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.

There are two types of libertarian women. The first, and substantially less numerous, are the socially conservative homeschooling moms that realize the government is a threat to her odd, but otherwise peaceful family. She’s a libertarian because her husband is. The second, and substantially more numerous are the libertine women who want to break down the shackles of a patriarchal society that has kept them safe, warm, valued, fed, and loved for centuries—the bisexual, super-tattooed single mom who hates taxes despite being on welfare.

 Society exists for one reason: to make women as happy and comfortable as the economic conditions allow. Men are perfectly happy to live in caves, eat meat, jerk off, and die of heart attacks at 50 while wrestling bears. In many ways, it is preferable. Economic activity happens solely for the purpose of making women happy. Any society that you want to complain about, the men have it worse. Always.

 When no one gives a shit whether you live or die (and we regularly send young boys to die by the hundreds of thousands in war), you have to be an asshole. Being a man is only having God to complain to.

Women have no comprehension of this. Men guard this truth from them because they would get depressed and not fuck us, or laugh at our weakness and not fuck us.

So here are 8 reasons why women are not, and never will be, libertarian.

1. Oxytocin: the cuddle hormone. This shit makes women sweet and snuggly. Why do they coo for a screeching baby, or sigh with romantic affection at their middle-aged husband? It’s because women have a lot of oxytocin. It makes them think relationally, and sympathetically. Men think conceptually. We have oxytocin, though not much, and we have testosterone that forces development in the spatial, abstract, and reasoning centers of the brain.

2.  Women are neurotic and agreeable. This makes them natural socialists. Duh. They don’t like to disagree with people and they are fearful. This is a fantastic trait in a mother. It is terrible in an entrepreneur.

The Trobriand Islands exemplify what happens to a society run by women. The men are effectively castrated due to yams on the island being the only real food source. 1,500 years ago the island was full of the same type of sailor-warriors who figured out celestial navigation by trial and error. They sailed from modern Taiwan to Madagascar and South America and returned. In other words, these sailor-warriors were ballsy. What happened after a diet of solely yams containing many testosterone-killing phytoestrogens? The wahmens took over and forbid sailing because it was dangerous, forbid trade, and forbid hunting. Over time the Trobrianese lost the knowledge of sailing, their history, their magic and spells, and have almost no idea how reproduction works. If women run things, you slowly forget how to do it.

3.  Women hate the market. They love guarantees. We’ve all see the videos of gold-diggers on the beach. Some dude walks up in normal clothes and asks for her number. She says “no, I have a boyfriend.” Then his friend drives up in a Ferrari and says “hey, boss, I brought your car.” Suddenly she’s interested. She prances over and says “we could def hangout.” This trait is nigh universal. Check Tinder for proof.

Some women, with too much oxytocin, will choose the losers, betas, guitar-playing hippies, and Justin Bieber. This is especially the case in pubescent girls and girls on birth control. Think of Ariel as she screams “daddy, I love him” while diddling herself to a statue of some sailor she just pulled from the ocean, or Rose from Titanic who slept with a baby-faced, smelly, homeless dude because he had some game. However, most women don’t want risk, freedom, or the possibility of reward. They want a guarantee. They’ll take the safest option, unless their neurochemistry is off.

4. Women are nice. They don’t want to see children starve, even if it was their own parents who threw them out. They hate seeing homeless guys on the street, even if he’s there entirely of his own fault. They can’t say no to that puppy dog. Their dad or husband keeps them from being a walking placenta to the pitiable. To be an effective libertarian you have to see through that.

5. Women don’t care about principles. They never have, and never will. It’s amazing that women overwhelmingly believe in abortion until menopause. Then, after menopause, they overwhelmingly oppose abortion. I wonder why? Is it that the moral argument changed from when they were 16 to 46? Or is it that women believe in things only so long as it benefits them. You’ll be pleased to know men are much more consistent over the course of their lives on that issue. And all issues. Women think relationally. They care about themselves, their children, their husband, their family, their community. Women care about what materially improves their situation, now.

6. Women are illogical. Obviously. Proven again and again in double-blind studies. Men have greater spatial and abstract reasoning. We can think about hypotheticals better than women. It’s why all the best mathematicians, computer programmers, economists, physicists, engineers, chemists, lawyers, doctors, and philosophers are all men.

7.  Women are weaker. Yes, physically, but also psychologically. They are more likely to use psychotropic drugs, less likely to cope with workplace stress, more like to have nervous breakdowns, more likely to choose low-stress jobs, more likely to do anything that is easy and non-taxing. Children are a big enough responsibility on their own. Being malleable is more important than being tough, if you’re a woman, but it’s a terrible trait in a man.

8.  Women don’t read. Non-fiction any way. Women overwhelmingly read more fiction and almost no non-fiction. Men read non-fiction overwhelmingly, and more overall. To develop a consistent philosophy of economics, politics, public actions, and social interaction, how much non-fiction do you think you have to read? How many nerdy podcasts? How many lecture series? See where I’m going?

So, why aren’t there libertarian women? Because libertarianism is not conducive to women in any way. Thank God. I can’t stand libertarian women.

The post Why Aren’t More Women Libertarians? appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.

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.

You can follow him on Twitter at:

Tweets by ElcoAlFares

Here are the previous appearances by our guest:

Episode 54 – Die Hard (1:16:46)

Episode 28 – The Dark Knight Part 1 (1:09:40)

Episode 29 – The Dark Knight Part 2 (1:38:02)

Episode 42 – The Dark Knight Rises (1:05:40)

Finally, here is the series with Liberty Weekly where we discussed the Netflix Documentary “Wild, Wild Country”:

Liberty Weekly Summer Special: Wild Wild Country

The bonus content can be accessed via supporting us on Patreon at: http://www.actualanarchy.com/patreon

We’ll be back next week to celebrate our friend Patrick MacFarlane of Liberty Weekly having passed the bar with an analysis of the Jim Carrey vehicle “Liar Liar”.  I hope you’ll join us!

Speaking of YouTube, be sure to spread some love to our normie-friendly version of the show called “The Last Nighters”, check out the YouTube page here and subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4kl9Q80Yaa6wSTcUM-sfww

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

In fact, we just launched the Last Nighters as a Podcast feed, you can find it 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:

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

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:

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.

---

All this can be yours, via FOUR different access options:

1. For a small monthly fee of $10.95/month by clicking on the “Purchase Access” button on this page.

2. As a bonus for any purchase of Liberty Classroom by Tom Woods on our affiliate link (We also include a free basic membership to Readitfor.me).

3. And a third way of gaining access is to support us on Patreon at the $10.00 per month or higher level at: https://www.patreon.com/readrothbard

4. 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 96 – The Dark Knight Returns (57:43) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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
@meritocratic

_______________________________

The post Why is India not so rich? appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.”

Chomsky then continues to strawman the anarcho-libertarian tradition following the above non-argument, saying that it, “permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.”

This is not at all the case. The libertarian holds to the non-aggression principle, which condemns aggression as criminal, and permits the use of force only in self-defense of rightful ownership of body and property. It is the idea of the state in which power can be unleashed to do whatever it likes; and it would seem Chomsky is fond of this solution.

Chomsky has a loose way with words which must turn some people on to, well, whatever his ideas really are, such as to say that “concentrated private power” will take over. He is, again, quite vague on what it is he really stands for, generally self-identifying as an “anarcho syndicalist.”

“Private power”

Chomsky is afraid of what he repeatedly calls “private power,” perhaps such as to make you fear freedom from the state; he uses this term eight times in this piece. But he leaves out that these corporations he speaks of have always went to the state to obtain the power that they were unable to on the market.

As documented by Murray Rothbard in The Progressive Era , in every industry, every time, private attempts at cartels and monopolies failed, and these businesses saw to it that the only way they would be successful is to turn to the strong arm of the state. And so they did, putting forth various laws, such as the Federal Reserve Act, to gain control of the economy which they found impossible to do so without state assistance.

Chomsky would seem to hold the view that the state came in to save everyone in the 1930s, and the preceding progressive era, rather than this being a time when private interests indeed worked to secure special privileges from the state. The progressive era was not one where unchecked private power was finally checked; it was a time when these private interests saw to it that the government secure their position in the economy.

However, Chomsky, the alleged anarchist, believes that we need more of the state to check them.  Despite acknowledging the “concentration of private power through the use of state system,” he would seemingly like to have it both ways: the state can be convenient and socialist, too.

While the anarcho-capitalist acknowledges that not every quasi-private business in our crony-socialist economy is legitimate, being that many of them have been privileged by the state in various ways, the solution remains that denying them the state — and its special privileges, subsidies, contracts — would lead them to fail . Private power came about through state power, and Chomsky is completely backward — my guess, wittingly — in his idea of the role of the state.

A strategy for liberty?

In the voluntaryist tradition, which Chomsky would deride as giving way to “private power,” it is never acceptable to use statist means toward libertarian ends; the state is patently coercive and anarchists should avoid associating with it in any capacity (voting, taking office, etc).

Long a question to anarchists is how this anarchist society will be achieved.

Especially if the political means are off the table. Some will agree that it sounds ideal, but being that we do have a state, how do we get there?

According to Chomsky,

“One way, incidentally, is through use of the state, to the extent that it is democratically controlled.”

Trying to reconcile this with their alleged anarchism, the state is justified “in the context of the capitalist economy.” So long as there is private power — though, how will anarcho-syndicalism rid the world of private property? — the state may be a useful tool in controlling it.

If they fear “private power,” which economists such as Ludwig von Mises had always distinguished from state power for that the market economy exists to serve the consumers, then it would seem that Chomsky and anarcho syndicalists are scared of statelessness. For, how would they stop people from accumulating capital, freely exchanging, using money, etc., in a world without the state? It seems they believe they couldn’t , and the state may hold the solution.

It is almost as if they rightly realize the state is socialist and exists as the means to trample on private property rights. So much for the “capitalist state,” as the interviewer suggests, it is correctly realized that the state is the means of having socialism; and that a stateless society would in fact mean capitalism.

To Chomsky, the state is useful because it “provides devices to constrain the much more dangerous forces of private power.”

While the world isn’t perfect, and the scope of discussion is very much what is preferable , e.g., liberty to the state, Chomsky is clear that he believes the private, market economy is “much more dangerous” than the state. That the state is preferable to the market is all that’s needed to confirm that one is not an anarchist.

But he’s not done yet. The state has won so many concessions for the people, it is believed, that surely the enactment of more laws for “the workers” would be good. One starts to get the feel that there is no real difference in an anarcho-socialist and a state-socialist; socialism always means to violate property rights. It is typical of left-anarchist types that state-run healthcare, labor laws, minimum wage laws, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc., are all good; to abolish them would be horrendous. What does Chomsky suggest is good in the state?

“Rules for safety and health in the workplace for example. Or insuring that people have decent health care, let’s say. Many other things like that.”

Again, on not realizing that “private power” turned to the state for real power, these interests —and not “the workers” — were always the ones behind these acts. It was those at the top pushing for workman’s compensation and other labor laws, knowing this would increase the costs of doing business, thus heightening the barriers to entry into the market and keeping out competition.

What is “decent” healthcare is apparently to be decided by Chomsky.

Again, ignorant that markets do provide, Chomsky tells us these wonderful things the state has given us are “not going to come about through private power.”

So how might an “anarchist” suggest they will come about?

“They can come about through the use of the state system under limited democratic control…to carry forward reformist measures. I think those are fine things to do. they should be looking forward to something much more, much beyond, — namely actual, much larger-scale democratization.”

Chomsky is essentially a democratic-socialist, hence his giddy support for the Bernie Sanders campaign, respecting Sanders for being brave enough to come out as a socialist. Indeed, he says of “anarcho-syndicalism” that “democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society.” Worse, Chomsky appears quite fond of Chavez and the Venezuelan prospect of offering the world an alternative (just as Sanders praised it).

Typical of a democratic socialist, which is but a softcore variety of communism, distance is sought from the much more heinous episodes in socialism, while a “huge” difference is presented to exist between both degrees of socialism. Chomsky is content with the latter, still statist, variety.

“As for state socialism, depends what one means by the term. If it’s tyranny of the Bolshevik variety (and its descendants), we need not tarry on it. If it’s a more expanded social democratic state, then the comments above apply.”

There you have it: state-socialism isn’t bad per se ; it “depends what one means” by it. There is thus an implicit admission that the state is in fact socialist (not capitalist), and this is good so long as it’s democratic . Seemingly his, and other anarcho-syndicalist’s, only problem with the state is that it isn’t democratic enough.

He continues

Further into this think-piece, Chomsky sounds the alarm of “climate change,” saying “we are facing a threat, a serious threat, of catastrophic climate change. And it’s no joke.” Presumably, the state would be used to check this, too. The solution, may we suggest, would be a greater enforcement of property rights, which doesn’t come under the state, to where any polluter, without a free pass, could be tried for aggression against the property rights of others.

It is true that the state rests on legitimacy, and not simply force alone, but Chomsky’s idea of indoctrination and propaganda is not that of the state indoctrinating people, but rather corporations who use clever marketing to dupe them. It’s as if people are forced to watch television or buy products in the same way they’re forced to fund the state through taxes.  Chomsky doesn’t seem to care much to talk about how the state seeks to control people. Rather, he thinks the state can be used as a device to do the controlling.

In a way, Chomsky is much like Sanders to simply point out a problem which most anyone agrees is a problem (say, prices are rising), but fail to identify the cause to the reader (monetary inflation), on top of offering no real solution to this problem (a return to sound money). He voices his concern that “one of the main problems for students today — a huge problem — is skyrocketing tuitions.” In democratic socialist fashion, this must be compared to other, relatively rich countries, and we should ask “why do we have tuitions that are completely out-of-line with other countries?” Nevermind the massive government meddling in education in the United States, where there is no free-market in education, where should Americans look for examples of better models?

“Go across the ocean: Germany is a rich country. Free tuition. Finland has the highest-ranked education system in the world. Free … virtually free. So I don’t think you can give an argument that there are economic necessities behind the incredibly high increase in tuition.”

Chomsky is obviously not an economist, but to make use of his renown, speaks of economic issues anyway. Someone needs to tell Chomsky “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” and that “taxation is theft” already, because this “anarchist” had a lot to learn.

Chomsky and libertarian-anarchism

To be so hostile to anarcho-capitalism, Chomsky is quite vague here in what it is he believes are the solutions, though he does mention these anarcho-syndicalist models which he says are still in need of work. Anyone looking for clear, concise, coherent arguments against the state and for liberty will have to look toward the anarcho-libertarian tradition set forth by figures such as Murray N. Rothbard, who Chomsky has also commented on.  They won’t find it from left-anarchists.

In the interview, Chomsky gives us his [vague] definition of anarchism:

“Anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics.”

Rothbard gives us something of much more substance, in his Society Without a State .

“I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual.”

Whereas anarchism and the market is a “spontaneous order” to many anarcho-libertarians (of the American phenomenon!), the leftist-egalitarian variety of anarchism is apparently something that needs to be planned; it is not the market economy where many individuals privately associate with one another.

In the end Chomsky doesn’t offer much of anything to one interested in ideas to reach liberty.  He gives us the solution of the state, which has been no solution at all. Maybe the elites, perhaps Chomsky included, genuinely fear the libertarian tradition, for it serves as a decisive smack-down of the state and leaves no wiggle-room, as Chomsky likes to create, for the possibility that the state is a public benefactor. Contra Chomsky, to Rothbard, “the state is organized crime, murder, theft, and enslavement incarnate.”  There are no exceptions.

If the government really needed to pay a shill to confuse those with anarchist inclinations, and turn them back to the state, Chomsky would be their guy. If they were ever in need of a guy to make anarchism seem like an incoherent, impossible ideology, Chomsky is their man.

Mike Morris’s work can be found at the Front Range Voluntaryist

The post Noam Chomsky: Poser Anarchist appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.

Libertarian thought provides more than a few rabbit holes for investigation and I’ve taken a few of the economic tracts and what-has-the-government-done-with-our-money tracts, and was pleased with that growing knowledge. I’ve known the other rabbit holes were there, but you can’t read everything all at once.

So, we depend on podcasts and other libertarians for illumination in areas we do not. It happens there are more than a few libertarian podcasts to listen to.   I started my journey in earnest with Tom Woods. He’s been podcasting since 2009 and has recorded over 1000 episodes at 5 a week. I’ve “met” some amazing and smart people on his show and I’m the better for it. There is also Dave Smith, the comedian. (We’ve also Penn of Penn and Teller).

Recently Tom was on Dave’s show, “Part Of The Problem”, and Tom was talking about his recent visit to yet another show. This host asked about libertarianism in that same way everyone does who thinks the main reason is we want to get baked. Naw, man. Tom’s retelling of the conversation was a concise, specific answer to a very complicated question. Here is most of his retelling of that event:

I’ve never actually smoked pot which is probably . . . I may be the only person . . . I don’t think [there’s] people who can say this. My view is, if people are doing that or even if they’re using harder drugs that may actually do them some damage, the question is what’s the best way to approach that? What’s gonna happen if you put these people in prison? Prison rape is not the best solution to their problem. There has to be a solution better than that. So, what I explained to him is that libertarianism has nothing to do with preferences for “I’d like to smoke this or I’d like to do that” it has to do with property and the right to exchange and own and defend your property. So, the war on drugs is a violation of the right of property, and that’s why we’re against it. And then, of course, it has a lot of subsidiary damages that it does, but it’s primarily because it violates property rights which is a form of aggression, and we’re against aggression. So, my argument, I explained, is just simply we don’t favor initiating aggression. Our whole principle is don’t initiate aggression; keep your hands to yourself. He came back with, “doesn’t everybody believe that?” And I said, “they say they do,” but when push comes to shove and they see where we’re taking it, they’re not necessarily willing to follow us along on that path. He said, “Where are you taking them? Where would this go that people might not approve of it?”

And I said, “Alright, let’s abolish all the anti-trust laws, now where’s everybody on non-aggression? Let’s abolish the minimum wage, now where’s everybody? See, I’m losing people all the time just talking to you here.”

Libertarianism was kind of this milquetoast I want to smoke some pot and maybe lower my taxes but I really want to smoke the pot, that really is the top thing. 

[Libertarianism is] a whole way of thinking and it’s a way of thinking that generates amazing results, and once you understand the idea of liberty, you never look at the world the same way again. You get to the heart of some much that’s wrong with society, why the economy goes in the tank every once in a while, you begin to understand that. You understand the FED. The FED is also engaged in forms of aggression, indirectly, because it’s a coercive monopoly. There’s so many ways you see the world differently. You look at war differently and foreign policy differently. You don’t think of it as us –v- them, you just think of it as them –v- them.

Them –v- them. I shared with a friend of mine that I was so happy Tom said that. I had been feeling that I was starting to see myself a bit removed from the daily idiocy of politics. That validated my thoughts in a way that confirmed I was on the right path. I have miles to go before I sleep, but it’s nice to know I am facing forward.

The R and D have a lot of silliness to them. I think that there are many very good people in each party who want good things even if they don’t know how to get there. The Libertarian party is not immune from party idiocy. They, the big L, have had a few real bad moments in the past few months, but we little l libertarians continue. We continue seeking an elimination to government.

The Anarchy movement is immediately scary for the name alone. Nearly everyone, me included, gets it wrong, thinking anarchy is chaos. Webster’s helps little but does offer the proper definition summarized thus: No rulers; not no rules. The positive expression is Rules: not rulers.

What that means is a government in a state capital miles from you, or a federal government even further from you cannot know what is the best thing for you, her or that guy over there. If there needs to be a government (we are not convinced there does), then having that governing body as close to you as possible, say your township or maybe county, is obviously better than a bigger government miles removed from you. The next time you hear a candidate talk about small government, I’ll wager that is not the plan.

Libertarianism seems scary to people for they cannot conceive of a solution to do the things the state does. No state? Well, who will build the roads? There is no service we need from the government that cannot be done better and cheaper by private business. Most of the time, a government hires a private contractor to make the roads, so let us cut out the middle-man. I engage a few very nice, sincere people who love their kids and cannot image how life would continue if the government went away. These smart people become babbling babes with “Yeah, but”s, and :”What about”s. The state is their security blanket but they don’t know how strong they can be without it. Or, a more grown up version is Plato’s cave. Same idea.

Libertarians want liberty. Liberty to make the decisions which are best for each of us. I cannot possible be informed well enough to make a good decision for you. No person can, but we somehow forget that when a person says, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Oh, Heavens no. By what mechanism is that person imbued with knowledge to accomplish that task? To borrow from Nigel in This Is Spinal Tap, “None.”

To borrow more, and this time a timely football analogy, get off the field, look at the game from the stands. It looks completely different and it hurts less. See the action from without and see what you have been missing.

Dann Reid writes the blog “Culinary Libertarian”. He is wending his way through some books by those heavy hitters to get to libertarianism 103.

Visit his blog, get some recipes and check out the food news.

Like libertarian learning, once you pull back the curtain, there is no going back but everything on the other side is worth knowing.

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

The post Libertarianism 102 appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.

Observation:

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?

The farther politically Right one goes, the more consistency in action occurs, which involves fundamental conceptions such as being principled, having higher credibility, and promoting stability and consequent security. The farther politically Left one goes, the more actionable inconsistency occurs, which involves being unprincipled and dodgy and erratic, having less credibility, and promoting instability and a consequent rise in conflict.

Consider it this way:

You’ll always know what you’ll get from the far-Right and moderate-Right, they’re reliable and direct. You can shake hands and leave it at that. Examples: only aggressing in self-defense, and Vice-President Mike Pence’s social decorum regarding women.

You’ll get a rough idea of what’s on offer from the shallow Right through the far-Left, but they’re unreliable and shifty. You can shake hands with them one minute, but they may stab you in the back the next. Examples: intersectionality caste-fighting, the current healthcare crisis involving complete absences of care in the U.K., and Hollywood’s current sex scandals.

*The alt-right, by the way, isn’t even Right. This can be demonstrated by the Law of Self-Contradiction: antifa–(supposed) anti-fascists–is the alt-Right, and it is characterized as being antithetical to and opposing fascism, which is also supposedly far-Right. That’s like saying socialists and Marxists are opposites and opposed to one another. Most people think fascism is on the far-Right too. Which is very convoluted indeed: the antifa is on the Right AND fascism is on the Right. Alas, this is a subject for another time.

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

The post The Alt-Right is the Far-Left 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.

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

[UPDATE]

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

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:

TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE BELOW THE FOLD

The post Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017) – Video appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.

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.

But then comes the question of, is racially motivated nationalism, hence a nation that wishes to have a private society based on some arbitrary traits unrelated to how a person conducts themselves (such as how tall you are, what color your eyes are, what your skin color is, etc.), able to be accomplished in a manner that is not contradicting to the main principle which is to not harm anyone else? How do you go about removing all the people who don’t look like you, and where do you draw the line? This argument only has plausibility in theory, in which we have a small private society that started from homesteading land and allowed people in one by one.

Society, in its present state, would have to use violence to create a nation of a single race, and even worse, it would have to utilize state functions itself.

On a simpler and more hysterical level, we can imagine the complications that would occur with mixed people, that is people that have different shades of skin tone in their own race; would a half black person be allowed in a white only society if they at least appeared white? It would be an odd and humorous question on the contract being signed entering into the private society that requires you to be 100% white, and many would lie their way in if they thought they could have a better life there.

From the perspective of private businesses, the question that needs to be asked from time to time is, what is more greedy: being racist and catering to the most amount of people you can, or being racist and limiting the amount of profits you earn to constrict your business?

If being greedy in business means that all you care about is profit, surely the former scenario is more greedy, as they are overlooking their racial bias to achieve more profit. The private business owner who chooses to exclude certain groups from their stores are limiting their profits, and hence being less greedy.

Finally, there is a reason why the Mises Institute and their senior fellows don’t use all their energy putting out information in opposition to white nationalism: because when something is so clearly the opposite of what you believe in, why even acknowledge the absurdities? As if people who spend their time thinking about how government harms the individual, also wishes to group the individual into collectivist classes. It just doesn’t make any sense to promote this line of thinking.

Putting people into classes is what collectivists do, while libertarians recognize the importance of a person’s actions versus their appearance.

Racism is collectivism at its core, and though it’s such an obvious facet of the libertarian mind that it hardly needs to be restated, collectivism is antithetical to individualism. It’s not that a private society couldn’t be formed in which only one race exists, but it seems to be problematic that it’s impossible to do that without violence.

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

The post True Libertarianism Is Colorblind appeared first on Actual Anarchy.