The Rights and Wrongs of Rights

By Dyreka Klaus

Negative rights amount to the line where you can say “no.” I have a right to say no if you want to touch me, take my things, or restrict my free will/movement. Those rights are legitimate up to the point they bump into someone else’s negative rights. For example: I have the right to freedom of movement so long as I do not use it to violate someone else’s right to say “no” regarding their own person or property.

Positive rights, on the other hand, are when people claim a right to the actions, thoughts, or property of another. Healthcare is thought of as a “right,” but it would fall in the “positive rights” category, since it demands the time, action, and property of others in order to be realized. This is a good example, and delineates why positive “rights” are actually a form of slavery. If you claim some kind of right to me in any way, you are making a claim of ownership, and the literal definition of slavery is one human being owning another.

Government IS control of the public at large, via force and threats of force. I’m not talking about what it claims to be. I’m not talking about what we’re taught it is. I’m not talking about all of the sacred ink on paper (founding documents, legislation, etc.). All of those things are merely opinions, canonized and so widely repeated that they are now largely viewed as “facts” (which is fucking sad).

I’m talking about what can be empirically proven through evidence, and examination through first principles. Hell, even through etymology and definition.

Gubernare (latin) – to rule

Mentum (latin) – instrument or medium

Government – the instrument or medium by which one rules

Rule – control of or dominion over an area or people

Logically speaking, government is control of the population. This is only accomplished (ultimately, if you trace all methods to their basic core), through coercion (violence and threats of violence). If it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be “government” (which is externally imposed), but would rather be “cooperation” (which happens internally for the individuals involved).

Now that we’ve established that government = control, on to voting. Continue reading “The Rights and Wrongs of Rights”

Noam Chomsky: Poser Anarchist

Mike Morris, June 2018
Colorado Springs, Colorado

There’s a new piece out with MIT professor Noam Chomsky, adapted from a previous interview, titled Noam Chomsky Explains Exactly What’s Wrong With Libertarianism . He doesn’t do this, but instead, characteristic of Chomsky, goes on vague rants which appear to offer no real, workable solutions to the problems in the world. Indeed, Chomsky would appear quite favorable to the state; at least, relative to the market economy which he fears would be a unchecked force without the state.

The first non-argument set forth by Chomsky, intended as a way to make libertarianism seem so obscure that it must be illegitimate, is to say that, “what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, [it] doesn’t really exist anywhere else.”

This would be the same as to say that, since only few people have acknowledged the validity of something, that it’s not valid. This is often invoked as a case against free-market (Austrian) economics. “If it’s correct/the best way,” the opponent will claim, “why isn’t it the prevailing doctrine?” Well, because there is nothing to stop bad ideas from taking over.

Left-anarchists overall like to use this Chomsky non-argument to say that, since “anarchism was historically socialist,” therefore “anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism.” It is true that anarcho-capitalism is more modern relative to anarcho-socialism, but historical or etymological origin doesn’t change meanings. It doesn’t change that the anarcho-capitalist is extremely hostile to the state (more so than Chomsky), and that it emerged from centuries of anti state classical liberalism.

Thus, even if we grant the validity of the argument, it isn’t even true the anarchists always cited — or the ones existing in the 19th century — were opposed to individualism, free-markets, and property rights. As anarcho-capitalist Bryan Caplan noted, “ despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favor of private property (merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing private property as such).

Caplan goes on to quote the American anarchist Benjamin Tucker, who, writing in 1887, said that,

“it will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that ‘property is robbery’ to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products.” Continue reading “Noam Chomsky: Poser Anarchist”

You Should Not Join Politics. This is why.

If you believe that you possess a good conscience with devilish motives, then politics is a vocation meant for you because it gives you the monopoly on accessing unaccountable power for performing sadistic activities at the expense of your exchequers.

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. Continue reading “You Should Not Join Politics. This is why.”

A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy

WARNING:  Before you implement the pieces of advice, it is necessary for you to have a nuke or else it is not easy to declare yourself as a legal thug who is going to constitutionally take care of everything at the expense of everyone else except yourself.

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.

Professional Victim

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. Continue reading “A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy”

3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time

Different people possess different opinions, definitions and comprehensions about politics. Many individuals continue to [vociferously] express and discourse their stagnant views and loud perspectives about politics, respectively. They “feel good” about what they say, no matter how incoherent their statements are. They wouldn’t mind shunning others’ “political opinion” without realising that the inherent quality of any political debate is cyclically poor.

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: Continue reading “3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time”

Vedic Anarchism

Once upon a time in India, voluntaryist societies existed. A voluntaristic society is that community where people transact, socialise and trade without fearing any coercion, hierarchy and taxtortion. In such a liberal society, people live tranquilly, responsibly and rationally because it empowers the cultural scope of spontaneous order and catallactic actions of all the participants or members. In today’s scenario, excluding the black markets, it is very rare to spot such open, free and transparent societies. Thanks to the government.

I am not an Indologist but I live in India. In this article, I do not intend to divulge the marketing skills of my authorship but helping my international amigos to know the features of Vedic anarchism. To begin with, the Vedas are a large body of knowledge texts originating in the ancient Indian subcontinent.

The Vedas are ancient Sanskrit texts of Hinduism. Above: A page from the Atharvaveda.

Composed in the Sanskrit language, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. Hindus consider the Vedas to be apauruṣeya, which means “not of a man, superhuman” and “impersonal, authorless”. Vedic anarchism period existed in Bhaarat (India) between 4000 BC – 500 BC. But, in today’s time, in India as elsewhere, the anarchist thought is widely misunderstood. As Bhagat Singh (1907–1931), one of the few Indian revolutionaries who had explicit anarchist leanings, put it:

The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular.”

Vedic anarchism is a fearless trek into the unknown. Since it throws out the imposed normative ideals of other political philosophies, Vedic anarchism prescribes complete sacrifice of the ego of a politically-driven mind. It forebodes the usual prescriptions and solutions for society’s ills and trusts the forces of cooperative effort, mutual respect, and mutualism will do better. It’s the respect for the limits of human reason, the fallibility of human power, the unlikely, but unsurpassed, power of unconscious design, the appreciation of innovation and progress brought about by forces completely out of our control and, above all, humility – the recognition of one’s own mistakes, flaws, ignorance, and inability to know the unknown. Continue reading “Vedic Anarchism”

Diet Coke of Fascism

There’s a self-proclaimed intellectual tribe which believes in a contradictory premise and that is “removing 80% of the tumor solves the cancer, while the remaining 20% should be left intact”.

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.

Drink in the hypocrisy of minarchism

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? Continue reading “Diet Coke of Fascism”

Yes, You are an Anarchist

By Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav

When I say that “you are an anarchist” then it does not mean that I am enforcing a conclusion on your soul. I am simply letting you know that everyone, at least sometimes, is an anarchist.

Many people seem to believe that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed terrorists who just want to blow everything up. On the contrary, nothing could be further from the truth.

Anarchists are simply individuals who believe that human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable and voluntary fashion without having to be forced to. It is genuinely a very lucid notion. But it’s one that the government and their supporters have always found extremely perilous. Continue reading “Yes, You are an Anarchist”

Another Holiday Created By The Biggest Culprit

By Captain A

Earth Day was sparked in response to the 1969 Oil spill in Santa Barbara, Commie-fornia. Of course, this makes government sound so noble. Who doesn’t want to celebrate Earth?  Take a closer look at the story. Government had its hand all over the oil spill and was even profiting from it via land leasing.  

1953 saw the passing of the U.S. Submerged Land Act. This Act gave the federal government claim to land beginning at an imaginary 3 mile mark from a state coastline. Then the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act which gave the Secretary of the Interior the power to lease the land out to companies.   $21 million was the winning bid to drill for oil off the coast of Santa Barbara. $21 million in 1966 would equate to $157.8 million dollars in 2016.

Since the land is leased then the goal becomes complete exploitation of the resources.  What company wants to pay for the leasing rights to an area for a long period of time? $21 million isn’t exactly a small amount of money.  So this then incentivizes the completely leasing the property to exploit the resources as quickly as possible.   Government involvement invited corruption in the form of donations to politicians in exchange for leasing rights.  

Union Oil asked the U.S Geological Survey to waive certain restrictions  regarding drilling on the well that would eventually lead to the blowout.  Union Oil asked for the regulations about proper piping safety housing on their 5th well to be waived Given the cronyism created via the federal land leasing, there is incentive for government to help these companies out in such a manner.  Leasing the land creates an incentive for the company to extract as much as of the resource as possible causing the company to extend beyond the markets natural protector.  The markets natural protector is called optimal conservation.

Optimal conservation forces a company to think about the long term course of a product.  Under the government model the company doesn’t know if it’s lease will be renewed, and thus we get the desire to extract as much as possible and that might involve cutting corners in order to reach that final goal before the year is out.  We saw the corners cut by Union Oil, and we have a government complicit in allowing the act.   The end result was Earth Day which ultimately led to the creation of one of the worst government polluters known as the Environmental Protection Agency. Continue reading “Another Holiday Created By The Biggest Culprit”

A Review of: The United States of Work

By Hunter Lee

A Review of New Republic article:  The United States of Work

Most of these articles start out with “Income has remained stagnant since the 1970s.” But then never offer up an explanation. It’s not a coincidence. Nixon ended Bretton Woods 1971.

As far as college, the more aggressively you increase the demand for something, the more aggressively the price for that product is going to increase if the supply remains relatively stagnant. The U.S. government has began massively subsidizing and guaranteeing student loans for decades which has caused this massive price inflation. The Department of Education now relies on income from student loan debt, so the bubble will keep going. It is exactly like the housing bubble. “We just want everyone to have a good home/ education.”

The author seems to think that unions are the reason people don’t have to work 12-hours a day. As if people all the sudden didn’t want to do that. Or as if people all the sudden didn’t want to shove their children in coal mines. This would imply that the reason places like the Congo have so much child labor is because of a lack of child labor laws, or if they simply implemented a 40-hour work week, or $15 higher minimum wage, they would all be rich. Obviously, this would simply cause more desperation poverty. The reality is technological advances (almost exclusively created by free markets) are how overall work hours are decreased. This has been the case since the beginning of time.

Not long ago, the majority of households were able to live with only one income earner. Now with the combination of the excessive taxes, most notably the income tax, as well as inflation, dual income households are the majority.

“Unlike the state, these private governments are able to wield power with little oversight, because the executives and boards of directors that rule them are accountable to no one but themselves.” This is just laughable. The state is god. If you boycott the military, men with guns will come to your house and murder you. At this point, to claim that the government operates with any oversight just shows you were the author is coming from. It’s just Marxism. Meanwhile, the Uber CEO single-handled solved drinking and driving and yells at an employee and people boycott. If they don’t, they have the ability to.

“Yet because employment contracts create the illusion that workers and companies have arrived at a mutually satisfying agreement..” This is a logical imperative when people voluntarily interact. “I am doing this because I prefer to do it/ I believe it will be in my best interest. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t.” Any unfair advantage other than that is always caused by the state, and therefore that is the enemy. It’s not Apple and Samsung who will come to your house with guns if you don’t work for them.

These articles are always written by people who have little or no entrepreneurial experience. The reason for this is that when you go down that route, you realize you have no real control as business owner. The customer decides everything. Unless, of course, you partner with the state via regulations that prohibit competitors from entering the market, or you receive funding from tax dollars. Then, you are no longer to the customers demand and they are now your subjects.

“Lecturer of art history at the University of Melbourne. Author of Do What You Love. And Other Lies about Success and Happiness.”