We’re about to get crazy with the cheeze-wiz. Where is the curvature? This old-world idea has been resurrected in recent years, even some NBA players had made claims to it…that the Earth is flat.

In libertarian circles, it has been one more useful tool in the process of weeding out FB friends.

Flat Earthers, a term synonymous with conspiracy theorists who wear tinfoil hats. Meet real Flat Earthers, a small but growing contingent of people who firmly believe in a conspiracy to suppress the truth that the Earth is flat. One of the most prominent Flat Earthers is Mark Sargent who, in the midst of the upcoming Solar Eclipse, proudly speaks at the first Flat Earther conference.

It starts on South Whidbey Island…which is known to be a concentration of kooks. Even had a commune out there, appropriately called “Freeland”.

The flat-earthers feel like they are the correct and they are a marginalized group on the edge of science that follows the Gandhi “first they laugh at you.”

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:  http://www.actualanarchy.com/patreon

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

Google Description

Behind the Curve

DescriptionThe internet has revived the conspiracy theory that the earth is flat, and America’s flat-Earth movement appears to be growing despite hundreds of years’ of scientific evidence disproving the idea.

If you’re in the market for web-hosting (and if you aren’t doing things online to create content or products, we highly suggest it), you can’t go wrong with selecting Blue Host as your providers. We’ll give you a shout-out, backlink, and undying gratitude if you buy your hosting through our link below:

Check out our affiliate link at: https://www.actualanarchy.com/blue

I’ll be back-filling some show notes here once I get caught up on a few other projects. In the meantime, enjoy the show!

Join us next week as we continue our series on flat-earth for our episode on “The Truman Show” with returning guest, Olof the Anarcho-Viking.

Behold the new show artwork with the space theme for the Last Nighters:

You can find the website for the Last Nighters at: www.LastNighters.com

You can find Last Nighters Podcast feed on iTunes here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-last-nighters/id1384886334

And also at Anchor.FM where you can even leave us messages of up to one-minute long that we can plug into the show, and respond to. Give it a try and we’ll see how it works together!

Check out our Patreon page to become a supporting listener and get access to this full recording and the other dozens of shows available: www.patreon.com/ReadRothbard

Check out Robert’s “Trubbster” designs on the Tee Public:

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day….

Here is the link for the Mises Quotes page on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/MisesQuote/

And here is the Black and [Dot] Gold link chronicling my efforts at being an Entrepreneurial AnCap to earn multiple income streams independent of location:

Black and [Dot} Gold Facebook page

Here is how to get access to the Rothbard Repository:

http://repository.readrothbard.com/

Having an argument on Facebook about economics?

Is someone bashing Uber in favor of the taxi industry?

Which lecture(s) was it where Rothbard discussed taxi medallions and price controls in the taxi industry?

It can be hard to remember.

The Rothbard Repository is a keyword searchable database of Murray Rothbard lectures.

You can quickly find what you are looking for.
This tool will help you find the exact timestamp of when Rothbard talks about a specific topic you searched.

---

Purchase of Liberty Classroom by Tom Woods on our affiliate link (We also include a free basic membership to Readitfor.me).

Support us on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/readrothbard

Get your web hosting via our Bluehost affiliate link, and we will also give you a mention on our show and backlink on our website.

Thank you for joining us on this episode of the Actual Anarchy Podcast!

The Actual Anarchy Podcast is all about Maximum Freedom.

Robert and I analyze popular movies from a Rothbardian/Anarcho-Capitalist perspective. If it’s voluntary, we’re cool with it. If it’s not, then it violated the Non-Aggression Principle and Property Rights – the core tenants of Libertarian Theory – and hence – human freedom.

We use movies as a starting point for people who may not be familiar with this way of thinking. Discussion of the plot and decisions that characters make in relation to morality and violations of the non-aggression principle are our bread and butter.

We also will highlight and discuss any themes or lessons from Austrian Economics that we can glean from the film.

The point is to show what anarchy actually is with instances that are presented in film.

We publish new episodes on Sunday just in time for your Monday commute; and occasionally will do specials surrounding holidays or events (elections/olympics).

For our show where we talk about movies from a Rothbardian/Anarcho-Capitalist perspective, we often watch them on our various devices via Netflix, Amazon Prime or on VUDU (which lets you redeem UV content as well). The VUDU one is nice because once it is in there, you know it will still be there a few months later:

ABOUT

Actual Anarchy, an anarchy unlike what the average idiot thinks it would be. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. The non-aggression principle and a respect of property rights are what makes it go.

We host a podcast where we take pop culture movies and showcase moments or scenes or themes throughout that are literally actual examples of anarchy.

Any place, around the world, there are always examples of Actual Anarchy all about you. Sometimes you just have to sit back and take a look. It’s easy once they’ve been pointed out a few times.

Actual Anarchy is real world examples of anarchy in action.

Movies, Shows, Books, News, etc… we host all sorts of content on the site from a bevy of writers enthusiastic for one goal: human freedom

Read Rothbard – Become an Actual Anarchist

PRESENTED BY

Read Rothbard is comprised of a small group of voluntaryists who are fans of Murray N. Rothbard. We curate content at www.ActualAnarchy.com and on the www.ReadRothbard.com site including books, lectures, articles, speeches, and we make a weekly podcast based on his free-market approach to economics. Our focus is on education and how advancement in technology improves the living standards of the average person.

Hit us up on our Tip Jar page to see all the myriad was you can support the show and the site: www.actualanarchy.com/tipjar

Also, be sure to give us your likes, comments, shares, ratings, reviews, and other feedbacks!

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day….

The post Episode 122 – Behind the Curve (1:07:54) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Amazon Affiliate Link: http://www.readrothbard.com/12rules

Jordan Peterson has burst onto the stage in recent years with an amazing combination of intellect and personality that is taking the world by storm. He is making a difference in many peoples’ lives and is the hottest thing going. He just recently released his new book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” and is gaining even further traction in making the world a better place.

I’m reading his book now.  Most of it is great so far.  There are a few areas that are soft.  And yes, I realize that he’s not an economist but there are a couple of glaring issues that if he better understood, he would be even more effective at helping people.

He claims “ideology” is bad and “anything that claims to have the answers” is bad. I would agree in 99.9% of cases, but clearly, the man hasn’t read Mises, Rothbard, Higgs, Woods, Block, or Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

So To Speak – The Misunderstood and Misrepresented Thought of Hans-Hermann Hoppe

He mentions a “Social Contract”, but in relationships, so I’m not sure if it is more a euphemism as opposed to the “social contract theory” employed by statists everywhere.

I do like that he reviles communism and questions why the seemingly “good intentions” result in murdering 100 million people. He also has researched mythology and stories to inform his understanding of society over time. I think this is beneficial.

He fears war in the technological age as the capacity to destroy the world is on the table. If he read some Higgs on this point, I think he would understand that it is primarily under a state that such destructive power can be amassed.

The State Is Too Dangerous to Tolerate

Perhaps Chaos Theory would be good here.

If I had my magic wand, I would get JP to engage with thin libertarianism a la Block’s question: “when is the initiation of force legitimate?”.

The Principle of Unequal Distribution:

“When a defeated lobster regains its courage and dares to fight again it is more likely to lose again than you would predict, statistically, from a tally of its previous fights. Its victorious opponent, on the other hand, is more likely to win. It’s winner-take-all in the lobster world, just as it is in human societies, where the top 1 percent have as much loot as the bottom 50 percent – and where the richest eighty-five people have as much as the bottom three and a half billion.

That same brutal principle applies outside the financial domain – indeed, anywhere that creative production is required.”

He brought up the wealth inequality that we all are familiar with from OxFam, and likened it to “winner-take-all” of the lobster hierarchy. Cringe.

JP making mention of it denotes a misunderstanding on economics as it is not zero-sum.

He gets into Pareto after this. Where he then states:

“…it appears true for every society studied, regardless of governmental form.”

Hmmmm…..Going to have to disagree there. I have a post about this that is based on a Mises quote, but clearly how much intervention and theft applied to citizens of a country will have an effect on their overall standard of living and the distribution of the “wealth”.

Here’s my screed against the “it doesn’t matter what type of government” is in place in regards to poverty:

‘The poverty of the backward nations is due to the fact that their policies of expropriation, discriminatory taxation and foreign exchange control prevent the investment of foreign capital while their domestic policies preclude the accumulation of indigenous capital.’

– Ludwig von Mises

http://store.mises.org/Anti-Capitalistic-Mentality-The-P45.aspx

It is precisely the type of government (or lack thereof) that determines the level to which voluntary interactions are interfered with and how much is stolen from the people living in its boundaries.

Much of Africa had post-colonial leaders that were trained in Western Universities in the “arts” of Keynesianism and socialism.

They brought these ideas back to their countries and became “benevolent dictators”. These policies have continued with the graft and grinding poverty unabated while they use foreign aid to enrich themselves with the 3 M’s: Mercedes, Monuments, and Machine Guns.

For the empiricists among viewers of this post, do check out the Heritage Foundation “Economic Freedom Index” where you will see a case of correlation and causation working in concert.

https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/2018-index-economic-freedom-freedom-trade-key-prosperity

This is an excellent discussion by Ralph Raico on what has saved humanity in general from the “nasty, brutish and short” life.

https://mises.org/library/industrial-revolution

I also want to throw in a comment about Child Labor laws (not that this has anything to do with Peterson’s book):  Unions and government often take the credit for an already happening trend that was a result of capital investment and increases in productivity.

Where there are still “sweat shops”, one must understand that eternal economic question: “compared to what?”

What other alternatives exist?  Is a sweat shop better than those?

Often the alternative is not playing in the park, or going to school. It is prostitution or starvation.

So, credit taken where none due. And it is used to the aggrandizement of institutions counter to voluntary arrangements. The state and the collective know better than you. And it’s such a great idea, they have to use force to impose their benevolence.

https://mises.org/library/trouble-child-labor-laws

But, back to Peterson and his book, I find it difficult to read a book where I am fairly sure the author isn’t strong in an area and then uses this as a premise for the rest of their argument.

It’s just hard to see such a brilliant guy wrong on a foundational component that makes a big difference in what he is arguing.

Granted, he’s way smarter than me.

His solution of individual responsibility and sorting yourself out first are still great advice.

I am learning a lot from him and I think he is an important voice. He’s so hot right now that I wish he was hot for freedom from the state as well.

One more point I wanted to make:

Peterson “almost” lays out Misesian Human Action as purposeful human behavior (having trouble finding this part again…but it was really good).

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Sort Yourself Out – Part Way Through Jordan Peterson’s Book appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

Liberty Classroom is one of the largest and most expertly researched and written collections of audio and video lessons and lectures on libertarian ideas and free-market economics available anywhere in the world today.

The vast library of audio and video classes includes 30 lectures on conservatism and libertarianism … 59 lectures on the history of political thought … 31 lectures on what’s wrong with textbook economics 20 lectures on logic … and much more – hundreds in all.

And your instructors are some of the top libertarian authors and college professors in the country – including economist Robert P. Murphy, James Madison biographer Kevin Gutzman, and Hillside College historian Brad Birzer.

Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.

Liberty Classroom: the premiere online “university” of libertarian thought that you can “attend” while sitting at your PC or driving in your car.

Any Liberty Classroom purchase on our affiliate link will also qualify you for a bonus:

A free Readitfor.me Lite Membership (audio and text summaries from our personal development category), which is regularly $89.99/year.) [See more about this service at: https://readitfor.me/]

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

Got questions about what you’re learning? Get them answered in the discussion forums.

If you’re cornered and don’t know how to answer a socialist argument you’ve never heard before? Then ask our faculty for the answer directly – either in the Q&A forums, available at all times, or in one of the monthly live sessions, in which the faculty appear on your screen and take your question in real time.

Plus monthly live sessions, recommended readings, optional quizzes, and, coming soon, even more courses.

A perfect addition to
your homeschool curriculum!

Membership privileges are not restricted to you alone.

Liberty Classroom can give your children a head start in understanding the principles and politics of freedom and free enterprise – and teach them things they won’t learn in high school or college.

Including:

…Why Murray Rothbard says every government service should be privatized like all other goods and free-market analysis applied across the board

.…Ludwig von Mises on why recessions aren’t just causeless, spontaneous occurrences and are not the result of so-called “contradictions of capitalism.” They’re caused by tinkering with the free market, and particularly by pushing interest rates lower than the market wants to set them – like they are right now

.…Why Frederic Bastiat believes the market economy is a place of harmony, not struggle or conflict, and that in a free market, people specialize in that area in which they are best able to serve others.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Liberty Classroom by Tom Woods appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

My 5 year old is smart. As her dad of course I say she’s smart. But, she is. She can visualize a lego toy in her head based on the picture and follow the directions perfectly. She’s has the ability to see completed that which is apart. That’s smart. Or something.

This same child does not have a sense of fluid dynamics or inertia. When she pushes the milk glass with the force at the top, it spills. I point out that she should push from the base and I am rejoined with a stern “I know!”

She has a cute habit of mispronouncing multi-syllable words. Interesting becomes in-stres-ting. It’s very cute and all too soon it will go away. She corrects us when, on the rare occasion we wish to remove these cute bits, that she knows she is right, that this word or that is pronounced as she has demonstrated.

She knows. For her it is true.

True. The hunter’s arrow flew true to the heart of the elk. The scorpion was true to its nature and stung the hiker. Her true love surprised her with a marriage proposal. We say these things are true and think little more about the word. What of true things which cannot be observed? Metaphysicians wrestle with big ideas and truth is a big idea. In Natural History of Intellect, Emerson writes that a student “must find what truth is.”[1]

How do we do this?

The institutions of higher learning, colleges and universities, which were long thought, and hoped, to be champions of higher thinking are not that today. In reading Emerson, I found his sharp wit castigating the highly esteemed learned elite as being too full of themselves, possessing too much conceit. “Each savant proves in his admirable discourse that he, and he only, knows now or ever did know anything on the subject.”[2] The problem of whom to trust for learning is maybe as old as teaching itself, so what hope have we who seek not indoctrination but truth? And, yet, how will we know it when we see it?

Philosophers would suggest truth is a belief which is consistent with other beliefs a person holds. Okay, but what if all the beliefs that person holds are false? Does the uniformity of ersatz make true that which would always be called wrong? Are these wrong ideas which remain consistent within the thinking of the person enough to make them true? Is each his own arbiter of truth? Can we then have a variety of truths and each remain as valid as the next even if they are discordant to another?

My daughter, who as far as I know, isn’t color blind, insists purple is pink and orange is yellow. She has a habit of demanding to be right and if you have ever heard a 5 year-old tantrum about being wrong, you would do as I do and grant her her stance. It costs me nothing to go along and I gain further conversation with her about whatever comes next. I gain more than I lose and such quirks will be worked out in time. But, what of the person who is colorblind? Is a red apple now not a red apple? Does the calling it else wise change its character? Is the apple juicy? Well, compared to what and does that comparison make a difference in the truth that this apple is juicy, even if not a juicy as one last week?

Much discussion is had among both economic literate and illiterate crowds about just what the economy is, what it needs, what will make it better and how to get all that done. The allegiance to a faction amongst those in the debate are as polarized as the factions around the Founding Fathers.

Of late I have become acquainted with the group of economists known as the Austrian School. My sense of history is muddled for there is no shortage of persons involved, but as I read it, Ludwig von Mises is the primary thinker of this school without walls. A school of thought. Most notable with Mises is Murray Rothbard. Between the two a canon exists which defines and directs the discipline of Austrian economics.

A key and important distinction between Austrian economics and all else is a study called Praxeology. Praxeology is the study of human action. It is, in a sense, a study of what is true to that person. What is true to, or of, one may not be true to another, but in each a truth exists. The apple vendor may sell an apple to one person but not another. The second person chose not to buy the apple and that choice, the behavior, was an action which praxeology considers. Why and how do people act?

Emerson was considering human action from the metaphysical position. “Metaphysics must be perpetually reinforced by life; must be the observations of a working man on working men; must be biography,–the record of some law whose working was surprised by the observer in natural action.”[3] The study of ideas is metaphysics. It seems a short hop then to study the choices people make based on the ideas they have. Of course, that can be parsed into a variety of fields, which it has. Extending peoples’ choices into how an economy works and using that as a key component to assess that economy seems the only unique position in economics in some long while.

Few of us were not exposed, albeit unwittingly, to economics of a different name. We look about and see that massive debt and politicians self-identifying with discordant positions cause confusion between them and us and almost total apathy at our too slow way to correct the issue with a vote.

Inigo Montoya, the sword fighting character played by Mandy Patinkin in The Princess Bride, said when things go bad, “go back to the beginning.” The beginning is simple voluntary exchange. I give you this in exchange for that. Easy peasy. We both agree that the exchange was value for value regardless anyone else’s views. For us, that was true.

The true thing remains elusive. True things can be hidden away behind dazzle and baffle, the slick tongue of the snake oil salesman, but yet, the true thing remains to be ferretted out. The trick is how to do that.

Emerson was a man of deep faith. We, I think as a group, are less so. I am unqualified to opine about the merits of faith being one who is still working that out (it occurs to me that that alone makes me eminently qualified, but I shall pass on that for another day). For Emerson, the true thing of man was discernable, was knowable. The true thing, and true think, might have been of Divine origin, but it was the task of man to sort that out. “Right thought comes spontaneously, comes like the morning wind; comes daily, like our daily bread, to humble service; comes duly to those who look for it.”[4] He sounds a bit like Dumbledore.

The burden to find the true thing is on the seeker. Emerson’s point, couched in his faith, is the true thing will let you know when you have found it. His suggestion, and I think it’s right, is you, we, know the true thing due to a sense, an intuition, that it is true.

Mises and Rothbard worked to convey the true thing in the study and explanation of human action. I’m working my way through an overwhelming canon of work a bit at a time, but find that the basics of praxeology fit.

The true thing is we act. We act to satisfy a want or a need and sometimes that want or need is to do a nice thing for another. Generosity is a true thing. Voluntarily giving is a good thing, and true things are good things.

[1] Emerson, Ralph Waldo, Natural History of Intellect, 1995 Solar Press, pg 6

[2] Emerson, Ralph Waldo, History of Natural Intellect, 1995 Solar Press, pg 8

[3] Emerson, Ralph Waldo, Natural History of Intellect, 1995 Solar Press, pg 13

[4] Emerson, Ralph Waldo, Natural History of Intellect, 1995 Solar Press, pg 33

Dann Reid writes the blog culinary libertarian.com. He has dipped his toes into the pool of libertarianism and found it welcoming. He thinks about lots of things, and, actually might over think them.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post It’s True, I Swear appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

By Anarcho-Viking

Trouble with the thought police

In 2004 during a lecture on money and banking, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe provided an example of how the concept of time-preference plays a major role in the economy, local as well as global. The illustration given by Prof. Hoppe became a national controversy, and was used by the left-wing opinion molders in an attempt to hound the Austro-anarcho-capitalist academic out of polite society, and to consequently destroy his career. The case presented by Hoppe, and that caused the outcry, was hardly controversial at all. We will get to the actual case soon, but let us first clarify what the definition of time-preference is, and why it is such an important component as part of economic analysis.

Time-preference and the Austrian school

The level of time-preference an individual has, is measured by the degree to which that individual is willing to postpone present consumption in favor of the future, delayed gratification of greater benefits than what consumption right away would provide. A trivial, yet classic example of degree of time-preference, can be seen in the experiment of giving a child the following option: Either receiving one cookie right now, or waiting 30 minutes and receiving two cookies. The child’s present desire to consume usually trumps the willingness to await delayed gratification, and hence we conclude through praxeological deduction that children on average have a higher degree of time-preference than more mentally mature persons. The price paid by giving up present consumption in exchange for future value of a good or service must mean that the expected future psychic revenue is greater than the present psychic revenue generated by consuming instantaneously. Nobody would prefer to consume later should the act of consuming generate the same satisfaction today as it would a year from now.

The reason why the idea of time-preference is constantly stressed as crucial in the Austrian school of economics is because it drives the natural interest rate, which in turn coordinates investments and consumption over time. Since investments are an integral part of the structure of production, it is therefore essential to maintain a low degree of time-preference within the population. Lower time-preference will increase savings, lower the interest rates, and encourage investments as to increase future productivity; and finally yield a higher standard of living by sheer output capacity.

Understanding economics <> homophobia

When Prof. Hoppe was highlighting the concept of time-preference he made a comparative example between homosexuals (a group who on average have very few children), and heterosexuals (a group who on average have far more children). Hoppe’s claim is that family oriented individuals tend to be more farsighted than individuals who father no children, and thus have lower time-preference. By the same token, the converse argument is that homosexuals are less likely to have children, ceteris paribus, and hence will on average possess a more elevated rate of time-preference. We all know that there are exceptions to this generalization, and this is why Hoppe has emphasized the statistic metric “Average” in his argument. No, it simply does not follow as rational conclusion to say that, because Hoppe made reference to homosexuals for the purpose of clarifying the concept of time-preference, he must be a “homophobe”. Hoppe’s comparison is nothing more controversial than saying that Germans on average drink more beer than the French. It is furthermore relevant to point out that there must be some variation of time-preference within the population for peaceful cooperation and trade to advance between individuals. The segments of people with lower time-preference, who accumulate capital, will satisfy the needs of someone with a higher time-preference who will then be able to loan the accumulated capital in order to purchase a house or start a business. It is truly amazing how this case blew out of proportions based on misunderstandings from university administrators who obviously do not understand economics, let alone the concept of time-preference.

The deceitful strategy of the critics

Taking Hoppe’s statements out of context and make accusations is nothing new, but it is nevertheless deceiving and dishonest. And some people from within the libertarian circles, who know better, have joined the bandwagon of Hoppe haters with the hope of getting approval from the left. The most common quotation used by the attackers is the following, taken from Democracy—The God That Failed:

“There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.” 

We talked about this in the previous article about physical removal, so we will not pay attention to the above quote in this article. Instead we are going to look at another quote from Hoppe, which is also frequently manipulated in such a way that it drives ordinary people crazy:

“….there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. ……..for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” 

Understanding the truth is a matter of terminology

It would be interesting to measure the blood-pressure on a Steve Horwitz and Jeffrey Tucker as they read the above quote, and see the numbers go up on the blood pressure monitor. The statement is completely taken out of context, and it is a strategy that we are sadly familiar with these days in order to drag someone’s name through the mud. The anti Hoppe cult will post this quote and autistically screech, “Look, Hoppe is a homophobic fascist!” and then they will step away. Q.E.D. Discussion is over. Well, as it turns out, it is not game over, and we will find out when putting the quote in its entirety and its proper context where it belongs, it no longer bares any controversy. Here is the statement in its full context in which it deserves to be judged:

“Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

The bold parts of the quote are the parts that are usually omitted by those who have made it the goal to destroy Hoppe’s reputation, and who have no interest in examining in a scholarly manner what Hoppe is actually saying. The aforementioned quote, read in its entirety, is no proof of alleged “homophobia” accusations thrown around for the sole sake of defaming. Hoppe is not insinuating that there can be no tolerance against homosexuals. What he is saying, is that there can be no tolerance against people who actively promote life-styles that run contrary to the covenant. I am fairly sure that a gay-queer alliance group at a university campus expects the people who are in that alliance to be either gay or queer. Should such an alliance not be able to turn away heterosexual persons from infiltrating their established society? Of course they should. Likewise, should the Catholic Church not be allowed to excommunicate Satanists from their religious order? Or how about a nudist community expelling anyone who refuses to be a nudist? Then why is it unacceptable for a covenant, established for the purpose of family, place, and kin (“blood and soil”), to remove those who actively promote life-styles contrary to the very covenant? In addition, it ought to be noted that Hoppe does not assert that those individuals should be expelled as long as they are not actively promoting and advocating the very life-styles they are living. That position alone makes Hoppe far more tolerant than anyone of his critics on the left.

Victory against the opinion molders

If one is to going to gain all their knowledge about Hans-Hermann Hoppe via his Wikipedia page, and then launch an attack on him, perhaps they should also read the Wikipedia page for the term “Covenant”. The attackers will continue their mission, and they will be around. It is much easier to just pull out Wikipedia, or to read some blog post by some “schmoe” than it is to actually pick up a copy of one of Hoppe’s books, or listen to his extraordinary lectures and seminars. Prof. Hoppe’s work is scholarly rigorous, and it will demand some degree of intellectual curiosity to go through his writings. And as for Hoppe’s battle with the UNLV, he managed to get the ACLU of all organizations to defend him, and later on all charges against him for his suspected thought crimes, were dropped by the university administration.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Understanding Time-Preference vs Being Homophobic appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

I know many people believe that “one should join politics to do ‘greater good’ for the society” but they fail to consciously understand that politics is a profession designed to degrade, dictate and debauch the liberties of all individuals except for the establishment.

Therefore, politics is a medium to organically achieve the disastrous conclusions.

It’s the power that attracts the miscreants toward politics, otherwise, why wouldn’t you become an entrepreneur, social volunteer, educator, anarchist or an agorist to serve the economic needs, anthropological desires and empathetic expectations of the people?

I am sure that you would not join the Taliban group to “change” the theme of Islamic terrorism “from within”. Similarly, what’s so magical about ‘joining politics to change politics from within’?

In this case, the only good thing about Taliban terrorists is that:

1) they do not fund the media,

2) camouflage people’s opinion,

3) fake electionery promises,

4) lobby with cronyists and

5) deliver unaccountable GDP results.

Whereas, politicians enjoy the monopoly on terrorizing the system.

Amazon Gold Box – Deals of the Day – Today’s Deals

They say, “It is not ok if you are uninterested in politics because every function of our lives is determined by the activities of the politics”. I think this is untrue and baseless.

Every activity is, in fact, determined by freedom, reason and human action.

It’s the politics which turn things upside-down through legislations, regulatory captures, and legal robbery.

Read: Why democracy choose bad policies?

Watch: Why politicians don’t cut spending?

Anyway, good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws or constitution. To become a good person, you do not need a ruler. You need voluntary or apolitical rules. And, as long as we have the supply of politics, the world will never know peace.

Either by left way or right way, the virtual aim of the politics is to dominate, conscript, expropriate and inspect the life, liberty, and property of individuals. Debating “who is the lesser evil” is idiotic, incoherent and imbecilic. It does not matter who is in power because politics is anyway the art of strengthening the master-slave relationship. It is also the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the ‘democratic’ government at the cost of individual liberty (refer democide).

Conclusion: Imagine that you detach from legitimizing the whole saga on the voting day and become a person of humane conscience.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post You Should Not Join Politics. This is why. appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

AnarcoTopics #5 – Objectively Determining Value and The Chamber of Secrets (20:25)

Part 5 of a 9 part series on Anarcho-Capitalism.

Support our site by clicking through our Amazon link to make your purchases.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post AnarcoTopics #5 – Objectively Determining Value and The Chamber of Secrets (20:25) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Otherwise, you would have a difficult time in organising the slaves and call yourself “the government”.

To destroy your nation’s economy, you need to abhor freedom of others. If you lack this quality, you are not “mentally fit” to envy and expropriate others. All your actions can be justified by a piece of paper called “constitution”. There’s nothing to worry about, except anarchists.

Second thing, you should never learn economics. What matters is sociology because it helps us to “screech autistically” and attain the status of victimhood, followed by a biased understanding of the history subject.

By the way, if you come across any “critical thinker” or “learned person” then it is your moral duty to shun his/her opinion without using facts, but sentiments.

Anyway, the above premises are the fundamental and foundational qualities to embrace the civility of a good politician. Only Ron Paul can be a bad politician because he does not support this guide/blog. I condemn him for that.

To begin with:

Power does not corrupt. Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. It’s the limited power which corrupts the economy wholly. In fact, unlimited power is the science of getting things done without being accountable at all. Without power, you cannot choke down your imbecilic imaginations on anyone’s soul.

Money is the Kim Kardashian of the economy. If you don’t know how to spank (spend) the paper then you are unfit to be a politician. All you have to do is print the paper out of thin air. It is uneconomical to back the paper with gold or any other commodity because it would end up empowering your slaves and they would devalue you later.

Muscles: Kindly sign up with your nearby local mafia gang without letting them know that you’re the best mafia in town. Delude them but pay them handsomely. You need muscle power, along with money power, to get the people obey you decently. Call them “cops” instead?

Monopoly: Imagine people listening to you or obeying you without questioning you or regulating you? It is possible if you prioritise the power of monopoly without sharing it with others. As long as you have the monopoly with yourself, people won’t take you jokingly. Your uncontrollable attitude towards monopoly will determine the course of people’s aptitude and political altitude.

Sadism: All your political speeches should look diplomatic and manipulative. If any trait is missing then you won’t achieve the aim. I know that you are always orgasmic to screw people’s wealth but please ensure that you’re not letting them know, otherwise who would suck their liberties? Try to camouflage your opinions as if you’re the only romantic person in the economy, without letting your people know that you’re going to economically BDSM them, without their consent.

Propaganda: Buy as much as media you can, but on the mainstream level. Anyway, social media memes have limited reach. If some of the media houses don’t gibe with your ‘policy’ then over-regulate their “freedom of expression”. Automatically, the media would love to appreciate your narcism (if you can make them sleep with you over a bottle of whisky). Propaganda is an art of showing yourself clean when you’re not. Imitate the propaganda models of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or Trumperica, to begin with.

Regulation: Your chances of getting re-elected is lower if you minimise the regulations. Already people are addicted to submission, fear and violence so it makes sense for you to supply them with more laws, rules and regulations. Make the “book” more technical, biblical and draconian so that you can create more jobs and consultancy firms and the regulatory captures. If you minimise the regulations, you lose your presence  in the history of global economy.

Ideology: Don’t use “isms” at all but do translate the theory into action. For example: You can say that “we believe in democracy” (which is, of course, a mild version of communism) without letting the “social scientists” know that you’re actually doing fascism or communism. I know that you cannot “convince” the mass society all-the-time but you can surely “confuse” them with the ideologies. Develop a “public sphere” and [discursive] “marketplace of ideas” so that people fall for it, and you end up diverting them from the unimportant issues like economics freedom, property rights, judicial independence, etc.

People’s wealth is your wealth. Your wealth is your wealth only. Just don’t forget to use the term “people” in your speeches or else people won’t fall for your Ponzi schemes. The best way to get more wealth from people is to tax their every function, including non-economic ones. They would believe that you’re creating the wealth in the economy, and that’s what matters for the economy of “social security”. When it comes to taxation, always ignore knowing that it is the “compulsory fee” which we pay for the uncivilization.

War: Anything you can do constitutionally is fun. For example: You will be charged for murder if you’re not from the government. You can have more wars so that you can create more jobs through inflation, wealth through defence industries, and popularity through media. War is the health of your political stability. It should make you look powerful, no matter how you’re.

Fair Trade: There is nothing called “free trade”. I mean it is so insane to learn that people can voluntarily trade with another without coercion. The idea of “fair trade” makes sense because it can help you to play with the currencies and trade conflicts at your political whims. The more you bring fairness in trade, the more people would legitimise your defence policy.

Conclusion: If you’re not convinced to be a politician then you need to reread this piece.
_______________________________________________________

About the author
Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic
_______________________________________________________

The post A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

What matters to them is their own “political ego” and nothing else.

But, it isn’t my business to decide the best political opinion, statement or scientist because ‘politics is inherently a waste of time, energy, mind and wealth’.

Read the following reasons to know why, and figure them out at your discretion without feeling guilty, low and manipulated:

1.  Debating politics would not change anything except your personality and social impression, which would ultimately make you look stupid in the end.

For example: You have a political opinion about A. Your friend (frenemy) has a political opinion about B. You justify the debate as a “social process of enlightenment” but what would you or your opponent do with the opinion, when the views have simply backfired, and changed nothing, during the process?

If you believe that your political opinion will “simply and suddenly” change the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent nature of the government then you’re absolutely wrong.

Why should a “characterless gang of the armed leaders” give a fuck about your opinion when you’re not part of their monopoly game?

Ask yourself because the burden of proof is not on me.  

2.  Sharing political opinions is not an act of information-sharing, enlightenment and cognitive emancipation because you’re simply speaking what your government wants you to.

You may believe that you have “freedom of speech” in this case but you’re not doing anything new, simply because your political opinion is manipulative, subjective and asocial.

For example: You believe that government should X and not Y. Your opponent believes that the government should undo X and do Z instead. What you fail to realize  is that the government is going to do what it wants without giving a fuck about your political enlightenment because the economics of the government is dependent upon expanding its power and minimising your freedom at the expense of everyone else.

Your political opinion may lean from left to right or vice versa, but your opinion is simply static within the political spectrum of the system. If you believe that your opinion should make sense then try to pose an apolitical statement and see how your frenemies and government reacts to it.

3.  Well, do you remember the time the slaves banded together to beg their masters for freedom, and they succeeded? Or, the time the Jews pleaded with the Pharaoh to let them free, and they were successful? Such events never happened and would never happen, and it’s easy to understand that such scenarios are silly, right?

Sadly, many of the loudest “political voices” believe that doing the same thing i.e. “asking our chivalrous master to voluntarily cede the parasitical power, is the only way of achieving equality and liberation”. They believe that if you just vote (harder) for the “lesser evil”, all of our problems will be solved! Little do they realize that voting for a lesser evil is still choosing an evil. You don’t need a political opinion to quantify the size of the evil.

You simply need a psychologist to help you understand that there’s only one evil, and that is the government. Lysander Spooner, once said:

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

Conclusion:

Debating politics may not be an important tool for those who are newly introduced to the ideas of freedom. Neither it will ever be the solution to attaining freedom. Politics is antithetical to freedom since you are conceding that you require a master. Debating politics adds more fuel to the fire.

Freedom does not come from permission.

Stop wasting your time in debating and trying to lengthen the master’s leash around your neck. Freedom will be won when you take control of your life. Freedom comes from recognizing that you are a free, beautiful, and independent human being. Don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise through “political discussions”.

If #PoliticalDebatesMatter then do follow these steps:

The post 3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

It is just not a belief but also a modern ideology. They worship this political ideology, like the way jihadists worship Islam, but without directly initiating violence. The tribe also believes that it is morally correct to have freedom in all economic activities because they trust the principles of government-constituted free market.

When it comes to defense, police and courts or law, the tribe would not mind distrusting the principles of laissez-faire. To add, the tribe does not realise that it suffers from a psychotic disorder called ‘stockholm syndrome’ (which means, sympathising with the crime doer).

For example: they chant, blog & podcast “government is evil” (without realising that they’re the ones who are always eager to necessitate the evil at the expense of everyone else). They tend to forget that ‘limiting’ the evil does not equate to abolishment of evil.

Evil is evil, no matter what’s the size of it.

I do not intend to bash these intellectuals in this article. I am simply analysing their unnoticed hypocrisy.

What makes their myth so different from other political ideologies like democracy, communism, etc., when their own ideology is a diet coke of all the fascist tendencies?

On one hand, they condemn monopoly of the state. I think it makes sense because monopoly over the means of production is the root cause of all problems in our world.

On the other hand, the tribe believes that a magical constitution would suddenly beget “good governance” administered by a “good government”, out of nowhere, in the complex world.

In this regard, how would they behave with their own dissents if the constitution is deemed as a social contract?   A constitution is just not a rule book but also a “social contract”, which makes citizens (slaves) to pay obligation to their master (government) without signing the agreement et al.

This is where the tribe consciously fail to realise with their own eyes that government is a lie.

Governments are “malum in se” (evil in itself) in their nature and violate the non-aggression principle (an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate).

In this case, let’s assume that taxation is not a legal robbery. Then, why would a ‘limited’ government continue to conscript people’s wealth for the sake of building the roads? What is the fair percentage to consider that taxation is a not a legal theft, when any “illegal” mafia gang can also empower itself to expropriate the people?

While these philosophers continue to claim that the emergence of a government is inevitable and that therefore efforts must be concentrated towards establishing a “minimal government” to protect freedom, but then it cannot prevent its collapse or political suicide without compromising all of its laws and principles.

For example: How would it decide the rate of defence expenditure without inflating the public funds for defence services, which is likely to maximize the monopoly, tax structure and power of the minimal government?

I suggest you to apply the same reasoning/question/logic to “priority sectors” like fiscal policy with reference to populism, monetary policy with reference to printing machine, and property rights with reference to eminent domain.

As the American Experiment has proven, a mechanism like constitutional check-and-balance has not been successful in stemming the tide of governmental expansion. Checks and balances are not enough to successfully distract the members of the ruling class from their convergent interests, since, checks or not, they are still all part of the same parasitical entity.

An exterior standard alone is also not sufficient to stop the governmental expansion. A piece of paper or constitution is only somewhat obeyed as long as its legitimacy remains: the more misinterpreted and controversial it becomes, the least protection it affords against the government’s expansion.

To conclude, coercion cannot produce cooperation.

My facebook note highlights a case of the minimal government sustaining corporatism. Governments are not, and cannot, be based on consent. It is mathematically impossible to maintain a government over a territory of any considerable size without imposing some non-consensual rules.

Furthermore, no government has ever been founded on consent. All governments are based on the necessity for victorious warring factions to organize the taking of tribute from conquered factions, to make organized theft less risky and more profitable. All other governments derived from those have come to existence through ruling class conflicts or colonial politics.

In short, consent of the vast majority of people is nowhere involved in the process of government-creation.

About the author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic

The post Diet Coke of Fascism appeared first on Actual Anarchy.