KFC and Self Driving Cars – ABS034

In this fortnight’s episode we are discussing Kentucky Fried Chicken’s venture into cryptocurrency as well as the philosophy behind self-driving cars, but first, Pax Libertas has added yet another riveting new show to its lineup, One Free Family – a new take on peaceful parenting, with Taylor and James Davis. You can hear the trailer at the beginning of this episode as well as find more information at onefreefamily.com. It’s a podcast about peaceful parenting, and from what they’ve put out so far it’s really good, and may eventually rival The Ancap Barber Shop for the title of the objectively best podcast on paxlibertas.com…   Okay, maybe after The Lava Flow… and Resist the Empire… and probably Essential Libertarianism…   Anyhow, we have yet ANOTHER supporter through Patreon. Brian McQuade has jumped in at the Gentleman’s Cut level donating $5 per podcast episode!    Thank you, Brian!!!   You can listen to Brian and Rodger’s podcast at resisttheempirepodcast.com (You should, we do.)    Patreon supporter and former guest Drake Lundstrom had some not so kind words for Dave and Tanner on our Facebook page.  We once again briefly dissect our thoughts on standing vs kneeling during the pledge of allegiance, or the national anthem… What do they do at football games again? Either way, we want no part of it (at least not the more tenured contributors to The Ancap Barber Shop. Drake sent us this article for your review and reading pleasure.   We then move on to the first edition of our book club segment where we discuss the first chapter of Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard. Make sure and read the second chapter entitled “What the state is.” before the next episode. You can find the free PDF or audiobook here.    We discuss KFC’s brief acceptance of Bitcoin in Canada, and the implications therein. As historical as this moment is, the best aspect of this story has to be the person who ran the FB promo for their “Bitcoin Bucket”. Their comment was hilarious to people in the know about crypto trading. You can view the original post here,  as well as the Coindesk.com article Scott reads from here.   Finally, Adam spearheads one of our best philosophy segments yet. We discuss the pros and cons of using self-driving cars. There are some surprisingly thoughtful points he brings to the table, and the ethical dilemmas surrounding turning control of our transport over to machines, generate some really good conversation.    Alright, guys, we appreciate you listening, and please look out for the next edition of The Ancap Barber Shop. Worms!
Source: The AnCap Barbershop – KFC and Self Driving Cars – ABS034

Ep. 27 – Mike Cernovich And Stefan Molyneux – A Night For Freedom

itunes pic

Jeff and Tony are joined by Cousin Rob once again to discuss the “Night For Freedom” event held in NYC on January 20, 2018.  Of course, Antifa showed up to protest.  But that wasn’t all.

Chelsea Manning, infamous whistle-blower and candidate for US Senate, also crashed the party.

What was supposed to be a very tame night of fun socializing of freedom-loving individuals ended up getting a little out of hand.

Recorded 1/21/18 – Show Links Below:

See Website version here: https://www/DontWasteYourHate.com/27

Check out the last time we talked about the Alt-Right and Charlottesville here: https://www.DontWasteYourHate.com/7

Stefan Molyneux Speech – A Night For Freedom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk8fi9uQsU0

A Night For Freedom: https://youtu.be/-1R3GQV8xvw

The Political Spectrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

State Of The Libertarian Union Talk Show[2]: https://youtu.be/MF62ZMKJgrE

Check out Rob ‘s RBV Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK8VQ8hnT1uRb0MVWRAsDCg


Source: Don’t Waste Your Hate Podcast – Ep. 27 – Mike Cernovich And Stefan Molyneux – A Night For Freedom

State of the Libertarian Union Talk Show [2] January

In the second installment of the State of the Libertarian Union Talk Show, the gang first shares what they’ve currently been working on. Then, we explore a wide range of topics!

For more of these shows, be sure to subscribe directly to the Libertarian Union’s own YouTube Channel

This show features the following members:

Tony and Jeff of Don’t Waste Your Hate

Patrick MacFarlane of the Liberty Weekly Podcast

Daniel Elwood and Robert Johnson of the Actual Anarchy Podcast

Look for future episodes of this monthly roundtable discussion format, recorded on the last Sunday of each month.

Please check out all of the providers at Libertarian Union

The post State of the Libertarian Union Talk Show [2] January appeared first on Liberty Weekly.

Source: Liberty Weekly – State of the Libertarian Union Talk Show [2] January

FPF #149 – State of the Union with Will Porter

Will Porter returns to Foreign Policy Focus to respond to Trump’s SOTU. Trump hit on several foreign policy issues including ISIS, Iran, North Korea, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan. Will and Kyle debunk myths, explain how Trump gets it wrong, and analyze his proposed foreign policy.

Links to past shows

The Rise and Fall of ISIS 

Trump’s Afghan Policy

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #149 – State of the Union with Will Porter

Understanding the Iran Protests Ep. 53

Iranian-Australian Shaheen makes a triumphant return to the show! Shaheen was in Iran visiting family during the protests that occurred over the new year. To help with the interview, I enlisted the help of Kyle Anzalone to ask just the right questions. We hope you enjoy this unique insider-look at what happened and how Iranians feel about the United States and the Islamic government of Iran.

Follow Shaheen on Twitter!


The Dumpster Fire of Australian Progressivism Ep. 35

Shaheen’s Columns at Actual Anarchy

Follow Foreign Policy Focus!

The Foreign Policy Focus Podcast

Kyle’s Fyles Blog

Foreign Policy Focus at the Libertarian Institute

Turkey Invades Syria in Pursuit of Syrian Kurds Ep. 51

Come see me speak at Agora Symposium Feb. 24th!

My appearance on Free Man Beyond the Wall with Mance Rayder

Episode 53 of the Liberty Weekly Podcast is brought to you by:

The Liberty Weekly Amazon Affiliate Link

Our Nord VPN Affiliate Link

Our new Murray Rothbard “Enemy of the State” polygon line of merchandise! 15% OFF w/ Promo code: ROTHBARD

Our Liberty Classroom Affiliate Link

The Liberty Weekly Patreon Page: help support the show and gain access to tons of bonus content! Become a patron today!

Become a Patron!

The post Understanding the Iran Protests Ep. 53 appeared first on Liberty Weekly.

Source: Liberty Weekly – Understanding the Iran Protests Ep. 53

Puritans, part 3: A progressive unfolding

Social activist Julia Ward wrote “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” in 1861, the same year that Henry Timrod composed his “Ethnogenesis” (the poem which kicked off part 2 of this series). In it, she penned that God will use His “terrible swift sword” to bring judgment upon “condemners” and “crush the serpent with his heel.” The wicked this New Yorker wanted to vanquish was, of course, the Southern people.

Howe, the daughter of a Wall Street Banker and Calvinist-turned-Unitarian, saw the Northern cause as a holy war – the Yankees’ manifest destiny – and the Union as the army of God, whose cannons rained hellfire upon a peaceful people. Or God’s “fiery gospel writ in rows of burnished steel,” as Howe liked to call these weapons of conquest. “Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!” so goes the refrain.

Howe typifies the New England crusader mindset – a self-aggrandizing moral superiority that historian Clyde Wilson terms the Treasury of Counterfeit Virtue: “a kind of plenary indulgence that automatically pre-justifies the motives of American violence and the goodness inherent in America’s acts to force the world into conformity with its ideal version of itself.” You know, progress.

She also represents the consequence of what cultural historian Richard Webster called “secular monasticism,” in which “every Puritan could become his own abbot, regulate his own day, weigh his own sins inside the dark cell of his own conscience and there prescribe and inflict the penance which he deemed just.” Puritans were the predestined elect, so why not?

It was this “rational soul” of the Puritans and their secular descendants that was the absolute sovereign, not the Lord. It required a “spiritual police force no less cruel than Calvin’s at Geneva,” where (under his theocratic rule in the 1540s) 150 dissidents were burned alive on slow-burning pyres of green wood in an effort to promulgate adherence to the theologian’s cleansed religion by civil means.

It was precisely Puritanism’s rigid totalitarianism, rational asceticism, and adherence to a fluid theology (as described in part 1) that made it a breeding ground for the progressive ethos. Eventually gone were the Jesus followers, but what remained were rootless, majoritarian radicals, who aimed to “fortify the government of their own reason.”

Their vehement opposition to Scriptural traditions and Church heritage, and emphasis on personal interpretation made Puritanism intrinsically schism-prone. With each re-creation came gaping theological holes to be filled with differing ideologies, until God and Biblical justice were altogether abandoned for “social justice.”

Even when Calvinist-borne Congregationalism became the official state religion of Massachusetts, it still couldn’t stop the constant splintering and “the spreading of the contagion of corrupt opinions,” as colonist Rev. Thomas Shepard described it. After all, change had always been at the heart of the Puritan ethic.

Yet, the core dogma of forging heaven on earth, a new Zion, held fast. It was simply passed from the hands of Christian Hebraist fathers to its puritanical atheist sons. No longer necessary were parishes or pastors or even God. Statism became the new church and the zealotry of its members was/is stronger than ever.

People would eventually become trained in the habits of obedience to the religion of secular Puritanism, if beaten down enough through law, regulation, invasion, war, and reconstruction. Why recognize the reality of original sin and live your life in humble accordance when there is forced sanctification of the here and now?

That’s the faith of the progressive Puritan. Presentist. Moralistic. Hubristic. Perfectible. Activist. Ideological. Reform minded. Reinventing and forward thinking. “His truth is marching on.”

So, how else did this puritanical polity begin to unfold? Let’s pick up where my last two blogs left off.

The Enlightenment

By the 18th century, the Enlightenment was taking root on both sides of the Atlantic with its core belief that human reason was sufficient for all earthly good. From that sprang the theoretical idea of “equality.”

And not the Golden-Rule kind of concept of understanding that all men are made in the image of God and, thus, have dignity and worth, no matter his station in life or his unique differences. But rather the subversive kind of equality that wants to eradicate the true human diversity. In other words, egalitarianism.

This social philosophy presupposes that people aren’t distinct, none having his own talents and desires. What is paramount is the common, the greater good, no matter the cost.

Although some positives were born out of the Enlightenment, it also fostered vapid humanism over beautiful individualism. Ego over faith. Present over past. Man over God. Worldly over eternal. Voltaire over Jesus.

And depending on where and when it took hold, it could result in liberty (the American Revolution with Jeffersonianism) or mob rule (the French Revolution with Robespierre and the Reign of Terror … and, of course, modern-day America with cultural Marxism).

The Age of Enlightenment also doubled-down on the Puritan notion of newness. As Thomas Paine’s influential pamphlet “Common Sense” stated, “We have it in our power to begin the world again.”

The Great Awakenings

From the 1730s-1750s, the First Great Awakening took place both in the colonies and in England. The revivalists, such as Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards, countered the religion-is-dead notions of the Enlightenment and tried to unite pastors from different Protestant denominations.

The traveling missionaries spread the Gospel through dramatic sermons at large outdoor gatherings. The revivals were often received by hyper-emotional attendees and resulted in mass conversions.

The Second Great Awakening spanned the 1790s-1840s in the newly formed United States. This reprise gave rise to Christian social activism, most specifically the abolition, temperance, suffrage, and public education movements, and also pinpointed evangelizing efforts to settlers moving West.

Though religious fervor abated, these Awakenings and their fire-and-brimstone revivalist preachers like Charles Finney had a lasting impact on America through not only their establishment of colleges and seminaries, but also their emphasis on democratization and social reform. The progressive hive-mind was spreading.

Differences & independence

As spelled out earlier in the series, the vast differences between North and South had existed from the very beginning. Cultural, religious, economic, and political.

Southerners were conservative, wanting to uphold social patterns of culture and heritage, not knock them down. Distrustful of democracy, they were agrarian, poor farmers, landed gentry, rural folk, indentured servants, ladies and gentleman, entrepreneurs, soldiers, and even clannish refugees.

Northerners were ideologues, wanting to repudiate tradition, not preserve it. Corporate and majoritarian, they were commercial, industrial, urban folk, mercantilists, bankers, peddlers of easy money, seafarers, reformers, and conquerors and savers of the unwashed masses.

While the colonies were under British rule, these disparities really didn’t cause much of a fuss. But once the sections joined forces to secede from England, create a republic, and govern it first under the highly decentralized Articles of Confederation and then the more consolidated U.S. Constitution, hostilities grew.

During the Revolutionary War, Southerners fought not to obtain the “abstract universal rights” of equality, the general will, and progress (as did many New Englanders), but rather to resist King George’s “disrespect” toward the colonies. They wanted to defend their rights as Englishmen: Common Law, property rights, and prosperity through self-determination.

Constitutional crises

Centralization was key for New England, whereas decentralization was fundamental for Southerners. This was keenly typified by the Virginia representatives at the Constitutional debates.

Patrick Henry questioned the authority of the Philadelphia Convention to presume to speak for ‘We, the people’ instead of ‘We, the states,’” explains historian William J. Watkins, Jr. “In his view, delegates should have only recommended amendments to the Articles of Confederation.”

And it was George Mason who insisted on the Constitution having enumerated powers and negative liberties. This catalyzed the creation of the “Bill of Rights,” which James Madison wrote based upon Mason’s “Declaration of Rights” for Virginia from 1776.

“Mason countered that a national, consolidated government would overburden Virginians with direct taxes in addition to state taxes, and that government of an extensive territory must necessarily destroy liberty,” Watkins adds. Thus, he was one of only three Constitutionals delegates who refused to sign the document.

“… He wanted a clear line between the jurisdictions of the federal and state governments, including the judiciary, because he feared the shared powers would lead to ‘the destruction of one or the other.’” Prescient.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson respectively) are further proof of this decentralist Southern position, which today proponents call “original intent” and opponents call the “Lost Cause.”

American “Exceptionalism”

In “The Pilgrim’s Progress,” Puritan preacher John Bunyan wrote, “The way to the Celestial City, lies just through this town, where the lusty fair is kept; and he that will go to the City, and yet not go through this town, must needs go out of the world.”

The literary classic speaks of spreading the message of Puritanism beyond the borders of Massachusetts. Granted, Christians are called to be fishers of men, sharing the Good News with humanity. But what the Puritans ended up spreading was progressivism. Change we can believe in.

“It has been our (America’s) fate not to have an ideology, but to be one.”
— Historian Richard Hofstadter

That is what America has become. She is the ideology. Always new. Always purifying. Always growing. Manifest Destiny. “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” admitted Barack Obama, October 30, 2008. Progress and predestination now and then.

The artwork symbolizing this creed (pictured at the top of the blog) is called “American Progress.” Like a oil-painted Julie Howe, the angelic female Progress is adorned with “the star of empire” on her forehead as she readies and leads us toward an era of modernity, democratic advancement, and westward expansion all the way to the Pacific.

This rallying cry was underpinned by the idea of divine providence: that God endowed America’s exceptionalism and, by virtue, her growing dominion. So by the 1820s, many Puritan inheritors had become moral crusaders in the burgeoning territories.

Steeped in the Puritan ethic – a works-based path to salvation that played down the tent of original sin – these reformers sought to civilize the Indians and the Catholic immigrants settling the frontier, readying themselves for their eventual taming of that uncouth creature known as Johnny Reb.

Some Southerners succumb

Interestingly, “it was Southerners who embraced the great national wars against Great Britain in 1812 and Mexico in the 1840s … (and) the concepts of national greatness and manifest destiny,” explains historian John Devanny.

In fact, it was Virginia-born James Monroe who purchased Spanish Florida. He also gave us the influential Monroe Doctrine – a policy that put European powers in check. It not only isolated the U.S. from their sphere of influence, but the doctrine also enabled the U.S. to follow its own ambitions in all the Americas sans Old World competition.

It was Thomas Jefferson who made the Louisiana Purchase from France, doing so for unencumbered trade access to the Mississippi, but still doubling the size of the U.S. It was Virginian John Tyler who pushed for and signed a bill annexing Texas, permitting its statehood.

It was North Carolina-born and Tennessee-raised James K. Polk, who secured the Oregon Territory from Britain. He also acquired California and much of the Southwest through the Mexican-American War.

And it was Virginia-born Henry Clay, known as the “Great Compromiser,” who made a name for himself as a Kentucky politician by promoting the “American System” – a high-tax, pro-national bank, pro-central authority, nationalistic philosophy. In other words, Hamiltonianism.

There were notable exceptions, like John C. Calhoun, John Randolph of Roanoke, John Taylor of Caroline, and Jefferson before and after his presidency. But still, many influential Southerners seemed to have temporarily succumbed to the progressive mentality.

But all that changed with the election of 1860. It was the tipping point that gave “Dixie a ‘national consciousness,’” as Devanny describes it, snapping the duped Southern statesman out of his malaise and rekindling in him his localist and limited-government heritage.

Please check out the fourth in the series, “Yankee sanctification,” which will unpack the tipping point known as the “Civil War.”

Source: Dissident Mama – Puritans, part 3: A progressive unfolding

On Libertarianism and Statecraft: Introduction

By Insula Qui Libertarianism and Neoreaction The political theory of neoreaction is largely built on the concepts of formalism and neocameralism, and is concerned with competent statecraft. Libertarians often have no answer to the question of statecraft, as libertarians tend to reject statecraft on a conceptual level as well as a practical level. Libertarians view the state as either an agency that ought to only provide security and dispute resolution or a criminal organization that has monopolized a territory. This frequently leads to a confusion between state and statecraft which keeps libertarians from responding properly to neoreactionary arguments. Neoreaction posits that in order to restore a proper political order, those who are able to become worthy should do so, accept power, and rule. A system of absolute monarchic governance spread across a competing patchwork of states could create effective government, or at least more effective government than modern nation-states under liberal democracy. The highest degree of corporate governance may seem harsh and dystopian, but the theoretical arguments remain solid. The system of hierarchy coupled with participation and profit serves the neoreactionary philosophy well. But it would be a great folly to simply absorb neoreactionary theory, as all good libertarians ought to reject corporations as they currently exist and states of all forms. The Propertarians Although an extremely niche perspective, the greatest current intellectual challenger to traditional libertarianism is the system of propertarianism. While the movement has problems with communication, it has produced some worthwhile challenges to libertarian assumptions. The propertarians assert that answering these questions requires getting rid of the non-aggression principle and much of traditional libertarian thought. Historical libertarian societies have been either environmentally protected against invasion or insignificant enough to avoid invasion. There has never been a libertarian society that had to fully provide its own defense when it entered into competition with larger states. To simply assume that military defense, domestic security, and law courts will be fully funded and properly respected in a libertarian social order is somewhat naïve. Proposals for all of these have been made, but there is no guarantee as of yet that any of them are correct. Furthermore, untrusting people without wide systems of reciprocity cannot form a society that is able to compete with other societies. Thus, if libertarians lack an answer to creating trust and reciprocity, then they will lack the ability to defend a libertarian social order once it is created. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com

The post On Libertarianism and Statecraft: Introduction appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – On Libertarianism and Statecraft: Introduction

FPF #148 – The Myth of Iranian Influence

On FPF #148, I start with updates on Operation Olive Branch and Afghanistan. Turkey continues to threaten the US and allied Kurdish forces in Syria. In Afghanistan, a Taliban suicide bombing has killed over 100. I break down an interview of retired Admiral General James Stavridies by MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle. In the interview, Stavaidies presents the myth that Iran is dangerously expanding its influence in the Middle East. I explain how it was the actions of the US, Israel, and the Gulf States that is causing Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq to look to Iran. 

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #148 – The Myth of Iranian Influence

Appearance: Actual Anarchy (1/27/2018)

I joined the fine folks at Actual Anarchy again for another podcast episode — this time about Ghost in the Shell. Keep in mind that this was a much longer conversation that was edited down. Some of the content was also rearranged. I haven’t listened to the whole thing, but I trust that the edits are favorable to me.

The post Appearance: Actual Anarchy (1/27/2018) appeared first on LJC.IO.

Source: Liam Cardenas – Appearance: Actual Anarchy (1/27/2018)

Troll Attacks Sarah Silverman On Twitter, And Her Unexpected Response Turns Man’s Life Upside Down


Tom Woods Liberty Classroom

I’m no fan of Sarah Silverman (politically) and tend to think her humor as a standup comedian relies too heavily on being blunt and crass.  But when people do great things, you encourage it and spread that message.

Someone on Twitter responded to her in a way that was crude and, unfortunately, too expected these days on social media.


Instead of blocking the guy or retorting with some online snark along the lines of “Nice Twitter Account you have there, must be nice to have 14 followers” or “Typical White cis-male response, yo!”, Silverman looked into the guys timeline and responded with empathy.  The back and forth looks like this:
















Side note: I’m from San Antonio and San Antonio is AWESOME.

I know it’s hard on social media.  If you’ve ever read the book Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator then you understand how dangerously rampant humanity is to default to a snarky, dismissive comment.

This is how we should treat each other, just like this.

Almost makes me forget the time Sarah Silverman called for amilitary coup to overthrow Trump.  She apologized though.


View RSS feed


Enter your email address for Liberty Articles sent DIRECT to your inbox!

Source: Liberty LOL – Troll Attacks Sarah Silverman On Twitter, And Her Unexpected Response Turns Man’s Life Upside Down