The Realities of the Harmony of Capital

A Reflection of Bastiat’s Economic Harmonies

by Scott Albright

As much as the progressive statist left decries income and wealth inequality with their rants against capitalism and the “1 percent”, instead of branding them as socialists, commies, or in the tank for positive rights, let’s ask the honest question of why their said rants are misguided and anger misdirected. After having just read Economic Harmonies by the great Frederic Bastiat, his insight can show all of us a way of looking at utility in a light that poses serious questions for the whole concept of wealth inequality.


Seeing this chart that shows the near polar opposite of the anti-capitalist claims- although it is a hypothetical chart-, you may think that it is crackpot economics or just super idealistic albeit slightly possible. Regardless of what any of us think, I must admit that I thought at first that it couldn’t be true because wealth is heavily concentrated among a small percentage of the population; I now believe that I was wrong and am glad to have been enlightened. These claims are mostly viewed by the anti-capitalists through the lens of annual income and net worth and thus can only possibly be true in so far as what is accumulated and owned individually, one’s private property. According to Frederic Bastiat, in terms of wealth, we must measure not only personal wealth that one owns but common wealth, what becomes common to all through advances in intellectual and technological applications in production. This takes into account entirely the gratuitous utility that is part of real or absolute wealth, since said utility adds to our satisfactions. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “a penny saved is a penny earned”, and once you understand the concepts of onerous utility and gratuitous utility, you can appreciate this statement and the economic truth behind it much more wholesomely.

As mankind advances intellectually, technologically, economically and morally, he learns to harness the forces of nature to his benefit to work smarter, and not harder; to increase his productivity and therefore, serve his fellow man with more satisfactions that society can consume. It is all about increasing the ratio of gratuitous to onerous utility and decreasing the effort to produce or acquire any given unit of goods and service. This is the essence of economic growth.


Onerous utility is from the physical labor that man employs in satisfying his needs, wants, desires and tastes. An example would be utility from a carpenter’s labor, that of a farmhand or from the tractor operator on a farm. Gratuitous utility is that which we get from either Nature itself, i.e., the sunshine and rain that we need for produce to grow and to sustain life nevertheless, or the utility that we get from innovative capital created and employed to harness the forces of nature to mans benefit, decreasing his ratio of onerous to gratuitous utility. This is what increases output, productivity per worker, higher living standards for all, and ultimately more choices and lower prices for consumers. Some examples of this would be as simple as that which we get from the basic of designing a sailboat so that the wind will do some of the work in sea navigation, to the more complex automobile, the tractor, the crane and caterpillar, the washer and dryer, and yes even the kiosks employed in fast food restaurants; all of these are labor saving and output enhancing methods and machines of production. Continue reading “The Realities of the Harmony of Capital”

Hope Kills! Take Charge of your Defense.

By Lystoy

Stop giving up your rights and don’t cede them to a government that cannot defend or protect you.

Ponder on this, since September 11, 2001, Americans (and residents of many other geographic unions) have ceded many of their natural rights to the state in order to assure their safety.

All our phone calls, emails, texts and other communications are monitored.

There are cameras everywhere. There are microphones all over major metropolitan areas. We are told that if we “see something, say something.” In a most Orwellian fashion, travel has become a hassle where we are required to allow ourselves to be molested on a regular basis to ensure our safety.

Yet, there is an “epidemic of violence.”

What we are led to believe by the “media” is that the surveillance state is unable to root these radical elements out. Let’s throw the next pail of fuel onto the fire, we have spent billions and billions of dollars fighting “Islamic radicalism” on foreign soil, so we “don’t have to fight them here.” I propose that these government boondoggles, whether they be perpetual war or the creation of a surveillance state, have had nothing to do with your safety and security and everything to do with transferring wealth and controlling “free” Americans.

In many cases, government agencies funded and armed the very radical elements the military is fighting. Rabbi Daniel Lapin says that if someone tells you there is one answer to any complex issue, you need to be very skeptical. The good Rabbi is correct, we are dealing with a complex situation involving multiple interests, none that involve maintaining the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

I ask that you consider this. Firing up Americans and convincing us that we need to give up our rights seems to be a media standard, do not succumb to their manipulation. Spending our money (that was coopted through coercion) to fight wars without end and without a goal does nothing but create terrorists.

The surveillance state by any measure is a huge failure, if it cannot do the job (and time has proven it cannot) it must be disestablished and the agencies in charge of it must be defunded.

Every person needs to attend classes, purchase a firearm, apply for your concealed carry permit (if you live in an unfree place and you choose to comply) and carry that firearm. You need to train and take follow up classes regularly.

The FBI’s own data shows that the higher the number of CCP holders in an area, the lower the crime.

Please do not become a victim cowering under a table begging for your life. Hope kills!!! and it breaks my heart to know that good people died hoping someone would save them.

In the future, I will be discussing how you can attain a level of freedom in a very unfree society. I begin by asking you to secure yourself, your family and your property.

Waiting for minutes for help from government agents is not a plan to protect anyone, it is a plan for failure. You have the power to defend yourself from an aggressor and you need to have a plan to do so.

Hope is not a plan, yes we leave the house each day hoping not to be accosted by a bad person, we hope he does not get violent, we hope he doesn’t have a gun, and we hope he doesn’t kill us.

You are loved and cherished by someone in this world, please have a plan to stick around for them as long as you can.

I hope you will listen!

Episode 13 – Kong: Skull Island (1:09:07)

King Kong ain’t got shit on me! No, that isn’t Harambe in the picture (may he rest in peace).

When a scientific expedition to an uncharted island awakens titanic forces of nature, a mission of discovery becomes an explosive war between monster and man.

Robert and I have a good discussion on property rights, homesteading, sentience and other topics while discussing the monster-romp Kong:  Skull Island.

Spoilers.  All spoilers all the time.


Like, Beat your Chest, Comment, Roar, Share, Smash Helicopters

Subscribe to us on iTunes, Google Play Music, Stitcher, or wherever podcasts are sold.

Give us a rating or review and help get the word out!


Tuttle Twins at Half Price

📢 50,000 books sold! So… 50% off sale TODAY 

HUGE sale to celebrate this milestone!

We’ve now distributed over 50,000 books — a great result we’d like to celebrate with you.

So… through Saturday, use coupon FIFTY to get 50% OFF our books! Act fast before this rare deal is over!

DMR: President Trump’s Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods


CoinBase Buy Sell Bitcoins Free BitCoin

FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you’ll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Have you seen/read the President’s interview with Time magazine?

​Honestly, I just don’t know what to say anymore. He clearly has some sort of psychological issues that simply are not normal. The symptoms of it are everywhere:

-Extreme obsession with publicity
-Infatuation with himself
-No apparent qualms with indiscriminate lying
-Overbearing arrogance
-Sensitivity on a level generally seen in children
-Robust sense of entitlement
-Elevation of loyalty to himself personally over capability (even at risk of ethics violations)

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that he displays a number of character flaws that, frankly, would cause me tell my kids, “Don’t be like him; don’t be like the President.”

In many ways, he doesn’t seem to have developed mentally beyond childhood. His vocabulary appears to be quite small, and the way he thinks about himself and expresses his thoughts is very simple and basic. (He simply doesn’t know how to speak publicly without using the same adjectives–“great,” “huge,” “stupid,” etc.–over and over again. When describing North Korea’s leader, he said that Kim is “behaving very, very badly,” which is how children generally think. Kim’s issues are far more complex than just “behaving badly,” but this is the very simple-minded way Trump views complex problems that he doesn’t understand.) To top it all off, he brags about not reading–again, something one generally sees in junior high and high school students.
He takes everything personally and simply cannot help but to respond to insults. Again, that’s what children do. His own responses to insults frequently involve criticizing one’s weight, appearance, intellect, etc. I feel as though I’m repeating myself here, but that’s how children criticize each other. When he doesn’t get what he wants, he whines and lashes out on Twitter, and I honestly do see that more frequently in people under the age of 18 than over it. Even this article itself contains a lot of evidence of this: saying, “I’m the President, and you’re not” reminds me of “you’re not my mom, so I don’t have to listen to you!” This is the very simple way he sees things. He sees things so simply that he actually can’t see that he sees things simply–even that escapes him.
I think he hasn’t ever matured because he simply hasn’t had to: he’s always been rich. He doesn’t understand the lower or middle classes because he’s never been in either. He’s been rich since he was born. He was occasionally dropped off at school in a limousine, which is very, very odd even for people far wealthier than he.
I feel as though he was always taught that he was special because he was a Trump and has always been taught to take what he wants–so he does. It’s not clear to me that he’s really ever earned anything himself. Someone else makes decisions at his company for him. Someone else wrote his books. Someone else wrote The Apprentice. Someone else negotiates on his behalf. Recently he’s decided to take credit for using the tax code to his advantage, but, lo and behold, someone else (his CPA) does that for him too. I could go on and on, but it appears that someone else is responsible for most of what’s behind his brand, while he sits by profiting from their efforts and from the name “Trump” and lives a lavish lifestyle. The few times when he appears to have taken real, major initiative, his efforts have led to fraud (Trump University) or bankruptcy (SIX times). Several people who’ve worked with him have said that he simply doesn’t have an attention span at all. He just cannot stay focused. Others have said that he’s just a “sign on the bottom line” kind of guy. When you consider all of this, it makes sense: he signs papers put in front of him. He’s not a “thinker.” Maybe it’s an extreme form of ADD. Maybe not. It’s certainly odd though, and it would be hard to argue that it’s been an effective style so far. After all, his executive orders have either had no impact or have tossed out by the courts, and he’s had exactly zero bills pushed through Congress.

Pointing to his wealthy, entitled background is only part of the cause though. After all, there are plenty of people who have always been fabulously wealth (e.g., Bill Gates–many, many times wealthier than Trump) who are wonderful people. In fact, MOST rich people are not like Trump. So there’s something more–something chemically simply different about Trump’s brain. What is it? Who knows. It’s obvious though.

So I really just don’t know. I could speculate all day long right here and never know the answer. It’s clear that it’s more than just fighting to put America first though. Something’s being put first, but I’m not sure that it’s America.

I hope no one interprets this as maliciousness. It is not. It’s just an objective assessment of what I’m observing each day.

​Editor’s Note: Yes, it’d still be horrible with Hillary at the wheel as well!

Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports libertyLOL and doesn’t cost you a penny more at checkout!


View RSS feed

Source: Liberty LOL

Bitcoin: Doomed to Fail (#Tbt)

I originally published this article May 2014 on Liberty.Me. I am republishing this in its unmodified form because I believe my analysis still stands on solid ground today. However, I no longer fully endorse everything in this article. The original can be found here.

For my first article here on, I decided to write something controversial (to encourage discussion, of course).

I would like to preface by saying that I think Bitcoin (BTC) and other CryptoCurrencies are awesome! Unfortunately, when you have something so awesome, people often get obsessive and exaggerate how great it actually is. I will admit that I chose this title mostly for shock value, however, there is considerable truth to it. My hope for this article is to bridge the intellectual gap between libertarian supporters and opponents of Bitcoin.

1. Bitcoin cannot last forever

Bitcoin relies on several different cryptographic algorithms. The first being the Elliptic Curve Digital Signal Algorithm (ECDSA), which is used to generate the public/private key pairs, and the second is the SHA-256 hashing algorithm (SHA-2) which is used for mining. I will admit, that this is a stellar choice of algorithms; Elliptic Curve Cryptography is one of our most promising frontiers of asymmetric encryption (“asymmetric” meaning that the key to decrypt data cannot be easily derived from the key to encrypt data or vice versa) and SHA-2 still is a very secure algorithm with few known problemsThere is no way that anybody could cryptographically exploit bitcoin now, in 2014.

In the future, however, this is simply not the case. Keep in mind that modern computers have only been around for 50-60 years, and the internet has only existed for 20-30 years. These technologies are still in their infancy, and to think that we have developed the end-all solution to world currency is ridiculous.

Not convinced? Allow me to explain how Bitcoin might begin to fail:

With the advent of quantum computers, ECDSA will be easily broken. This means, that people with your public key, will be able to generate your private key. Luckily for BTC users, the public keys are hashed. A hash function takes an input and then generates a seemingly random output of a fixed size. This means that there is no way to easily reverse the output of a hash function to get the original input. Furthermore, quantum computers — as far as we know — cannot pwn hashing in the same they do with asymmetric encryption. Unfortunately, although protected initially, public keys are revealed after they are used. Or in other words, in the not-so distant quantum computing era, BTC users will have to change their public keys after every transaction.

Despite this critical security flaw, all hope for BTC is not lost. There are several ways to deal with it:

  • Everyone could just remember to change their keys after every transaction
  • Companies could provide wallet services that automatically cycle addresses
  • We could change bitcoin to use quantum resistant algorithms

The first is obviously a bad idea because it is inconvenient and people will forget to do it.

Two and three lead me to my next point.

2. Bitcoin is becoming increasingly centralized

With Bitcoin’s inevitable rise in popularity, there will be a large amount of political pressure to control it. Imagine that the aforementioned public key vulnerability became exploitable due to advances in technology. All people would be forced to make a change. They could either use new wallets that rotate addresses or they could update the Bitcoin protocol to use new post-quantum encryption algorithms. Either way, they are being forced to change their software and this opens Bitcoin up to backdoors, new vulnerabilities, and it won’t change the fact that new advances in technology will perpetually require such changes to be made.

There are many examples of massive vulnerabilities going unnoticed in open source software and backdoors being discovered in critical security software. I’m not saying this is necessarily going to happen to Bitcoin, however, its continually deprecating nature as a currency (due to exponential growth in technological advancement), will make this very likely.

But let’s get back to regulation and how the government might increase its influence over Bitcoin. Currently, many people are already starting to use cloud Bitcoin wallets because they are easy and secure. It may not seem like it, but we are certainly seeing a shift (with all software, not just BTC) towards the cloud. This shift would be further exacerbated by the public key vulnerability, that would force people to either download a new protocol compliant wallet or use a cloud service. I highly doubt most people are going to spend the time to audit the source code and integrity of their new wallet while simultaneously making sure that wallet usage is distributed evenly among all potential wallets so as to prevent one group of “wallet developers” from getting too high of a market share (thereby insuring the decentralization of Bitcoin).

What is really going to happen is that most people will download an “official wallet” developed by the more or less centralized group of developers who proposed the change or they will choose one of many cloud wallets. The problem with cloud wallets is that governments can easily regulate them, just like they regulate banks. In fact, the government will most likely provide banks with exclusive cloud wallet rights. With a well engineered plot, the government could easily take control of the majority of Bitcoin wallets. This is especially bad, because unlike a 51% attack, this would allow them to make whatever changes they want to the Bitcoin protocol.

Not to mention, as the difficulty of mining and value of Bitcoin increases, so does the demand for mining equipment. We have already seen a huge increase in the cost of bitcoin mining with dedicated ASICs (application specific integrated circuits– which are essentially computer chips that are made solely for the purpose of mining BTC). Right now, you can get a return on your investment if you dish out several grand for an ASIC mining rig (GPUs don’t cut it anymore), but soon enough, there will be no way that the lay-person can mine. This is yet another chokepoint in the Bitcoin network that is almost guaranteed to occur.

(I’m not even going to mention the danger of mining pools)

What’s even worse, is that when the quantum computer finally emerges, it’s capabilities will likely surpass those of ASICs by using algorithms such as Grover’s Search. This will give even more power to the elites who already control most of the mining companies.

But this could never happen, right? Wouldn’t the people see it coming and not let the government ruin their money? It’s open source! No. Why didn’t democracy prevent the creation of the federal reserve? History repeats itself, except with different technology. I won’t even bother speculating as to the ingenious ways that the government will propagandize their control of Bitcoin. The worst part is that even if all of us decide to band together to fight this atrocious take-over of the Bitcoin network, it likely won’t be enough. Even if 49% of people oppose these changes, they will still occur.

Centralization is inevitable.

3. Bitcoin isn’t the best

Bitcoin is, technologically, one of the least advanced cryptocurrencies. There are many more sophisticated Alt Coins that surpass Bitcoin in anonymity, speed, and security. Entrepreneurs and activists are constantly innovating on top of the BTC protocol in hopes of snagging a piece of its market share. Remember that the internet has only been around for a few decades and we already have something as revolutionary as the blockchain. After 10, 20, or 100 years, Bitcoin will be to other crypto-currencies as MS-DOS is to Windows 8.1. It will be archaic and outdated.

This is the fundamental problem with a technology based currency. It’s not that it doesn’t have “real value” or “intrinsic value”, the problem is that it cannot and will not move at the same pace as other technology. Bitcoin is only valuable if the protocol is being up-kept and made relevant, otherwise, it will fail. Given enough time, it will either be corrupted or abandoned all together.


The downfall of Bitcoin is not going to be in the near future. It probably will not even be in our lifetimes (I’m just speculating, but I bet it would be in our children’s lifetimes). We have an incredible opportunity in this day and age to utilize this technology to overturn the government monopoly on money. The government cannot control it (yet), cannot manipulate it (yet), and cannot regulated it (well) (yet). This is sort of a call to action. We need to get as much momentum behind the alternative currency movement as we can before we lose our edge. If you use alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, good! If you don’t, you should start! This will be an incredible tool, while it lasts, for resisting government control over economic transactions. If you are concerned about the issues that I mentioned, study computer science and cryptography and then contribute to Bitcoin. We need bright, well-intentioned people to do this, otherwise it will fail sooner than you think. If that is not an option, spread the word, and be a dedicated participant in the community.

If we can use Bitcoin to bring about a paradigm shift in the global economy and unshackle ourselves from the bondage of fiat currency, then even though it will eventually no longer be in use, it will not have failed after all. I hope that this unifying goal can bring together all libertarians, whether they like Bitcoin or not.

Please note: I know that many Bitcoin advocates acknowledge that these events will occur, and this article is not directed towards them. I wrote this article as a sanity check for bitcoin advocates who get a little carried away with their BTC-worship. Bitcoin is great, but it is not perfect! Similarly, I would like to demonstrate to its opponents that despite these setbacks, Bitcoin is an amazing tool that can change the world.

Also, I define the failure of Bitcoin to be when either it has zero purchasing power or it is controlled by the government.

Notable Comment:

“Wonderfully challenging piece.” — Jeffrey Tucker

The post Bitcoin: Doomed to Fail (#Tbt) appeared first on LJC.IO.

Source: Liam Cardenas

Hey Patreon, Not Every Artist Supports Theft!

taxation, taxation is theft, cartoon, illustration, libertarian, libertarianism, socialism, theft, force, coercion, bully“Will you stand up for art?” So said the subject line of the recent email I received from Patreon recently. “Yeah, sounds good,” I thought. “Why wouldn’t I want to embark on some grandiose social crusade to stand up for fellow creatives here in America and around the world?” Well, turns out it wasn’t quite that simple.

Upon cracking Patreon’s email open, I was instantly greeted with #FORTHEARTS, and the following text: “We need your voice to help make a difference. A recent decision by the US government could cut funding towards supporting the arts in America…” Oh boy. Here we go with this again. Of course my libertarian / voluntaryist readers will automatically see the lunacy of using State to fund art (as evidenced by the popularity of the whole “taxation is theft meme”). But for those on the left or the right who is in love with a holy empire that uses force and coercion to legislate their beliefs and fund special interest projects like dung covered Mona Lisas…well, you can smell what I’m stepping in here.

Anyway, Patreon went on in their email to rally the troops to utilize #FORTHEARTS to share via social media just how important art is to the world, and thus speak a message to the US Government about just how dastardly and despicable it is that they’re not funding art. Like, you know, art can’t EVER be created unless it’s through some government handout. A government handout which isn’t provided voluntarily, mind you. And furthermore, a government handout which is taken through force from fellow creatives and people in your community who are also scraping by in life.

Sure Patreon. Go ahead, you’re a privately owned business (as far as I know). Maybe you’re just another one of those leftist internet businesses where you can’t take four steps without finding someone getting their knickers in a twist over their “god” State doing something wrong, but a business none-the-less. So Patreon is obviously free to take whatever stand they want – even if that stand is throwing a tantrum over the oh-so-nasty stance of someone they don’t agree with. But come on, if you want to support the arts, fine. That’s cool. I can get behind it. But by trying to get artists, who used to be anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment, to support what is essentially art sanctioned by the State (propaganda?)…well, you can count me out.

In the meantime, I figured I’d have a little fun and create my own art to share a message. All without the use of tax dollars. Hope you enjoy it! Until next time, peace.

Thoughts or suggestions? Leave a comment! And if you’re the type that might enjoy a little humor over all the lunacy out there, then you’ll definitely want to check out our graphics page for even MORE of our exclusive libertarian art and infographics! Because let’s face it…sometimes the best thing you can do is laugh!

Source: Libertopia Cartoon

On Libertarianism and Conquest

The institution of private property is a fundamental aspect of economics and social interactions. It serves the practical purpose of avoiding conflicts over scarce resources so that efforts may be put toward better purposes. Theories concerning the creation, acquisition, trade, inheritance, and defense of private property form much of libertarian philosophy. What has gone largely unexplored in libertarian theory thus far is the role of conquest in the determination of property rights. Almost all inhabited land on Earth has been conquered by one group of people or another at some time in the past, so as long as this remains unexplored, libertarianism will be left open to attacks from all manner of enemies of private property rights. Thus, it is necessary to examine conquest from a libertarian perspective. Man vs. Nature The starting point for all of libertarian philosophy is self-ownership; each person has a right to exclusive control of one’s physical body and full responsibility for actions committed with said control. Note that in order to argue against self-ownership, one must exercise exclusive control of one’s physical body for the purpose of communication. This results in a performative contradiction because the content of the argument is at odds with the act of making the argument. By the laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction, self-ownership must be true because it must be either true or false, and any argument that self-ownership is false leads to a contradiction. Because each person has a right to exclusive control of one’s physical body, it is wrong for one person to initiate interference with another person’s exclusive control of their physical body without their consent. This is how the non-aggression principle is derived from self-ownership. Because each person has full responsibility for the actions that one commits with one’s physical body, one may gain property rights in external objects by laboring upon unowned natural resources. This works because one is responsible for the improvements that one has made upon the natural resources, and it is impossible to own the improvements without owning the resources themselves. In a sense, all property rights are based on conquest, in that property rights are created when man conquers nature by appropriating part of nature for his exclusive control and use. This is a powerful antidote to the contention of many opponents of private property that property titles are somehow invalidated by a history of conquest, of people taking by force what is not rightfully theirs. But we can do even better than this, as the next sections will show. Man vs. Man As stated earlier, property rights are useful in practice because they minimize conflicts over scarce resources by establishing who rightfully controls what territory. This results in a significant amount of loss prevention, which allows the people who would have died and the property that would have been damaged in such conflicts to instead survive and prosper. But what happens when such norms are not respected? Let us consider the simplest possible example and extrapolate from there. For our first case, consider a planet which has only two sentient beings. Let us call them Archer and Bob. Archer has mixed his labor with some land and thus acquired private property rights over that area. Bob wants the land that belongs to Archer. That Archer has a right to defend himself and his property from the aggressions of Bob by any means necessary, and that Archer has the right to retake anything that Bob takes is not disputed by any reputable libertarian theorist. But what if Bob kills Archer? In that case, the property does not rightfully pass from Archer to Bob in theory. But Bob now has exclusive control over the property and there is no other sentient being present to challenge him. Thus, Bob becomes the de facto owner, even though this is illegitimate de jure. The above case is interesting but trivial because social norms are irrelevant if there is neither a community to observe them nor a mechanism to enforce them. As such, we will spend the rest of this essay adding complexity to the first case to arrive at meaningful results. For our second case, suppose that there were another person present to challenge Bob. Let us call him Calvin. Because libertarian theory is a logical construct, it is subject to logic in the form of rationality and consistency. To violate the rights of another person while claiming the same rights for oneself is not consistent. Hypocrisy of this kind cannot be rationally advanced in argument; it has the same effect at the subjective level that a performative contradiction has at the objective level. In other words, all people do not lose the right to life because someone somewhere somewhen commits a murder, but the murderer does. This means that Bob cannot claim a right to his own life or to the property he occupies because he murdered Archer and stole his property. Thus, there is no moral prohibition on Calvin killing Bob and taking the property from him. With Archer and Bob both dead and Calvin the last sentient being on the planet, Calvin is now the de facto owner of the property. But unlike Bob in the first case, Calvin is also the de jure property owner because he has exerted effort to remove property from the control of a thief and the rightful owner died without an heir.   Read the entire article at

The post On Libertarianism and Conquest appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me

States are Utopian, Not Anarchy [podcast]

Anarchy (anarcho-capitalism) isn’t a utopian idea, having a state is. I tear down the argument claiming that anarchy is just utopian, and counter it with how having a state is the real utopian idea. If you can’t trust people, trusting some of those people to have an institution with a monopoly on the legitimacy on the use of force is a really bad idea.

Instead, anarchy argues that since everyone acts in their own self-interest then all people should abide by a similar moral code, and nobody should have a monopoly on the use of force.

There’s still rules (just no rulers) and people can still force. Actually, more people are able to use force to protect their private property against all potential invaders, as the state is a common invader in society today.

If people aren’t fit to rule over themselves, then how are people fit to rule over other people?



15 – States are Utopian, Not Anarchy 

Source: Gimme Liberty

Napolitano Indefinitely Suspended from Fox News for Trump “Wiretapping” Comments

Yesterday, Fox News announced their decision to indefinitely suspend Judge Andrew Napolitano’s airtime in response to Napolitano’s assertion that former President Obama conducted surveillance on Trump via British Intelligence.

By using British Intelligence to spy on then-candidate Trump, Obama could avoid leaving a paper trail that would lead to his administration. To prove the veracity of his claim, Napolitano cites various Fox News sources within the US intelligence community. Fox News vehemently denies these claims.

Since 2006, Napolitano has worked as a media commentator for Fox News hosting and appearing in liberty-oriented programming including Freedom Watch. Although Napolitano held the position of Senior Judicial Analyst, his current relationship with Fox News is unclear.

It would certainly make logical sense if Obama did, in fact, use British Intelligence to anonymously surveil then-candidate Trump. However, as both Ron Paul and James Corbett point out, Obama would not necessarily have to take this route, because there does not need to be a surveillance paper trail.

We have known for years that NSA routinely conducts warrantless spying on all Americans. It would be foolish to assume that the most politically powerful figures would be exempt from this surveillance. In fact, they are priority number one. The NSA was made for this activity. That is its purpose.

James Corbett and Ron Paul comment on the Trump “Wiretapping” scandal:

So we know that Trump almost certainly was surveilled as a candidate and that he is not the first to be the object of such surveillance. In fact, Obama himself was the object of NSA surveillance as far back as 2004 when he was running for Senate in Illinois. This fact was revealed by NSA whistleblower Russ Tice in 2013.

Moreover, anyone with any political clout is the subject of NSA surveillance. There does not need to be any kind of order to perform this surveillance, the NSA dragnet is already capturing everything.

When it comes to Napolitano’s allegations that British Intelligence tapped Trump’s phones, who knows? It certainly is plausible, but why  would Obama go through the trouble when the NSA already has everything?

While the above questions lack definite answers, one thing we can say with certainty is that Napolitano is a libertarian icon whose presence on Fox News will be missed. Perhaps this schism with Fox News will drive him to more worthwhile pursuits . . . perhaps with the Mises Institute? One may only hope.

Before I conclude today’s content, I wanted to bring the reader’s attention to the Orwellian doublespeak at play behind the very title of this political puppet show: “the Trump ‘Wiretapping’ Scandal.”

The use of the word “wiretapping” seeks to frame public thought by inserting the image of someone physically sneaking into Trump Tower with a written order from Obama to place a bug on Trump’s phone. This subliminal framing is complete garbage. We know that in the modern era of complete government surveillance, this is not at all necessary.

That is all for today! Thanks for stopping by Liberty Weekly. If you have not already, I would urge you to sign up for my email list and follow me on Steemit, Minds, Facebook, and Twitter!

Source: Liberty Weekly

“Anne Frank Center” attempts to shame Tim Allen into silence

Last week, Tim Allen appeared on the Jimmy Kimmy Live! show. Kimmel asked Allen about his attending Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration. Clearly, Kimmel thought he was asking Allen an innocent question. However, Allen immediately became defensive, with Kimmel trying to reassure him that he wasn’t attacking him. Allen then compared today’s Hollywood to 1930s Nazi Germany.

“You gotta be real careful around here, you know. You’ll get beat up if you don’t believe what everybody believes. It’s like ’30s Germany.”

Below is a clip of the interview:

For that brief moment of honesty on a late night talk show, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect excoriated Allen for even considering comparing Hollywood to Nazi Germany.

The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect demanded an apology from actor Tim Allen after he compared life for Hollywood conservatives to living in “’30s Germany.”

That era, of course, was when Adolf Hilter rose to power and the Nazis began their campaign of mass extermination of Jews and many others they deemed undesirable. The Anne Frank Center called Allen’s comparison “deeply offensive” and said it “trivializes the horrors imposed on Jews in Nazi Germany.”

The “Last Man Standing actor said on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on Friday: “You gotta be real careful around here, you know. You’ll get beat up if you don’t believe what everybody believes. It’s like ’30s Germany.”

“Tim, have you lost your mind?” said Steven Goldstein, executive director of the Anne Frank Center. “No one in Hollywood today is subjecting you or anyone else to what the Nazis imposed on Jews in the 1930s – the world’s most evil program of dehumanization, imprisonment and mass brutality, implemented by an entire national government, as the prelude for the genocide of nearly an entire people.”

Added Goldstein: “Sorry, Tim, that’s just not the same as getting turned down for a movie role. It’s time for you to leave your bubble to apologize to the Jewish people and, to be sure, the other peoples also targeted by the Nazis.”
There’s nothing like berating someone for making an honest comment that makes the very point Allen was trying to make.
There are two general points I’d like to make.
First, this “Anne Frank Center” has nothing to do with the Anne Frank House and Museum in Amsterdam, Holland. Rather, it uses Anne Frank’s name as a cover for yet another progressive outfit.

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, the U.S. national organization in the worldwide network of Anne Frank organizations, addresses civil and human rights across America. Through educational programs and grassroots organizing, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect calls out prejudice, counters discrimination and advocates for the kinder and fairer world of which Anne Frank dreamed.

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect is a progressive voice for social justice, fighting hatred of refugees and immigrants, Antisemitism, sexism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, bias against the differently abled and any other hate that runs counter to American promise of freedom. In addressing the civil and human rights issues of today, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect has developed contemporary advocacy techniques that incorporate historic lessons from Anne Frank’s life and the Holocaust. By applying those historic lessons to current issues, the organization works to make the Holocaust relevant to successive generations of Americans. – My emphasis

That’s right, folks. The Anne Frank Center is just one more progressive voice that uses the Holocaust as a cover to call people they don’t like antisemitic, sexist, racist, Islamophobic, and so on.
Second, what Allen was clearly referring to was the political dogma that many in Hollywood chant, and the consequences of differing from that dogma. All one has to do is watch Meryl Streep’s speech at the Golden Globes, and Mel Gibson’s and Vince Vaughn’s reaction to that speech, to see what that dogma is.
Frankly, it’s disgusting that someone would even consider using the suffering the Jewish people endured during World War II as a blunt instrument to shame others into silence.
If anything, Steven Goldstein ought to apologize to Tim Allen. After all, Allen works in Hollywood, and has a far better sense of the dynamics in that town than he does.
Goldstein’s outburst is not helping his presumed fight against anti-semitism one bit.
If anything, he is helping to make Allen’s point far better than he can possibly realize.

The post “Anne Frank Center” attempts to shame Tim Allen into silence appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool