Why Aren’t More Women Libertarians?

Why Aren’t More Women Libertarians?  Who Gives a Fuck?

By the Profe$$ional A$$hole

I’ve been hearing this question more and more like it’s a problem. It all boils down to the traits that make for a libertarian: analytical, disagreeable, independent, principled, logical, and low in effect.

Try to imagine a woman like this? The word “bitch” is usually employed. Mom, generally isn’t. It’s not like Ayn Rand was known for her womanly charm and motherly spirit. Quite the opposite.

But these traits are necessary and worthwhile—in men. Continue reading “Why Aren’t More Women Libertarians?”

Episode 122 – Behind the Curve (1:07:54)

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.

Continue reading “Episode 122 – Behind the Curve (1:07:54)”

Episode 96 – The Dark Knight Returns (57:43)

We go back to the Batman well and bring an old friend along as a guest to discuss Batman: Dark Knight Returns. 10 years after retiring, Gotham has descended further and further into crime and chaos as the corrupt police department is failing at the job it prevents others from providing.

Batman comes out of retirement to do battle various enemies, both old and new, for the last time. This Frank Miller work was a very strong comic series that was faithfully created as an animated feature with some very deep themes worthy of discussion.

Join us as we slice and dice on this one.

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

Editorial Review on Amazon

FEATURING PARTS 1 AND 2 OF “BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS” SAGA! From the chronicles of the DC Universe comes the sweeping saga of rebirth, revenge and redemption.

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

Our guest Shaheen is a Rothbardian Ancap mechatronic engineering student living in Australia. Interests include, but are not limited to, studying libertarian political philosophy, Austrian economics, and evolutionary psychology, playing basketball, golf and Crash Bandicoot.

He writes for Backwordz Music and Actual Anarchy.  He has been a guest on the show several times in the past, specializing in Batman and Bruce Willis movies. Continue reading “Episode 96 – The Dark Knight Returns (57:43)”

Why is India not so rich?

When your parents are conservative and rigid, you are likely to commit more personal and inconsequential mistakes because you cannot imagine living your life without experiencing and experimenting the unconventional aspect of life. Curiosity within you is something that cannot be intrinsically controlled at any cost. You wish as well as aspire for more freedom, when your parents display tyrannical tendencies against you or your controlled behavior. In this saga, you’re least likely to accept personal responsibility after committing some error. The outcome of this setting would be that, your parents might end up compelling you for some uninvited or unexpected decision. Which means that, you do not enjoy a proper standard of living, freedom of choice, consent and individual liberty.
In par with the above prolusion, our economy is almost like a rigid parent. When your economy is liberal, free and flexible, you possess a better ambiance to try and experiment something with a sense of onus and belonging-ness. Yes, you will undoubtedly make mistakes, but you’re likely to learn from it since the environment would be in a way of establishing and incentivizing individual responsibility as well as personal accountability. Don’t we feel good, when our parents understand us and our personal liberties/choices? Similarly, it feels great to endorse when government acts as a watch-man in the system. When government acts like a nanny state, people enjoy less freedom and indecent lifestyle. It’s simple. Therefore, the burden of proof isn’t on me to prove the caliber of freedom. It’s on the proponents of government to tell us “How does maximizing the power of statism benefit the standard of freedom for all?

Today, India celebrates her Independence day. As usual it’s a routine to publicly celebrate this day, without introspecting the modern character of independence. This blog does not question the credibility of independence. It simply endeavors to examine the status of independence. Hope I am not judged as “anti-national” for bothering a bit more about the quality of freedom. To begin with, Indian economy – since 1947 – has been celebrating “license raaj” through the mode of socialism. Followed with “Hindu rate of growth” wherein economic fatalism played a huge role in shaping the social cognition of India; development didn’t really trickled down till the year 1991. The year 1991 experienced a great transitional stage, as Indian economy liberalized, privatized and globalized herself. It also proved, to our inutile comrades, how socialist model or soviet model is/was coherently unfit to govern the socioeconomic structures of India. LPG stands for liberalization, privatization and globalization, which is not antithetical to the axioms of capitalist model. But, in our parallel-cum-real universe, I see India redoing socialism by using different euphemisms at different levels to fool different people differently. Take the example of government’s populism over the economics of fiscal spending: [the] total government expenditure has increased from ₹20,144 billion (for the financial year, 2016-17) to ₹21,467 billion (for the financial year 2017-18) – an increase of almost ₹1.32 trillion. Breaking news, isn’t it? Get this straight: “The more the spending, the lesser the economic freedom. Lesser the economic freedom, higher the dependency.”

Do not you think that the celebrators of ‘Independence Day’ should judge the relation between fiscal spending and economic freedom, in order to realize how much their government loves to keep people fiscally dependent than financially independent?

On the other hand, India’s PM Narendra Modi once called MGNREGA prog. “a living monument of UPA’s failure”. MGNREGA is a keynesian policy started by UPA govt., a decade ago, to employ the conscience of broken window fallacy. The prog. does not add any value to the people who are employed under the socialist scheme. It is just about digging the road and reconstructing the road, with an intent to keep unskilled laborers ’employed’. The current govt. led by PM Modi has impudently allocated 480 billion rupees to the prog. Isn’t this a trait of maximum government and minimum governance? Plus, in the name of re-capitalisation and other banking-related nonsense, Modi government has infused 2 trillion rupees into the system. Privatizing the public banks would be a coherent decision, but the government suffers from apoplithorismosphobia and to liberate it from the chains of slavery which it radically reveres would be a dangerous idea.

Keeping it straight: Capital-ism is an essential feature to determine the growth and development of land, labor and entrepreneurship. Any placement of uncontrollable feature above the spirit of capital can lead to systematic destruction of the economy. Unfortunately, the political fraternity is usually and continuously interested to place its “national” interests over the functions of capital and intends to also replace the spatial zone with more unchecked political power. My logic 101 states that power cannot coexist with capitalism. Either you believe in the power of politics or else in the catallactic dynamics of economy. To have both at the same time is a dangerous idea.
Using the PPP (purchasing power parity) of 2011 to determine the contemporary ratiocination of poverty in India, World Bank (WB) estimates India’s poor population to be around 172 million. Total population of India is around 1.34 billion, which constitutes 18% of the global population. You may believe that average income for many Indians is between $1.90 – $2.30 per day. Followed by systematic statism of India’s government on the organized sector, informal economy constituting 80-85% seems more lucrative. Actually speaking, India grows at night because day time is peculiarly a slot of the regulated activities. Regulations may or may not help the economy to grow, but however, it is vital to learn that minimum regulations can vouch maximum governance. Otherwise, maximum regulatory frames simply end up enlarging the size of government interventionism. So, what is stopping India to grow quickly? The answer is deficiency of economic liberty. Now, assuming that regulations do “greater good”, Indian economy should not shy from confessing the following details:
Ease of doing business: 100 / 190 nations
Economic freedom: 130 / 190
Free speech: 138 / 190
Ease of obtaining construction permit: 181 / 190
Life expectancy: 125 / 190
Education index: 141 / 190
Happiness Index: 133 / 190
Human Development index: 131 / 190
Gender Inequality index: 125 / 190
The above rankings generally give an impression of periphery status of Indian economy. I opted to specially focus on the given rankings because they are the essential parameters of economic growth and development. Yes, we don’t discourse about it in our public sphere because the government and its media complex intends to sell “peaceful lies” than “dangerous facts” to the people of India.

Considering that governmental committees commissioned by the India’s parliament focus more on the school of poverty from the outlook of salt-water economic thought, which virtually does not benefit the poverty line at large because populism and demagogy incentivize the political willingness in this nation. India is not so rich, like Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Japan or Hong Kong, because the so-called economics committees formed to solve poverty are inured to adopt conventional methodologies. It is not coherent to repeat the same model/approach and expect a very different outcome. Only when the government limits the political zone of power interests, capitalism shall rescue more poor Indians from poverty. Say, the richest 10% Indians own 80% of wealth because regulations have been framed in a way that does not mobilize others to grow. From the perspective of “public choice theory (economics)”, the rich grow richer because Indian economy is biased towards its own people. You cannot compel a man to stand in a bucket and tell him to lift the bucket, right? In this thought, laffer curve can do its prolusion to mobilize more decentralization or else centralization of economy will iterate “permission raaj” system.

To ratiocinate, it would make sense to cherish “Independence Day” when India legitimizes “right to deviate”. Independence is not about depending upon your master. It’s about “freedom from master’s coercion”. When an individual is censored and condemned at the various levels of socialization, for preferring “dangerous truth” over “peaceful lies”, the society – as a whole – is weakening the foundation of independence without realizing the implications of abhorring individualism. When people are dependent upon government to legalize sexual orientation and other privacy-related matters, the society is debauching the state of liberty. In my opinion, it would also make sense by linking the status of economic freedom with the Independence Day celebrations…so that our society would get to organically know its own “intellectual honesty”. Ending this blog with a direct question to introspect upon Independence Day celebration: “Who is more safer at 2 am on our public roads: Cows or Girls?


About the author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist prof. based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee at the cost of nobody.

Twitter a/c


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”

Libertarianism 102

Ask any libertarian about why libertarianism and there is a story about the time BBL: before being libertarian. I have mine, too.

The key point I came to learn about libertarianism is the NAP, the Non-Aggression Principle. Sounds easy enough. Don’t hurt people.

Listen to a libertarian long enough and you’ll hear something about taxation is theft: property rights.

There are discussions aplenty about the unconstitutionality of taxation, the immorality of taxation, the lack of need for taxation and more. Passions run deep on both sides of the position and those lines can broadly be understood to be the libertarians against taxation and the statist for taxation. Taxation as theft produces a second phrase to our NAP, and the two are cleverly synthesized to “Don’t Hurt People; Don’t Take Their Stuff.”

That’s where I came in. Don’t hurt people seems pretty cut and dried. Don’t aggress: easy. The clarification we make is offensive aggression. People have a right to defend themselves, so defensive aggression against harm done to me or my family is allowed, and maybe even demanded.

Hurt not; steal not. I can do this. As I listened and read and watched more libertarian thinkers, I came to learn who the heavy hitters are. And, boy, we’ve got some doozies. Hans Herman Hoppe and Murray Rothbard and Walter Block and Ludwig von Mises and Tom Woods the list grows. I admit, I didn’t know that libertarians had a thought process. I really thought that a libertarian was a disgruntled Republican who didn’t want to affiliate any longer. I was wrong.

Don’t aggress is easy when it’s you not aggressing. What of the state or the military or the police? Well, come on, that doesn’t happen. It does. That it does is bothersome and, frankly, both scary and unsettling.

At a point like this, with the curtain pulled back, there are two choices. Run or push on. I pushed on. I learned that the state does aggress in forms less than obvious. Yeah, there is that taxation thing. I know I said it was stealing, but what if you don’t pay? The state will come and, after haggling, you still refuse to pay, put you in a cage. Continue reading “Libertarianism 102”

The Alt-Right is the Far-Left

By Doc Brown

This started off as a simple post I’ve been composing for FB, but it got a little lengthier than that 😂👏🏻. I am regularly accused of verbosity.


When someone advocates that the government do more of something–build more housing projects, invest more money in K-12 education, raise the retirement age, increase mandatory vacation time for workers, raise minimum wage higher, grow the size of the military, etc.–they stop short well before the end-point. Why do they? If it is such a great policy to do more of something, then why not do so in totality?

On the flip-side, those who advocate for the government doing less wind up either stopping adjacent to the policy’s logical end-point or actually want to do so in totality–reduce the government’s size except for a very few select areas and reduce those areas to their bare minimum operational capacities (like reducing the breadth of welfare programs to the incapacitated and handicapped); get rid of the Department of Education completely; reduce the size of the military by withdrawing from armed conflicts world-wide between other peoples, and also by reducing the military’s size to as little as 5 or 10%; abolish the income tax and a slew of other taxes; etc.

If the logic is sound… it will hold strong from its Point A start-point to its Point Z end-point.

The far-Right* wants to go to Point Z in most areas, and ~Point W-Y in the rest, rhetorically speaking but with tangible manifestations in advocated policies.

As one heads Leftward, the points of willingness fall back as far as, say, Point G or H….and on the personal level, many times they don’t want to fall under their own policies if possible (do as I say not as I do)–case in point being Congress, the Executive, and SCOTUS, excluding themselves (and their state if possible, as happened with Nebraska, nicknamed the “Cornhusker Kickback”) from the ACA/Obamacare. Another example is Rosie Donnell and other Hollywood celebrities who want guns abolished but have an armed-bodyguard presence at all times.

The far-Left reverses the trend by heading back toward Point Z (perhaps a reason why some folks consider the fallacious horseshoe spectrum legitimate?), but, once again, excludes itself personally whenever possible, such as: wealthy Leftists who advocate for higher taxes while keeping most of their assets offshore; politicians and stars who want to coerce reduced carbon footprints while accumulating the world’s largest individual carbon footprints; or, totalitarian (farthest-Left) rulers creating a wider wealth-gap between themselves and their people than in freer-market countries (for example, the income gap between Cuba’s median and Fidel Castro’s, and the same between the median North Korean’s and Kim Jong-il’s, were wider than the US’s median with Bill Gates).

What do these abstractions, and their tangible manifestations, mean in the end? Continue reading “The Alt-Right is the Far-Left”

Liberty Classroom by Tom Woods


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….

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:

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

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.


…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:

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

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017) – Video

Ladies and gentlemen. It’s here! HHH’s speech at the PFS recently in Turkey.

Hans Hermann Hoppe; the greatest libertarian thinker of our time delivers a greatly anticipated and striking speech on the Alt Right, Libertarianism, and society’s issues as a whole and offering a strategic social solution, also while identifying many issues even amongst libertarians themselves.

We’ve posted a few articles on the site recently to help clarify some of the confusion on his thought.  Well, let’s just say Hoppe is perfectly capable of defending himself, so to speak.

The page listing those articles can be found here:

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


Apparently this speech was too hot for YouTube and got taken down.

Too Hot for YouTube!

The video player above will allow you to download the video file if you wish.

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….

TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE BELOW THE FOLD Continue reading “Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017) – Video”

True Libertarianism Is Colorblind

By Steven Clyde

If your first thought is “well libertarians surely care about green!”, I’ll concede and state that this is the point of this article.

Humans, each with their own individual goals and interests, seek a better life for themselves and other people they care about. We are born into an impossible situation though, having signed a supposed “social contract” at birth which guilts us into thinking we owe something to future generations because of the sacrifices made in the past.

Lysander: “Where in the world is the Social Contract?”

And thus lies the root of the problem: the confusion between positive and negative rights. Negative rights, justifiably, state that you as an individual have the right not to have force initiated against you and not  to have your property confiscated from you, while positive rights, which state that things are owed to you or other people, is a fallacy of the highest degree and should be abhorred by anyone familiar with logic.

The logic for positive rights proceeds as follows:

Person A of the past, did something to help or to hurt person B in the past, and therefore person C in the present who either gained or lost because of person A and B’s interactions in the past, owes something to or gets to take away something from person D in the present or the future.

It should be obvious why this doesn’t make sense, because if it’s true that I’m a user today of say the internet and its true I’m a benefactor of this past invention, then it would seem to imply that I “owe” something to the internet. But I pay for my internet services because I value its use, so in what sense am I a free rider?

And furthermore, any argument could be thought up to imply I owe something to somebody or I get to take away something from somebody, because of someone’s actions in the past. Its so nonsensical that’s its difficult to sum up into words, because it can imply almost anything.

Libertarianism however gives the individual a voice though because they are not responsible for things of the past, only their actions in the present. It allows for people to be judged by their character, and not by a collective (namely the state). The core aspect of communism is egalitarian in nature, seeking total equality in horrors that’s have been lived through by millions in which attempts to banish individualism not only goes against human nature (people having dreams and goals) but specifically uses violence to achieve its means, an impossible means to achieve at that.

There have been several articles circulating stating that white nationalism (which I won’t be facetious and leave out that some were written by an Asian guy) isn’t incompatible with libertarianism, which on the surface of it appears to be true in that libertarianism does not tell you that you can’t exclude people from your own private property, whether it be a business or your private home. The reasons for exclusion can be grim or nonsensical even, but the logic still follows that private property allows for inclusion and exclusion. Continue reading “True Libertarianism Is Colorblind”