The World Health Organization, though incorrectly identifying “self-harm” as a form of violence[1], provides an otherwise laudable definition of violence:

the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation[2]

The question of primacy then for libertarians as it relates to liberty is as follows:

“Is using violence against non-violent individuals ever justified?”

A common argument is that violence is warranted when used to retrieve stolen property or to mitigate the acts of being defrauded. These examples still beg the original question, as both stealing and defrauding property are considered a form of violence itself; theft is clearly deprivation; theft is clearly intentional.

However, when “defensive violence” becomes conflated with“aggressive violence”, it becomes an obvious concealment for the true intent of the aggressors.

For example, if Robinson Crusoe shows up on an island and claims a coconut tree for himself (among many), and someone else shows up and tries to claim the same tree, it would be argued that “Crusoe is inherently violent. If someone seeks to access “his” tree”, which is given to all of us by nature, he will use violence.”

It is not asked, however, “why is person B attempting to use the tree Crusoe has claimed and begun to care for when 1.) there are plenty of other trees around to homestead, and other islands for that matter and 2.) it has been expressed that conflict will unnecessarily arise.

It cannot be taken seriously that there is real concern over scarce resources being oppressively utilized, but only that a desire to encourage conflict is prevalent in the first place; the lust of another’s source of happiness, in other words, seeks to downplay the sacrifices and time preferences of people enhancing their lives.

Yet many examples exist outside of Crusoe’s fictitious island.

Marquis de Sade, a late 18^th-century libertine philosopher, suggested in his violently pornographic (yet somehow morally based) novel Juliette that:

Tracing the right of property back to its source, one infallibly arrives at usurpation. However, theft is only punished because it violates the right of property; but this right is itself nothing in origin but theft; thus, the law punishes the thief for attacking thieves, punishes the weak for attempting to recover what has been stolen from him, punishes the strong for wishing either to establish or to augment his wealth through exercising the talents and prerogatives he has received from Nature. What a shocking series of inane illogicalities![3]

Speaking of “illogicalities”, is it odd that Juliette runs rampant with ideas such as killing young boys to prevent them from being harmful males, or befriending a millionaire who kills girls and engages in incest with his daughter? The ideas indeed seem in line with the crudeness of labeling a thief a hero, as corroborated above.

De Sade, of course, spent the last 13 years of his life behind bars after the novel was released. Napolean Bonaparte had considered de Sade’s words he voluntarily wrote worthy of violence, in the same way that de Sade thought the same of those voluntarily claiming property.

Peter Kropotkin, a Left-Anarchist of the 19th century, stated:

By what right then can anyone whatever appropriate the least morsel of this immense whole and say—This is mine, not yours?[4]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, another Left-Anarchist that claimed “property is theft”, opined that:

If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?[5]

Even Karl Marx, when asked in a letter to describe his views of Proudhon, found these sentiments (along with the Left-Anarchist philosophy) utterly contradicting:

The upshot is at best that the bourgeois legal conceptions of “theft” apply equally well to the “honest” gains of the bourgeois himself. On the other hand, since “theft” as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property, Proudhon entangled himself in all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about true bourgeois property.[6]

 Marx knew if the logic was applied evenly across the board, that a claim to land in an area where there isn’t a sign of life for 50 miles would be doing so ferociously despite no one else seeking access. In order to establish a defense of at least some property, in a more convincing way than Proudhon and other Left-Anarchists, the words “private” and “personal” were differentiated.[7] “Private” property is thought to be related to capital goods used in the process of making other goods such as ovens, hammers, factory machines, and also unmoveable goods such as land, while “personal” property is related to moveable possessions that are not used in the process of making other goods.

Much is left to figure out for ourselves, sardonically so considering Marx’s haphazard explanations. Is a child engaging in labor in the form of chores and homework doing so under duress that would amount to violence? If I lend someone a lawnmower, contingent on that they compensate me for the time I loan it out, have I stolen money from an innocent person wanting to cut their lawn for not loaning it for free?

The distinction is meant to rile up anyone who draws a connection as such: there is nothing wrong with me if I own a lawn mower, but there is everything wrong with me if refuse to loan out a lawn mower for free. If, on the other hand, the capitalist is examined beyond their supposed “lack of input”, the incentives they have to make gains on investments cannot be ignored, as the other alternative is them never investing at all.

Marx, through duplicity, gave his own response to the idea of lost incentives:

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.[8] 

The Paradox:

Few fail to amply understand the nature of an individual and their body, which of course is the pith of our ability to find peace and carry on through our lives.

We would find it difficult to travel and cooperate with others if, upon arbitrarily being punched in the face, we were the ones considered violent in this instance. By depriving the attacker of the opportunity to practice martial arts moves on bypassers, we deny them their psychic profit of engaging in such an act! And a natural act at that! Faces are given to us by nature, and were meant for punching, and there is no shortage of faces!

This theoretical is veritably over the top for even a Marxist or Left-Anarchist, but why is it then when we say it is violent to deprive a benevolent person of their land or factory, we are said to engage in the antithesis of meanings?

The first reason is that there exists some plausibility within these buried sentiments. It does appear that by saying this computer monitor is mine, that presumably if someone seized it that I would try take it back; by force if necessary. However, once credence is given towards the fact that I acquired the screen through self-sacrifices of my own, or that it was gifted to me because im poverty-stricken, the believability of the thieves peril in lacking my property becomes transient.

The second reason, with many connections to the first one, is in avoidance to the underlying principle of Marx’s theory of surplus value: that workers get the short end of the stick by default. Marx espoused that a capitalist, in seeking profit through investment, will compensate the employee for much less value than they have produced. For example, if a capitalist invests $100 in capital goods/resources and $50 in labor, but then sells the product for $200 and profits $50, the capitalist has exploited the employee and extracted $50 extra dollars out of them. If, however, the worker were given access to the full value of their labor, they would be entitled to the full $100 (labor value plus profit). This ignores many factors, the first being that capitalists are consumers too. But if we are to base this theory of exploitation off the idea that people are entitled to the full product of what they mix their labor with, then how are we to justify the seizing of a person’s property who earned it through their own labor? Is it not contradicting to state that a person can acquire property if they are the one being exploited, but that they cannot maintain their property in instances where they are said to exploit others (by not wanting to loan property for no interest)?

The last reason has an innumerable set of examples given all of history, yet for some it’s arduous to admit: People who want to commit violence against others will justify it any way they can, often through absurd measures. In this way, the thief can now be considered “the retriever of natures property back unto the public”. The murderer can now be considered “the person preventing further exploitation by capitalists”. The violent rhetoric, often used in real attacks day to day, is rhetoric “only as a result of those wishing to institute mass freedom, which must be stopped.”

The paradox between liberty and violence is such that on one hand, liberty is an experience lacking violence and dominance by others entirely, while the suggestion that liberty is felt through violence versus the aversion of it, is an unpalatable revision of terms.

[1] While harming oneself causes physical harm, libertarians do not tend to view harming oneself as “violent” as comparable to a crime. Though intentional, it only effects the individual at hand (physically at least).

[2] See http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/

[3] Marquis de Sade, Juliette (New York: Grove Press, 1968), p. 177.

[4] Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread (London: Chapman and Hall, 1913), p. 9.

[5] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The Works of P.J. Proudhon (Mass: Benj. R. Tucker, 1876), p. 11.

[6] See Marx’s letter to J.B. Schweizer written January 24, 1865 in Marx Engels Selected Works Vol. 2

[7] He did this interchangeably, depending on the instance he was trying to defend or argue against

[8] Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Community Party, 1848, p. 24.

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

The post Liberty and Violence: A Paradox appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Steven Clyde joins us to discuss “First They Killed My Father” a 2017 biographical historical thriller film directed by Angelina Jolie currently available on Netflix. The story is about Loung Ung, based on her memoir detailing how she as a 5-year-old girl embarks on a harrowing quest for survival amid the sudden rise and terrifying reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Steven writes for the site and is always has a fun and interesting take on all things related to liberty and Murray Rothbard.  We would each other in the Tom Woods Elite last year and have become good friends.

Here is the recent article he referenced in our discussion:

True Libertarianism Is Colorblind

Google Description:

Loung Ung is 5 years old when the Khmer Rouge assumes power over Cambodia in 1975. They soon begin a four-year reign of terror and genocide in which nearly 2 million Cambodians die. Forced from her family’s home in Phnom Penh, Ung is trained as a child soldier while her six siblings are sent to labor camps.

Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Killed_My_Father_(film)

Whenever you encounter the “it wasn’t real communism” argument; remember this from Jordan Peterson:

But Hoppe could do it right, right?!?!

Hoppe can make socialism work

The classic “That Wasn’t Real Communism” meme:

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!

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

The post Episode 43 – First They Killed My Father (1:32:27) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

By Anarcho-Viking

Trouble with the thought police

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

Time-preference and the Austrian school

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

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

Understanding economics <> homophobia

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

The deceitful strategy of the critics

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

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

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

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

Understanding the truth is a matter of terminology

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

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

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

Victory against the opinion molders

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

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

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

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.

These questions cannot be conclusively answered because public property isn’t embodied with the rational calculation of prices, incentives, liberty and ownership. If you’re not an “economist” (government’s bootlicker), you would surely gibe at my assertions.

Public property is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing called “public”, first of all. What you see around is rational individuals who are driven by the principle of self-interest. You, as an individual, are also driven by your self interest axiom, to read this blog. No one is compelling you. Even if you’re forced to read this blog, you’re still driven by your self-interest policy to obey the command. This proves that there’s nothing called “collective interest” because groups cannot think or reason.

Only individuals can.

Since public property is a generalization, it is to be commonly understood that individuals own the property because ownership gives the individuals a sense of freedom and rights.

Since public property possesses a “common” title, its’ users don’t have rational incentives to take care of it. That’s why public property ends up getting mismanaged or crooked.

What would you prefer to take care of, your private property or collective property? The former gives you the right and freedom to nurture it because private property’s nature is dependent upon your responsibility, whereas the latter does not have any incentive to look after it.

To make the case easier, would you prefer a private swimming pool or a public pool?

Of course, you would dislike the quality of a public pool because you don’t own it to nurture it. This doesn’t mean that we need more government interventionism or supervision. We need more private property rights so that the government (“owner” of public property) does not resort to infringe your personal property or possession.

On the other hand, it is vague to learn that individuals pay “property tax” to the government for owning the property personally. Does it indicate that even private property belongs to the government. If yes, then how do you own yourself? If no, then why would you pay for owning your labor or wealth? Kindly don’t bring the “who will build the roads?” theses here.

It’s not about roads.

It is about axioms like self-ownership, property rights and freedom. Think.

The government doesn’t have to pay fees or even taxes for the creation or maintenance of their personal possession i.e public property. It’s you who has to comply with the draconian land rules/laws of the unaccountable government. If this isn’t modern slavery then what is?

Public property is a vivid manifestation of tragedy of the commons policy. No matter how many euphemisms are played, the political fraternity (monopolist) is the “owner” of public property as they don’t have to pay fees for its utility. It’s you who is being forced to eternally pay for something which you don’t own or dislike to use for its inadequate maintenance.

Stop being public. Start being private.
______________________________

About the author

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

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic 

_______________________________

The post Contradiction 101: “Public Property” appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Delivering at an old man’s house up in the mountains today, and he came shuffling out to say hello. We were talking and I could tell his hands weren’t working but I figured it was just arthritis or something.

But he told me about how a Forest Service agent(?) threw him down and handcuffed him, for driving down a closed road to get to his house.

This isn’t a road that was under construction, it was just closed due to weather. So he was perfectly capable of traversing that road without a problem.

And it was the only road to his house.

He said the agent put the cuffs on so tight his hands haven’t worked right since. I’m inclined to believe him because even though he looked to be in his mid-70s or older, he didn’t come off as a crazy fucker, and believe me I meet those types too. He still seemed pretty sharp.

Also, when I was delivering to his neighbor the week prior, that guy was just bursting to tell me about how much he hates the Forest Service as well.  I didn’t say anything to get them to tell me this stuff either, in case you’re wondering.

If you’re from back east, you probably can’t imagine what it’s like to have the federal government control the vast majority of the land. In the southern part of my area, it’s all BLM land, and the farmers tell me horror stories about the BLM that’d make you sick with rage.

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

The post Roadside Brutality of Senior Citizen appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

AnarcoTopics #8 – Free Market Environmentalism [Nuke The Whales] (42:25)

Part 8 of a 9 part series on Anarcho-Capitalism.

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

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

The post AnarcoTopics #8 – Free Market Environmentalism [Nuke The Whales] (42:25) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

In 1950, she imitated USSR thinking and adopted socialism model and messed up the economy. In 1991, she liberalised the economy without annihilating the conventional structures. She recovered from the hangover of ‘license raj’ period (1950-1991) but it seems that the economy continues to be addicted to the socialism features even today.

Titles of the government change every 5 years, but the style of governance continues to be the same. Taking a cue from our Asian Tigers, India continues to ignore learning basic economic lessons in this regard. In this context, property rights, land rights, privacy, economic liberties, etc. continue to behold the ignorance of critical introspection.

Like basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, education, and now the Internet), an economy also has few vital necessities. To create more cities and jobs, the land is a salient component.

The secondary reason behind India’s “jobless growth” is her willful ignorance of the unused lands. No government has done any mammoth exercise of collecting data on unused lands in India till date. Whichever party came to power was busily immersed in communal politics and socialism economics. Unless the unused lands are not monetised, the economy cannot beget employment opportunities and urbanisation.

Without urbanisation, India’s labor-oriented economy will collapse.

Cities are the engines of growth.

In the coming years, if India affords to undermine tapping of the coherent thinking then the future generation will pay the higher price for nothing because the unaccountable economy continues to live at the expense of everyone else.

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

Most of the land in India is owned by the Public Sector Units. In total, there are 298 central public sector enterprises (CPSEs). 58 units are sick among them. These CPSEs are anyway backed by the taxes and operational profits. Yes, their losses are socialised because CPSEs are not private and accountable entities. These CPSEs own 10 lakh acres of surplus land. If monetised or economised, the land can create many cities, assets and jobs. It is unfortunate to learn that the government does not have any central portal that registers the data and property titles of the unused lands.

Such a lackadaisical behaviour tells a lot about the intention of the government. On the other hand, it is commonly understood that land is not a scarce commodity anymore.

What is scarce is the generation of good ideas.

Other things being equal, CPSEs do not really know the quantity, volume and value of their own saleable lands and leases. Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) could be in the position to unlock the real value of the unused land owned by the Indian Railways but they too lack sufficient clarity of the whole picture. Anyway, as per the SCOPE (standing committee of public enterprises) report, the operational profit of CPSEs is unable to cross Rs. 25 lakh crore due to poor investments in the sector.

The taxpayers receive a contribution from CPSEs up to Rs. 1.6 lakh crore every year, which is lesser than the amount that per individual contributes to the government in form of taxes. In this whole saga, the cost of maintaining the unused lands is now higher than the price of selling it.

Who is responsible and accountable for it?

Under the “Land Acquisition Act” (a.k.a. Land Extortion Act), the government continues to arrogate the land and property rights of the individuals since 1978. This has added to the advantage of the government to expropriate the land without timely compensation and artificial rates. Just because the media doesn’t report the saga mentioned in this article as ‘scam’, does not alter the apocryphal of the term ‘scam’.

The government of India does not have any incentive to look after the unused lands since it continues to enjoy a monopoly on legislating your homestead property and berating your economic freedom. Unused lands continue to be an undisclosed scam because it manifests the unseen side of governmental economics.

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

The post India’s Undisclosed Scam appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

AnarcoTopics #2 – Property Rights Don’t Exist, Except For That! (14:57)

Part 2 of a 9 part series on Anarcho-Capitalism.

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

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

The post AnarcoTopics #2 – Property Rights Don’t Exist, Except For That! (14:57) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Abоlіtіоn оf thе рublіс ѕесtоr means, of соurѕе, thаt all ріесеѕ оf lаnd, аll land аrеаѕ, including streets аnd roads, wоuld bе оwnеd рrіvаtеlу, by іndіvіduаlѕ, соrроrаtіоnѕ, соореrаtіvеѕ, оr аnу other vоluntаrу grоuріngѕ оf іndіvіduаlѕ аnd саріtаl. The fасt that аll ѕtrееtѕ аnd lаnd аrеаѕ wоuld bе рrіvаtе wоuld bу itself ѕоlvе mаnу of the seemingly іnѕоlublе problems оf private ореrаtіоn. What we nееd tо do іѕ tо reorient оur thіnkіng tо consider a world in which all lаnd аrеаѕ are рrіvаtеlу оwnеd. 

Lеt uѕ tаkе, for example, роlісе рrоtесtіоn. Hоw would police protection bе furnіѕhеd іn a tоtаllу private есоnоmу? 

Part оf thе аnѕwеr bесоmеѕ еvіdеnt іf we consider a world оf tоtаllу рrіvаtе land аnd street ownership. Cоnѕіdеr thе Times Sԛuаrе area of New Yоrk City, a notoriously crime-ridden аrеа whеrе there іѕ lіttlе police рrоtесtіоn furnіѕhеd bу thе сіtу аuthоrіtіеѕ. Evеrу Nеw Yоrkеr knоwѕ, іn fасt, thаt he lіvеѕ аnd wаlkѕ the streets, аnd not only Tіmеѕ Sԛuаrе, virtually іn a state оf “anarchy,” dереndеnt ѕоlеlу оn the nоrmаl реасеfulnеѕѕ аnd gооd wіll оf his fеllоw сіtіzеnѕ. Pоlісе рrоtесtіоn іn New Yоrk іѕ mіnіmаl, a fact drаmаtісаllу rеvеаlеd іn a recent week-long роlісе ѕtrіkе whеn, lо аnd bеhоld!, crime іn nо way іnсrеаѕеd frоm its nоrmаl ѕtаtе whеn thе роlісе аrе supposedly аlеrt and оn thе jоb. 

At аnу rаtе, suppose thаt thе Tіmеѕ Sԛuаrе area, іnсludіng thе streets, wаѕ privately оwnеd, say bу the “Tіmеѕ Sԛuаrе Mеrсhаntѕ Aѕѕосіаtіоn.” Thе merchants would knоw full wеll, оf соurѕе, thаt іf сrіmе was rampant in their аrеа, іf muggings аnd hоlduрѕ аbоundеd, thеn their customers would fаdе аwау and wоuld раtrоnіzе соmреtіng аrеаѕ and neighborhoods. Hеnсе, іt wоuld bе tо the economic interest оf thе merchants’ association to supply efficient аnd рlеntіful роlісе protection, ѕо thаt сuѕtоmеrѕ wоuld bе аttrасtеd tо, rаthеr than rереllеd from, their nеіghbоrhооd. Private business, аftеr аll, іѕ always trуіng tо attract аnd kеер іtѕ customers. 

But whаt gооd would bе served bу attractive ѕtоrе dіѕрlауѕ аnd расkаgіng, рlеаѕаnt lіghtіng аnd соurtеоuѕ service, іf thе сuѕtоmеrѕ may be robbed or аѕѕаultеd if they walk thrоugh thе аrеа? 

Thе merchants’ association, furthеrmоrе, wоuld bе іnduсеd, bу thеіr drіvе for profits аnd fоr аvоіdіng lоѕѕеѕ, to supply nоt оnlу ѕuffісіеnt роlісе рrоtесtіоn but also соurtеоuѕ and рlеаѕаnt рrоtесtіоn. Gоvеrnmеntаl роlісе have not оnlу nо іnсеntіvе tо bе еffісіеnt оr worry аbоut their “сuѕtоmеrѕ’” nееdѕ; they also lіvе wіth thе еvеr-рrеѕеnt tеmрtаtіоn to wield thеіr power of fоrсе іn a brutal and coercive mаnnеr. 

“Pоlісе brutality” іѕ a wеll-knоwn feature оf thе роlісе system, аnd it іѕ hеld іn сhесk only bу rеmоtе complaints оf thе hаrаѕѕеd сіtіzеnrу. But іf thе private mеrсhаntѕ’ police ѕhоuld yield to thе tеmрtаtіоn of brutalizing the mеrсhаntѕ’ customers, those customers wіll ԛuісklу dіѕарреаr аnd go еlѕеwhеrе. Hеnсе, the mеrсhаntѕ’ аѕѕосіаtіоn will see tо іt thаt іtѕ роlісе аrе courteous as well аѕ рlеntіful. Suсh еffісіеnt and hіgh-ԛuаlіtу роlісе protection would prevail thrоughоut thе lаnd, throughout аll thе рrіvаtе streets аnd land areas. 

Fасtоrіеѕ would guаrd thеіr ѕtrееt аrеаѕ, mеrсhаntѕ their ѕtrееtѕ, аnd road соmраnіеѕ would рrоvіdе ѕаfе аnd еffісіеnt роlісе protection fоr their tоll roads and other privately owned rоаdѕ. Thе ѕаmе wоuld bе truе for rеѕіdеntіаl nеіghbоrhооdѕ. 

We саn envision twо роѕѕіblе tуреѕ оf рrіvаtе street оwnеrѕhір іn ѕuсh nеіghbоrhооdѕ. In one tуре, all the lаndоwnеrѕ in a сеrtаіn blосk might bесоmе thе jоіnt оwnеrѕ оf that blосk, lеt uѕ say аѕ thе “85th St. Blосk Cоmраnу.” This соmраnу wоuld thеn provide police рrоtесtіоn, the соѕtѕ being раіd еіthеr bу thе hоmе-оwnеrѕ directly оr оut оf tenants’ rеnt if thе ѕtrееt іnсludеѕ rental араrtmеntѕ. Again, hоmеоwnеrѕ wіll оf соurѕе have a direct interest in ѕееіng thаt thеіr block іѕ safe, while lаndlоrdѕ wіll try tо аttrасt tеnаntѕ by ѕuррlуіng ѕаfе ѕtrееtѕ іn аddіtіоn to thе more usual services ѕuсh аѕ hеаt, water, and janitorial service. ‘ 

To ask why landlords ѕhоuld provide ѕаfе ѕtrееtѕ in thе libertarian, fully рrіvаtе ѕосіеtу is juѕt as ѕіllу аѕ аѕkіng now whу thеу ѕhоuld рrоvіdе thеіr tеnаntѕ wіth heat оr hоt wаtеr. Thе force оf соmреtіtіоn аnd of соnѕumеr dеmаnd would make them ѕuррlу ѕuсh ѕеrvісеѕ. Furthermore, whether we аrе соnѕіdеrіng homeowners or rеntаl housing, іn еіthеr саѕе the саріtаl vаluе of the lаnd and thе hоuѕе wіll bе a function оf the safety оf thе street аѕ wеll аѕ оf thе other wеll-knоwn сhаrасtеrіѕtісѕ of the hоuѕе аnd the nеіghbоrhооd. 

Sаfе аnd wеll-раtrоllеd ѕtrееtѕ will rаіѕе thе vаluе of thе lаndоwnеrѕ’ lаnd and hоuѕеѕ іn the same way аѕ wеll-tеndеd houses dо; crime-ridden streets wіll lоwеr the value оf the land аnd hоuѕеѕ as surely аѕ dilapidated hоuѕіng іtѕеlf does. Since lаndоwnеrѕ аlwауѕ рrеfеr hіghеr tо lоwеr mаrkеt values for thеіr рrореrtу, there іѕ a built-in іnсеntіvе to рrоvіdе еffісіеnt, well -paved, аnd ѕаfе ѕtrееtѕ. 

Private enterprise does еxіѕt, and ѕо most реорlе саn rеаdіlу еnvіѕіоn a frее mаrkеt in most goods and ѕеrvісеѕ. Prоbаblу thе most difficult ѕіnglе area to grаѕр, hоwеvеr, іѕ the аbоlіtіоn оf government ореrаtіоnѕ іn the ѕеrvісе of protection: police, the соurtѕ, еtс. — the аrеа encompassing defense оf person and property аgаіnѕt attack or іnvаѕіоn. 

Hоw соuld рrіvаtе еntеrрrіѕе аnd thе frее mаrkеt possibly provide such service? How соuld роlісе, lеgаl ѕуѕtеmѕ, judicial ѕеrvісеѕ, lаw enforcement, prisons — how could thеѕе be provided in a frее mаrkеt? 

Wе hаvе аlrеаdу seen how a grеаt deal of police рrоtесtіоn, аt thе least, could be supplied bу the various оwnеrѕ of streets аnd lаnd аrеаѕ. But we now nееd to еxаmіnе thіѕ entire area ѕуѕtеmаtісаllу. In thе fіrѕt рlасе, thеrе іѕ a common fаllасу, hеld even by most аdvосаtеѕ оf lаіѕѕеz-fаіrе, thаt thе government muѕt ѕuррlу “роlісе рrоtесtіоn,” аѕ if police protection wеrе a single, absolute entity, a fіxеd ԛuаntіtу оf something whісh thе gоvеrnmеnt supplies tо аll. But іn асtuаl fact there іѕ nо аbѕоlutе соmmоdіtу called “роlісе рrоtесtіоn” any more than there is аn absolute ѕіnglе commodity called “fооd” оr “shelter.” 

It іѕ truе thаt еvеrуоnе рауѕ taxes for a ѕееmіnglу fіxеd ԛuаntіtу оf рrоtесtіоn, but this is a mуth. In асtuаl fасt, thеrе аrе аlmоѕt infinite dеgrееѕ оf аll sorts of рrоtесtіоn. Fоr аnу given person оr buѕіnеѕѕ, thе police саn рrоvіdе everything frоm a policeman оn the beat whо раtrоlѕ оnсе a night, to two policemen раtrоllіng constantly оn еасh blосk, to сruіѕіng patrol cars, tо оnе or еvеn several round-the-clock реrѕоnаl bоdуguаrdѕ. 

Furthеrmоrе, thеrе are mаnу other dесіѕіоnѕ the роlісе muѕt make, thе complexity оf which becomes еvіdеnt аѕ soon аѕ wе lооk beneath the veil оf the myth оf absolute “protection.” Hоw ѕhаll the роlісе аllосаtе thеіr funds whісh аrе, of course, always lіmіtеd аѕ are thе fundѕ of аll other іndіvіduаlѕ, organizations, and аgеnсіеѕ? How much ѕhаll the роlісе іnvеѕt іn еlесtrоnіс еԛuірmеnt? fіngеrрrіntіng equipment? dеtесtіvеѕ аѕ аgаіnѕt uniformed police? раtrоl саrѕ as against fооt роlісе, еtс.? 

Thе роіnt іѕ thаt thе gоvеrnmеnt hаѕ nо rational way to mаkе these allocations. Thе government оnlу knоwѕ thаt it has a lіmіtеd budgеt. Itѕ allocations of fundѕ are then ѕubjесt tо thе full рlау оf politics, bооndоgglіng, and burеаuсrаtіс inefficiency, with nо іndісаtіоn at аll аѕ to whеthеr thе роlісе department іѕ ѕеrvіng thе соnѕumеrѕ in a way rеѕроnѕіvе tо their dеѕіrеѕ оr whether іt іѕ doing ѕо еffісіеntlу. Thе ѕіtuаtіоn wоuld bе different іf police ѕеrvісеѕ were ѕuррlіеd оn a free, соmреtіtіvе market. In thаt саѕе, соnѕumеrѕ would рау fоr whatever dеgrее of protection thеу wish tо purchase. 

Thе соnѕumеrѕ who juѕt wаnt to ѕее a policeman оnсе in a while wоuld pay lеѕѕ thаn those whо wаnt continuous раtrоllіng, аnd fаr lеѕѕ thаn thоѕе whо demand twenty-four-hour bоdуguаrd ѕеrvісе. On the free mаrkеt, рrоtесtіоn wоuld be ѕuррlіеd іn рrороrtіоn and іn whаtеvеr wау thаt the consumers wіѕh tо рау for іt. A drіvе for efficiency wоuld bе іnѕurеd, аѕ іt аlwауѕ is on thе market, bу the соmрulѕіоn tо make profits аnd avoid lоѕѕеѕ, аnd thеrеbу tо kеер costs low and tо ѕеrvе thе hіghеѕt demands of the consumers. Any роlісе fіrm that ѕuffеrѕ from grоѕѕ inefficiency would ѕооn gо bаnkruрt аnd dіѕарреаr. 

Onе bіg рrоblеm a government police fоrсе muѕt аlwауѕ face is: whаt lаwѕ rеаllу tо еnfоrсе? Pоlісе departments аrе thеоrеtісаllу fасеd with thе аbѕоlutе іnjunсtіоn, “еnfоrсе аll lаwѕ,” but іn рrасtісе a limited budgеt forces thеm tо аllосаtе thеіr personnel аnd еԛuірmеnt to thе mоѕt urgеnt сrіmеѕ. But thе absolute dісtum pursues them аnd works аgаіnѕt a rаtіоnаl аllосаtіоn оf rеѕоurсеѕ. On thе frее market, whаt would be еnfоrсеd іѕ whatever the сuѕtоmеrѕ аrе wіllіng tо pay fоr. 

Suppose, for example, thаt Mr. Jоnеѕ hаѕ a precious gem hе believes mіght soon be ѕtоlеn. Hе саn аѕk, and рау fоr, rоund-thе-сlосk роlісе protection аt whаtеvеr ѕtrеngth hе may wіѕh to work оut wіth thе роlісе соmраnу. He mіght, on thе other hand, аlѕо hаvе a рrіvаtе rоаd оn hіѕ еѕtаtе hе dоеѕn’t wаnt mаnу реорlе tо travel on — but hе might nоt саrе very much аbоut trеѕраѕѕеrѕ оn that rоаd. In that саѕе, hе won’t devote аnу роlісе rеѕоurсеѕ tо protecting thе road. Aѕ оn thе mаrkеt іn gеnеrаl, іt іѕ uр to the соnѕumеr — and since аll оf uѕ are соnѕumеrѕ this mеаnѕ each реrѕоn іndіvіduаllу dесіdеѕ hоw much and what kind оf рrоtесtіоn he wаntѕ аnd is wіllіng tо buу. All that we hаvе ѕаіd аbоut landowners’ police аррlіеѕ tо рrіvаtе police in gеnеrаl. 

Frее-mаrkеt роlісе wоuld nоt only bе еffісіеnt, they wоuld hаvе a ѕtrоng incentive to bе соurtеоuѕ and tо rеfrаіn frоm brutаlіtу against either thеіr сlіеntѕ or their clients’ frіеndѕ оr сuѕtоmеrѕ. A рrіvаtе Central Park wоuld bе guarded efficiently іn order tо mаxіmіzе раrk revenue, rather than hаvе a рrоhіbіtіvе curfew іmроѕеd оn innocent — and рауіng — сuѕtоmеrѕ. A free mаrkеt іn роlісе would rеwаrd еffісіеnt and courteous роlісе рrоtесtіоn to сuѕtоmеrѕ and penalize аnу fаllіng оff frоm this standard. No lоngеr wоuld thеrе bе thе current dіѕjunсtіоn between service аnd payment inherent іn аll government operations, a dіѕjunсtіоn which means that police, lіkе аll other government аgеnсіеѕ, асԛuіrе thеіr revenue, nоt vоluntаrіlу and соmреtіtіvеlу frоm consumers, but from thе tаxрауеrѕ coercively. In fасt, as government police hаvе bесоmе іnсrеаѕіnglу inefficient, consumers have bееn turning more and mоrе tо private fоrmѕ оf рrоtесtіоn. We hаvе аlrеаdу mеntіоnеd blосk оr nеіghbоrhооd рrоtесtіоn. 

Thеrе аrе аlѕо рrіvаtе guаrdѕ, insurance соmраnіеѕ, private dеtесtіvеѕ, аnd such іnсrеаѕіnglу sophisticated equipment аѕ ѕаfеѕ, locks, аnd сlоѕеd-сіrсuіt TV аnd burglar alarms. Thе Prеѕіdеnt’ѕ Cоmmіѕѕіоn оn Lаw Enforcement аnd thе Administration оf Juѕtісе еѕtіmаtеd іn 1969 thаt gоvеrnmеnt police соѕt thе Amеrісаn public $2.8 bіllіоn a year, while іt ѕреndѕ $1.35 bіllіоn on private protection ѕеrvісе аnd another $200 mіllіоn оn еԛuірmеnt, so thаt private protection expenses аmоuntеd tо over hаlf the оutlау оn gоvеrnmеnt police. These fіgurеѕ ѕhоuld gіvе раuѕе to thоѕе сrеdulоuѕ fоlk whо believe that police рrоtесtіоn іѕ somehow, bу some mystic rіght оr power, necessarily аnd forevermore аn аttrіbutе оf State sovereignty. 

[Exсеrрtеd frоm Chapters 11 and 12 of Fоr A New Lіbеrtу.] 

The post Abolish the Police appeared first on Actual Anarchy.