crimes” and “genocide.”
These terms, lifted from far-left anti-Zionist rhetoric, are paradoxically adopted by anarcho-capitalists who otherwise reject collectivism and leftist terminology. But the adoption is strategic: it cloaks visceral resentment in the language of principle.
In this way, the Mises Institute and like-minded anarchists turn what is essentially an emotive and symbolic displacement into a morally justified critique, thereby avoiding the uncomfortable truth that they are not acting against their own government, but redirecting anger toward a distant other.
Purging of Dissent
Another leftist borrowing is evident in the Mises Institute’s treatment of dissenting voices. The Institute has not only suppressed differing viewpoints on the issue but has also carried out purges reminiscent of Stalinist orthodoxy, most notably the dismissal of world-renowned scholar Walter Block, a foundational figure in libertarian theory, for his public support of Israel. Block’s support for Israel is not rooted in uncritical allegiance or fervor. His position is grounded in the same analytical framework he applies elsewhere, using libertarian first principles and thought experiments. His detractors imply he selectively believes in carte blanche for state violence. Far from offering a blanket endorsement, Block’s approach is a good-faith effort to apply property rights, non-aggression and history.
Professor Block, one of the few principled voices in anarcho-capitalism, identified the origins of the long-term conflict in the Promised Land and recognized the exceptional role of the Jewish state in safeguarding both its citizens and the global Jewry. His arguments may not sway all libertarians, but they are undeniably sincere attempts to reason through a complex set of circumstances.
He was fired from the Mises Institute and associated think tanks, and publicly reprimanded by lesser men. Dozens of former colleagues who once cited his work and vied for his attention now obediently toe the “party line” and keep their silence. And it’s not the state muzzling them; it is self-censorship doing the job just fine. History will record this period as a dark age in the Mises Institute’s legacy.
Conclusion: Ideology as Emotional Trap
The Mises Institute’s hostility toward Israel is not an accidental extension of their anti-statism; it is a psychological compensation for their own political dead-end. Lacking the means or the courage to confront their own state’s injustices, they seek relief in symbolic condemnation.
In this context, Israel becomes the external scapegoat onto which internal frustrations are projected. It is not reason or evidence that guides this fixation, but a need to discharge anger in a morally palatable way. As long as anarcho-capitalism remains a theory of total negation rather than constructive engagement, scapegoating will remain its emotional crutch and Israel its undeserved target.
Jews are scapegoats for anything and everything.