So, What About the Lesser of Two Evils?

election, lesser of two evils, vote, voting, cartoon, illustration

The above cartoon I thought was pretty appropriate, especially given the recent amusing hoopla over national voter registration day. I mean, even if you spent only five seconds on google, twitter or facebook, you probably encountered at least one of their annoying ads “evangelizing” on why it’s SO important to get registered to vote for whoever you happen to think the lesser of two evils might be. Yeah, BIG choice there.

I’m not sure who all these people think they’re fooling. Just like this other ad featuring a bunch of movie stars pleading with us peasants to get out the vote and make sure that either the Left’s Wallstreet Candidate “A” or the Right’s Wallstreet Candidate “B” keeps a firm boot planted on everyone’s back. It’s almost as if they think that special interest groups pumping millions into political parties, media bias, the weight given to urban districts over rural districts, and that funny game called the electoral college isn’t already over-riding that little thing called individual voice.

But in the end, while national elections might be prone to leave one feeling frustrated or excluded, I do think there’s a lot of hope for getting involved on a local level. By educating yourself on local leaders and issues that have real potential to impact your community (including you as an individual, your family, local economy, private business, local taxes and much more) your voice has the potential to make a positive difference where it really counts!

Looking for even more libertarian fun? Be sure to check out our libertarian artists page for artist interviews and artwork from a variety of different artists in our community! You can also check out Libertopia’s very own artwork page here (which has a ton of libertarian political cartoons, illustrations, memes, infographics and more), or download our 60 page art ebook at Libertopia: Collection One!

Source: Libertopia Cartoon

On the heels of Snowden movie, Voluntaryist releases its sequel to Saving Snowden comic.

Saving Snowden Headshot

Snowden, the dramatic retelling of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden’s bold acts in exposing government spying, has been released in theaters. In conjunction, we here at Voluntaryist Comics have released our own feature of Edward Snowden taking down tyrants with Shielding Assange: The Voluntaryists vs. the NSA 2.

Shielding Assange is the sequel to Saving Snowden, a fictional action tale of Snowden escaping Putin with help from liberty-loving super humans.

Both Saving Snowden and Shielding Assange are available in print at Indyplanet (links below).

It’s great to see mainstream entertainment covering one of the most important whistle-blowers in modern history.

comic-advertisement-shielding-assange Voluntaryist Comic


Source: Volcomic

The Incompatibility of Feminism and the Minimum Wage

In this article, my goal is to convey why feminists cannot logically support current minimum wage legislation. For the purposes of this argument,

A feminist is someone who:

  1.  Opposes systems which disproportionally advantage men over women; and
  2.  Believes that the wage gap exists

This may not truly represent what it means to be a feminist, but it is fair to say that most feminists meet both of these qualifications. If you are a feminist who does not meet these qualifications, then this article does not apply to you. It is, however, easier to refer to this bundle of beliefs as “feminism” for the sake of making a concise argument.

The wage gap is the belief that, on average, women get paid 77 cents for every dollar a man makes while doing the same work.

A libertarian is a person who, among other things, opposes the minimum wage and does not believe that the wage gap exists.

The Case Against the Wage Gap

Libertarians claim that if you control for all factors— including hours worked, life choices, and field of study— you find that women get paid the same amount as men for the same work. But Libertarians take things one step further. Not only do they believe that the wage gap does not exist, they believe that it cannot exist.

They prove that it is in a firm’s best economic interest to pay women the same as men:

Wage Gap Irrationality Proof

> Imagine that women earn 30% less than men.

> Instead of offering a man $100,000, a company could offer a woman a job for $80,000 and save $20,000

> It is in every company’s interest to maximize profits and, therefore, they would all do this until the average wage of women equaled 80% that of men.

> Once the wage gap was reduced to 20%, companies would offer jobs to women for $90,000 in order to save $10,000 by the same logic.

> Women would then make 90% of what men did and the process would repeat itself until the market reached perfect efficiency and the wage gap was eliminated.

While this is objectively the best way to maximize profits, it only applies to a world in which sexism does not play a role. The libertarian viewpoint that the wage gap cannot exist depends solely upon the notion that firms would rather make profit than be sexist. Let’s call this assumption the “Conjecture of Efficient Markets”.

The Feminist Perspective

Since (according to condition 2) Feminists believe that the wage gap does exist, they must also believe that it can exist. Unless they disagree with the logic presented in the Wage Gap Irrationality Proof, they must, therefore, object to the Conjecture of Efficient Markets.

In other words, since Feminists cannot prove that it is economically rational to pay women less than men, they must believe that the wage gap exists because business owners value it more than profit. Let’s call this belief the “Theory of Patriarchal Pervasiveness

The Minimum Wage

Libertarians oppose the minimum wage and my argument is that Feminists should too.

According to condition 2, feminists believe that the wage gap exists. Therefore, on average, they believe that when a man gets paid $16/hr, a woman gets paid ($16 * .77 =) $12.32/hr.

But this is where it gets good, so let’s recap:

A feminist is someone who:

  1. Opposes systems which disproportionally advantage men over women; and
  2. Believes that the wage gap exists

Libertarians do not believe that the wage gap exists because of the “Wage Gap Irrationality Proof” and the “Conjecture of Efficient Markets”

Feminists reject the “Conjecture of Efficient Markets” because they accept the “Theory of Patriarchal Pervasiveness”, which is the belief that companies would rather maintain the wage gap than increase profits.

Now imagine that the minimum wage increased to $15/hr and notice that 15 is greater than 12.32— making the woman’s wage illegal. A rational person might suggest that the business owner should increase the woman’s wage to $15/hr. This would maximize profits because $15/hr is cheaper than the man’s wage of $16/hr and would give the employer a gain of $1 per hour compared to an employer who only hired men.

But, as we had previously established, feminists believe in the Theory of Patriarchal Pervasiveness. Therefore, they believe that businesses prioritize maintaining the wage gap over maximizing profits. Reflect back to the example in the Wage Gap Irrationality Proof. They were in the same situation. They could have hired a woman for more than the wage gap and made the difference between the two genders’ wages in profit, but (according to feminists) they were so sexist that they refused to do so. Why, then, would they do it after a minimum wage hike?

According to the feminist Theory of Patriarchal Pervasiveness, they won’t. Since they won’t be willing to pay women more than the wage gap, they won’t hire them at all.

Before the minimum wage hike, women at least had the option to work, and afterward, all of their job prospects became illegal.  Feminists must, therefore, believe that this would create massive unemployment among low-income women. Men, on the other hand, would not be affected since their wages are above the minimum level. Is it a coincidence that men like Bernie Sanders have pushed for a higher minimum wage than Hillary Clinton? If women are unemployed, I guess they can “get back in the kitchen”. Since this is a system that disproportionately favors men over women, it violates condition 1 of feminism and is, therefore, an inconsistent policy for them to support.

Until the wage gap is eliminated, feminists should refrain from supporting minimum wage legislation. According to their own beliefs, even raising the minimum wage first and fixing the wage gap after would adversely affect millions of women across the country.


The post The Incompatibility of Feminism and the Minimum Wage appeared first on LJC.IO.

Source: Liam Cardenas


I don’t have much to say at this time, but I wanted to start this blog because I’ve been squatting on this nice 3-letter domain (they stand for my initials) and I’ve had some thoughts that I’ve wanted to share.

I don’t want to use Medium because I like to have control over my content. I am a programmer so I could make my own site, but I don’t feel like it.

I have another website coming out soon, so keep checking back for updates (it will be really cool!)

Thanks for checking out my site and I hope to see you in the comment section!

The post Hello appeared first on LJC.IO.

Source: Liam Cardenas

Washington Post to libertarians: You’re racist!


There was time when names like Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul would never get a mention in a large publication such as The Washington Post, but times have changed. Libertarianism and the works of past great libertarian academics have been made more available than ever thanks to the internet, with sites like,,  and Ron Paul for capturing the hearts  and minds of millions of people with his 2008 and 2012 feisty presidential campaigns. The “liberty movement” or “paulites” (as some of the thought controllers like to use) cannot be ignored. We show up in comment sections, social media, radio, podcasts, new outlets, magazines, the blogosphere, etc. We are everywhere. This annoys “thought police.”

With the Trump presidential campaign in full swing, the thought controllers from the left and the right are trying to figure out “How could this happen?” Trump’s penchant for anti-PC rhetoric and his populist approach to attracting angry middle class voters has made the thought controller’s uncomfortable. Of course, this will get you the “racist” label, their favorite word. It’s an age-old tactic that is used to squash any debate, and force someone with a dissenting opinion into obscurity or a tail tucking apologist.

Today, the Washington Post dropped a post from blogger Matthew Sheffield titled “Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians.”

It’s hard to say how many libertarians support Donald Trump, but its safe to say most libertarians are not lined up, excited about the thought of him as president. But this article doesn’t even take the time out to investigate that, the entire premise of this article is basically to find someway to link libertarians of the past, with paleoconservatives of the 80’s and early 90’s , to the modern day “alt-right.” The writer of this article is unable to provide one solid piece of evidence of this connection of course, this is purely his opinion. Yet, he used this to spend 90% of the article to tell us how libertarians are racist. It only took one quick read to see all of the mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, and blatant lies by the writer. Make no mistake, this is a hit piece. It has less to do with Trump, and everything to do with trying to extinguish the small progress libertarianism has made over the past 10 years. Lets take a look at some of Mr. Sheffield’s claims.

At the Democratic convention, several speakers said Trump represented a complete break from the conservative traditions of the GOP. Last month, Clinton delivered a similar message in a speech linking Trump to the white-nationalist political movement known as the “alt-right.” “This is not conservatism as we have known it,” she asserted.

According to Clinton — and many conservative intellectuals who oppose Trump — the conspiratorial, winking-at-racists campaign he has been running represents a novel departure from Republican politics.

Take a look at the links for his references to “many conservative intellectuals who oppose Trump”, you see the “intellectuals” are people like George Will and Bill Kristol, some of the worst of the worst Neo-conservatives. Considering these are the people who helped put George W. Bush in office, and bring about the pointless and destructive Iraq War (among others), I would hardly say that them not liking Trump is a negative. Clearly this guy doesn’t understand Trump’s base. Note: The link to the Bill Kristol reference was actually written by Matthew Sheffield’s sister, Carrie Sheffield, who seems a little more libertarian friendly.

Sheffield continues:

That’s not quite true, though. Trump’s style and positions — endorsing and consorting with 9/11 truthers, promoting online racists, using fake statistics— draw on a now-obscure political strategy called “paleolibertarianism,” which was once quite popular among some Republicans, especially former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Some how, we go from Trump, to Bill Kristol, to Ron Paul (even though Dr. Paul has been vocal in his dislike of Trump).  He does this by linking Ron Paul with “paleo-libertarianism”, a strategy created by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell to create a coalition between paleoconservatives and libertarians in hopes to create a political push to move to smaller government and a non-interventionist foreign policy. This political strategy had absolutely nothing to do with race, but paleoconservatives consisted of lightening bolt personalities, such as Pat Buchanan, and David Duke, whom still to this day carry the “racist” stigma assigned to them by the thought controllers. Duke, at least, has some factual reasons to be considered racist, although at the time of his political aspirations in the 90’s, he presented himself as a reformed racist.

Sheffield continues:

The figure whose ideas unify Pauline libertarians and today’s Trumpists is the late Murray Rothbard… Nowadays, many libertarians like to portray their ideology as one that somehow transcends the left-right divide, but to Rothbard, this was nonsense. Libertarianism, he argued, was nothing more than a restatement of the beliefs of the “Old Right,” which resolutely opposed the New Deal and any sort of foreign intervention in the early 20th century. Many of its adherents, such as essayist H.L. Mencken, espoused racist viewpoints, as well.

Scheffield is all over the place. In his early years, Rothbard considered himself a part of the non-interventionist, small government early 20th century Old Right, but somehow, Sheffield links this to racism. Rothbard was a fan of Mencken, who was a small government advocate of that time. H.L. Menckens is still considered one of the most influential American writers of the 20th century, who wrote for decades on a wide range of subjects, yet Scheffield digs up some diary he kept, in which some racially insensitive remarks were made. Are we supposed to be shocked a man born in the late 19th century held some views on race that would be considered “offensive” in the 21st century?  He cares not to mention Rothbard’s attempt to embed himself with the New Left movement in the 1960’s to find a way to work with them to build a coalition between the right and left to push for a non-interventionist foreign policy, or that Rothbard “valorized the “heroic” Malcolm X and denounced Martin Luther King for calling for federal troops to put down black “rioters”.  That would require research, Sheffield would much rather copying and pasting from Wikipedia entries.

There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among libertarians — the movement’s house magazine, Reason, dedicated an entire issue in 1976 to Holocaust revisionism and repeatedly editorialized in defense of South Africa’s then-segregationist government (though by 2016, the magazine was running articles like “Donald Trump Enables Racism”). But it was Rothbard’s founding of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1982 that enabled the fledgling political movement to establish affinity with the neo-Confederate Lost Cause movement.

Ahhh, the good ol’ “neoconfederate” label. First of all, no one even knows what that means. Second, The Mises Institute, the intellectual scholarly institute for Austrian economics and libertarian political theory, has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with “neo-confederate,” whatever that means. Let’s ignore Murray Rothbard was a Jewish New Yorker. The only reason Sheffield uses this “neo-confederate” label is due to many Austrian scholars taking a revisionist view of the Civil War. They don’t buy the 2nd grade reasoning given by mainstream historians. They point out the fact that the Civil War was largely about the Federal Govt of the United States maintaining the Union, which is a fact. Is that racist?

As far as the Reason article, they have already demanded a retraction from Washington Post for their false accusations in this article.

Of course, Sheffield uses the libertarian view that you should not be forced by government initiated violence to associate with individuals you choose not to associate with as an example of racism, but it is simply an extension of the non-aggression principle.  But, maybe Sheffield doesn’t mind baking Nazi cakes.

Then he uses the tired “Racist Ron Paul Newsletter” trope to paint Ron Paul as some raving racist. Please wake me up when they get a new tactic. Oh, we can’t forget the guy who runs some white nationalist online forum donated 500 bucks to Paul’s campaign. Surely he’s racist! I also donated to Dr. Paul’s campaign too, does that absolve him? So did countless military members, Ed Snowden, people sick of pointless wars and the federal reserve. But, according to Sheffield its all about RACISM.

Ron Paul, a man who has said he’d rather see the Constitution not ratified than have it created with slavery as a compromise, a man who has spoken in front of the NAACP about the justice system to raving applause,  who you wouldn’t be able find one remotely racist thing in all of the books, articles, and speeches he’s given over the past 3 decades, is supposed to be racist? PLEASE!

This was a hateful smear piece by Matthew Sheffield, and he should be ashamed of himself. He makes no attempt to challenge libertarianism on its merits or debate issues. He has no desire to do so because that would require  giving legitimacy to a movement that challenges everything little Mr. Sheffield has learned in his life.  He would rather take the typical thought policemen tactic, call everyone a racist.





Source: The Afro Libertarian