We get a little spooky around here and do a Halloween episode with Patrick and Lizzie MacFarlane to introduce their new podcast, The Unhallowed Podcast, and to talk about the animated Addams Family from last year.

Patrick is a lawyer and podcaster who has been a frequent guest on the show for many episodes in the past under his Liberty Weekly banner and brings a legal and libertarian perspective to questions regarding property rights and other legalities presented in the movies we review with him. This time is he here to introduce you all to his new podcast that he does with his wife about gothic-horror literature and short-stories called “Unhallowed“.

There are a lot of property rights and other legal questions in this one ranging from squatting in abandoned property, squatting, homesteading, HOA, planned communities, and more.

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here, and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

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.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Buy the movie:

Google Description for the film

The Addams Family (2019)

Members of the mysterious and spooky Addams family — Gomez, Morticia, Pugsley, Wednesday, Uncle Fester and Grandma — are readily preparing for a visit from their even creepier relatives. But trouble soon arises when shady TV personality Margaux Needler realizes that the Addams’ eerie hilltop mansion is standing in the way of her dream to sell all the houses in the neighborhood.

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:

Our guest Patrick MacFarlane is a Rothbardian Ancap practicing lawyer in the State of Wisconsin.  He runs Liberty Weekly, Your weekly source of classical liberalism, Austrian Economics, personal liberty, and free markets! and hosts the Liberty Weekly Podcast. You can also find him at the Libertarian Institute and the new podcast with his wife, Lizzie MacFarlane, called “Unhallowed“.

Patrick and Lizzie MacFarlane are the co-hosts of Unhallowed! After meeting in Gothic Horror Fiction class at the University of Minnesota, they fell in love over mutual interests in heavy metal, horror, and the occult.

This is Lizzie’s first time on the show.

Here are the previous appearances by Patrick:

Episode 192 – Uncut Gems (1:33:37)

Episode 183 – American Psycho (1:17:02)

Episode 140 – Star Trek: TNG – S3E16 The Offspring (56:04)

Episode 136 – Star Trek: TNG – S2E9 The Measure of a Man (1:05:41)

Episode 131 – Star Trek: TNG – S1E7 Justice (1:16:30)

Episode 119 – My Cousin Vinny (1:03:43)

Episode 97 – Liar Liar (1:07:28)

Episode 48 – The Shining (1:58:12)

Episode 35 – Rogue One (1:16:05)

Show Notes:

Check back for some notes when I get around to it. haha.

Join us next week as we get into the spirit and do a movie that we believe will be appropriate for the aftermath of the election – no matter the victor – as we do “The Purge” with Olof the AnarchoViking.

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 204 – The Addams Family (1:29:13) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

We invite Rachel Kennerly of Cannabis Heals Me to talk about the marijuana-themed caper film “The Gentlemen” starring Matthew McConaughey.. Alright…alright…alright…

This will be a fun discussion that is a bit of a crossover theme with our guest.

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

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.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Google Description for the film

The Gentlemen

Mickey Pearson is an American expatriate who became rich by building a highly profitable marijuana empire in London. When word gets out that he’s looking to cash out of the business, it soon triggers an array of plots and schemes — including bribery and blackmail — from shady characters who want to steal his domain.

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:

Our guest is Rachel Kennerly, CPA, homeschool mom and podcast host of the “Cannabis Heals Me Podcast”. You can find her show at: https://www.cannabishealsme.com/

Check out her show and give her a subscribe and some reviews as she is doing some important work that is helping people share their stories with a plant that offers significant benefits.

She was also our guest for “Instant Family”, “The Village”, “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” and “Zombieland”, which you can find here:

Episode 180 – Instant Family (1:25:11)

Episode 162 – The Village (1:06:33)

Episode 150 – Zombieland (1:05:59)

Episode 132 – Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (1:08:51)

We will be sure to invite Rachel back again sometime in the near future for another round.

Show Notes:

A review calling “The Gentlemen” a racist movie:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/the-gentlemen-review-guy-ritchie-cast-director-gangster-hugh-grant-matthew-mcconaughey-a9252206.html

Mark Thornton episode 115

http://cannabishealsme.com/115

Ep 115 – Mark Thornton – Cannabis & The Iron Law of Prohibition

Here is the link of an excerpt from Hari’s book called The Case for Prescription Heroin:

Junk policy

Mark Thornton lecture on the War on Drugs:

Dave Smith and Michael Malice episode on logic not mattering:

Chasing the Scream:

Here is Rachel’s Amazon link for it: https://amzn.to/3fPLS8s

And here is ours:

Decriminalization of Drugs in Portugal:

https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/

SOHO Forum debate “Should All Drugs be Legal?” between Alex Berenson and Jacob Sullum:

Join us next week as we dive into the hit Broadway musical “Hamilton” with a Hamilton scholar from the Mises Institute, Tho Bishop.

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 190 – The Gentlemen (1:19:33) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Dry land is not a myth. We haven’t seen Waterworld six times like the Cable Guy, but we have seen it enough times and recently enough to do an episode on it with our pal, Peter R. Quinones (otherwise known as Mance Rayder) of the Free Man Beyond the Wall Podcast. Get ready for a deep-dive into the NAP on this one.

The Cable Guy loved this movie.

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

Waterworld

After the melting of the polar ice caps, most of the globe is underwater. Some humans have survived, and even fewer still, notably the Mariner (Kevin Costner), have adapted to the ocean by developing gills. A loner by nature, the Mariner reluctantly befriends Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and her young companion, Enola (Tina Majorino), as they escape from a hostile artificial island. Soon the sinister Smokers are pursuing them in the belief that Enola holds the key to finding the mythical Dryland.

Our guest is Peter R. Quinones AKA “Mance Rayder” of the Free Man Beyond the Wall Podcast and the Libertarian Institute, among other projects.  The man is a force for liberty and we know we’ll have a great discussion.

Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017. It reached #4 in the Libertarian Section on Amazon. He has spoken at Liberty Forum in Manchester, New Hampshire and is currently co-producing a documentary entitled, “The Monopoly on Violence,” which is scheduled for a 2020 release. It will feature the most prominent figures in libertarianism explaining how nation-states came into existence, the atrocities they commit and what a truly open libertarian society would look like.

Freedom through Memedom

The Kids are Not Alright

He was our guest for our episode on another Kevin Costner-epic, “Dances with Wolves” last year:

Episode 102 – Dances with Wolves (1:11:08)

We will be sure to invite him back again to continue our Kevin Costner trilogy with “The Postman” when the time is right and perhaps “Napoleon Dynamite” before then.

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

We don’t have much in the way of show notes on this one as we were just following a bunch of rabbit-trails and having an organic conversation. However, we did mention Emma Goldman and the movie, “Reds” which we did an episode on a few months ago:

Episode 139 – Reds (1:28:03)

Here is an Amazon link to Emma Goldman’s writings that Peter mentioned.

Join us next week as we discuss “They Shall Not Grow Old” for Armistice Day, hopefully with Jeff Deist, the President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Be sure to check out the review that Jeff wrote for “They Shall Not Grow Old” here:   https://mises.org/wire/they-shall-not-grow-old-superb-antiwar-film

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 153 – Waterworld (1:35:48) appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

We’re talking about the punk-rock horror/thriller movie Green Room. It pits an ANTIFA-flavored punk band and a white supremacist audience against in each other in a battle to the death.

After witnessing a shocking crime, a young rock band is unexpectedly thrust into a life-or-death battle to escape the clutches of a diabolical club owner (Patrick Stewart) and his ruthless henchmen in this white-knuckle thriller.

Sadly, they both share many of the same ideas and horrific understanding of economics and morality. We get deep into some of the weeds here in a fun critique of pacing and real grown-up style reviewing. Enjoys!

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

Google Description

A punk rock band becomes trapped in a secluded venue after finding a scene of violence. For what they saw, the band themselves become targets of violence from a gang of white power skinheads, who want to eliminate all evidence of the crime.

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

During the show, we mentioned a few things that are posted here:

The wonderful Babylon Bee article:

https://babylonbee.com/news/antifa-burns-nazi-manifestos-section-on-racism-preserves-remainder-as-own-platform

Hitler and Economics | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

A video highlighting the hypocrisy of the left, and HRC’s seeming call for violence:

Anti-Fascist, Trump protesters applaud speech comprised entirely of Hitler quotes

Here is Rothbard dismantling the Labor Theory of Value in the first few minutes of this lecture on Mises, specifically the “great inventor” bit starts at 3 minutes, 41 seconds in:

Economics 101 – 8 of 8 – Mises in One Lesson – Murray N Rothbard

03:41
remember those a movie instead of a
03:42
charming movie a great Z movie came in
03:46
about twenty years ago I forget the
03:48
title but the essence of it was some
03:50
great inventor and somewhere on the West
03:53
of England wasn’t totally isolated and
03:55
he kept inventing great things like a
03:57
radio and then television a lot except
04:00
that already been invented twenty years
04:01
before I think they didn’t know about it
04:04
so he’s a great inventor I just he was
04:06
taken better the wheel or whatever too
04:09
late but he was working put him up to
04:11
put in a hundred thousand labor hours
04:13
and these inventions how many you saw
04:15
obviously zero

‘Stupidly politically correct society is the death of comedy’, warns veteran comedian Mel Brooks

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/21/stupidly-politically-correct-society-death-comedy-warns-veteran/

—————————
RACIST ORIGINS OF PROGRESSIVE FAVORITES
—————————

On the Historically Racist Motivations Behind the Minimum Wage

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-the-historically-racist-motivations-behind-minimum-wage/

America’s Racist History of Labor

https://www.theroot.com/watch-america-s-racist-history-of-labor-1798710554

Taking Marriage Private

https://nyti.ms/2k1vg0t

And finally, a small collection of hoaxes from attention seekers, all in one image:

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

We’ll be back next week to discuss a movie that Robert and I first saw Vince Vaughn and became instant super-fan 99’s for him in “Swingers” (which is available on Amazon Prime – click the link to get a free trial!).  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.

---

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 98 – Green Room (1:08:07) 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 normative principle I am suggesting for the law is simply this: No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, or aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. There are degrees of seriousness of such invasion, and hence, different proper degrees of restitution or punishment. “Burglary,” simple invasion of property for purposes of theft, is less serious than “robbery,” where armed force is likely to be used against the victim. Here, however, we are not concerned with the questions of degrees of invasion or punishment, but simply with invasion per se.

If no man may invade another person’s “just” property, what is our criterion of justice to be? There is no space here to elaborate on a theory of justice in property titles. Suffice it to say that the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another’s person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or “mixes his labor with.” From these twin axioms — self-ownership and “homesteading” — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. The vague concept of “harm” is substituted for the precise one of physical violence. Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great “harm” to Jim. Once a nonphysical-invasion sense of harm is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified. Should Jim be able to “enjoin” Bob’s very existence?

Similarly, A is a successful seller of razor blades. But then B comes along and sells a better blade, teflon-coated to prevent shaving cuts. The value of A’s property is greatly affected. Should he be able to collect damages from B, or, better yet, to enjoin B’s sale of a better blade? The correct answer is not that consumers would be hurt if they were forced to buy the inferior blade, although that is surely the case. Rather, no one has the right to legally prevent or retaliate against “harms” to his property unless it is an act of physical invasion. Everyone has the right to have the physical integrity of his property inviolate; no one has the right to protect the value of his property, for that value is purely the reflection of what people are willing to pay for it. That willingness solely depends on how they decide to use their money. No one can have a right to someone else’s money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him.

Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it.

In the law of torts, “harm” is generally treated as physical invasion of person or property. The outlawing of defamation (libel and slander) has always been a glaring anomaly in tort law. Words and opinions are not physical invasions. Analogous to the loss of property value from a better product or a shift in consumer demand, no one has a property right in his “reputation.” Reputation is strictly a function of the subjective opinions of other minds, and they have the absolute right to their own opinions whatever they may be. Hence, outlawing defamation is itself a gross invasion of the defamer’s right of freedom of speech, which is a subset of his property right in his own person.

An even broader assault on freedom of speech is the modern Warren-Brandeis-inspired tort of invasion of the alleged right of “privacy,” which outlaws free speech and acts using one’s own property that are not even false or “malicious.”

In the law of torts, “harm” is generally treated as physical invasion of person or property and usually requires payment of damages for “emotional” harm if and only if that harm is a consequence of physical invasion. Thus, within the standard law of trespass — an invasion of person or property — “battery” is the actual invasion of someone else’s body, while “assault” is the creation by one person in another of a fear, or apprehension, of battery.

To be a tortious assault and therefore subject to legal action, tort law wisely requires the threat to be near and imminent. Mere insults and violent words, vague future threats, or simple possession of a weapon cannot constitute an assault18; there must be accompanying overt action to give rise to the apprehension of an imminent physical battery. Or, to put it another way, there must be a concrete threat of an imminent battery before the prospective victim may legitimately use force and violence to defend himself.

Physical invasion or molestation need not be actually “harmful” or inflict severe damage in order to constitute a tort. The courts properly have held that such acts as spitting in someone’s face or ripping off someone’s hat are batteries. Chief Justice Holt’s words in 1704 still seem to apply: “The least touching of another in anger is a battery.” While the actual damage may not be substantial, in a profound sense we may conclude that the victim’s person was molested, was interfered with, by the physical aggression against him, and that hence these seemingly minor actions have become legal wrongs.

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

The post An Excerpt from Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution 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.

By Scott Albright

The evolution of exchange, of voluntary trade, has advanced so far beyond the depths of what we can imagine and we take it for granted all too often. When you see clearly how an increased population allows for a larger and more dynamic workforce, and that advances in science and technological innovations in capital investments that can perform more complex services and utilities emerge in the market, the range of your ability to exchange is immeasurable, providing that exchange is voluntary. As Bastiat so concisely put it, “the capital savings due to exchange surpass one’s imagination.”[1]

Ultimately, the effects of an extended division of labor with in sourced labor or outsourced production are essentially the same as capital investment/machinery used in production in that they all free up labor to be available for newer wants, talents to fulfill desires of goods and services of a higher order. This was first discussed in chapter two of the Harmonies but the quotes most noteworthy in chapter four, summing up it’s main principles and thesis are:

“In the state of isolation, our wants exceed our productive capacities.  In society, our productive capacities exceed our wants.”[2]

“There are two great incontrovertible truths. The first is: The better man exploits the forces of Nature, the better he provides himself with all that he needs. …

…The second truth is: The resources of Nature are unequally distributed over the earth.”[3]

What is so plain and clear at the individual level is often so heavily disputed at the larger and national level. When we think of how hardly no individual household attempts to produce all that they consume and that this would be too impoverishing to try, the plain as day in every way of life’s details show us the basics of economic principles that make textbook econ look like featherbedding to protect salaries of the tenured at our universities today!

When Marco Rubio campaigned for president last year, he advocated a continuation of import quotas on sugar so that a relatively few number of U.S. farmers would be protected from international competition. This is the typical status quo of most politicians but why not better exploit the forces of nature to render the benefits more accessible to all. We don’t produce “ice at the equator and sugar at the poles” (p.70) so to speak, and although that would be an extreme case of economic isolationist production or definitely not exploiting the forces of nature with sensible applications of our faculties where they are more conducive to richer results, what Rubio and others are proposing with these import quotas do restrict our ability to consume, on better terms, produce that grows more abundantly in climates more favorable to their gratuitous flourishing.

It’s a very lopsided argument without any logical consistency.

What I like to call intellectual welfare or welfare that all of society shares in the benefits of due to the creative brains/intellect of our pioneers and innovators in tech, industry, engineering, and vast array of health care innovators (as well as in other lines of work) is the only legitimate form of welfare because it doesn’t come about via coercion, but rather voluntary exchange and an enabling of its expansion. It is born about because we have the property rights and market freedom to ceaselessly apply our faculties to better our lot in life (for so many beyond the inventors themselves) and exploit the natural resources and forces of nature to make our labor more prosperous and beneficial to an ever widening circle of people. In this regard we all benefit so heavily from and live off of the benefits produced by these few (relatively speaking) giants.

“Our knowledge,” says M. de Tracy “is our most precious possession, since it is knowledge, in proportion to its soundness and breadth, which guides our efforts and makes them productive. Now, no man is in a position to see everything, and it is much easier to learn than to invent. But when several men are in communication, what one observes is soon known by all, and only one of them needs to be especially ingenious for all of them soon to be in possession of valuable discoveries. The sum total of knowledge, therefore, grows much more rapidly than in the state of isolation, not to mention that it can be preserved and, therefore, passed on from generation to generation.”[4]

Bastiat reveals the nature and effects of subjective value very well in this chapter. We highlighted that briefly in earlier chapter reviews, namely for chapters two and three but it is explained more clearly in chapter four and we certainly don’t disagree that the nature of exchange in and of itself reveals that we are seeking to obtain a good or service on better terms than we can realize for ourselves in direct production.

“It is simply that, when one man says to another, “You do only this, and I will do only that, and we’ll share,” there is better employment of labor, talents, natural resources, capital, and consequently, there is more to share.”[5]

“It is at this point, therefore, that political economy really begins, for it is here that we can first observe the appearance of value. Barter occurs only after an agreement, a discussion. Each of the contracting parties makes his decision after considering his self-interest. Each one calculates in this fashion: “I shall barter if the trade brings me the satisfaction of my want with less effort on my part.”[6]

How exchange is amplified and expedited with money, mediums of exchange, is touched on in chapter four as well. When society advances from isolationist/direct production to direct exchange or barter, there is still a limit of exchange because of what economists term the “double coincidence of wants.” In short, this is when we can only exchange with another who has what we want and wants what we have. An example would be a coat maker who desires chicken eggs. The only way that he/she can realize a gain from exchange is if they find a chicken farmer who desires a new coat. That places a very strict constraint on the ability to exchange. Bastiat is definitely describing the effects of eliminating the double-coincidence of wants very eloquently, without even using the term! Indirect exchange via money is what eliminates this double coincidence of wants as well as enabling economic calculation, since we can compare the value of goods with one another better with a medium of exchange.

“Now, at the outset of our study of political economy, we must notice that the exchange that is transacted through an immediate commodity loses nothing of the nature, essence, or character of barter; it is simply a form of indirect barter. As Jean Baptiste Say very wisely and profoundly observed, it is better with two factors added, one called sale, the other purchase, which together are indispensable to complete a barter transaction. …

…In this way (because of money) the ultimate transactions are carried on across time and space between persons unknown to one another, and no one knows, at least in most instances, by whose effort his wants will be satisfied, or to whose wants his own efforts will bring satisfaction. Exchange, through the intermediary of money, breaks down into countless acts of barter between parties unacquainted with each other.”[7]

Bastiat describes the evolution of exchange in what could be envisioned on a sort of timeline, if you will, from isolated production to direct exchange/barter to indirect barter (via mediums of exchange) to other transactions extended over time and space by credit… “In logical order, … an amazingly intricate piece of machinery.”[8] We will touch on credit in later chapter reviews.

In order to expedite exchange, it is obvious that an infrastructure of roads, tunnels, ports, canals, airports, trade routes in general, and anything that eases the flow of people and goods must be developed to enable your growth and prosperity. The natural resources, efforts and energies devoted to these feats can’t be appreciated enough, because we now have the advanced methods of production and capital machinery to upkeep these necessities far more efficiently and safely but in the early days of getting them up and off the ground, so to speak, we didn’t have the same efficient methods and it was much more backbreaking work necessitating considerably more labor. This meant that more diversions of labor at more risk for injury were necessary than what would be now and it keeps things in perspective. Bastiat elucidated upon this cause, in order to bring people closer together to extend and expedite exchange.

“But exchange too encounters obstacles and demands effort. Proof of this is to be found in the great mass of human labor that exchange brings into play. Precious metals, roads, canals, railways, coaches, ships-all these things absorb a considerable part of human activity. And just think of how many men are employed solely in expediting acts of exchange, how many bankers, businessmen, shopkeepers, brokers, coachmen, sailors! This vast and costly assemblage of men and things proves better than any argument the tremendous power in the faculty of exchange; otherwise, why would humanity have consented to burden itself with it?

Since it is in the nature of exchange both to save effort and to demand effort, it is easy to understand what its natural limitations are. By virtue of that force within man that always impels him to choose the lesser of two evils, exchange will expand indefinitely as long as the effort it requires is less than the effort it saves. And it will halt, naturally, when, in the aggregate, the sum total of satisfactions obtained by the division of labor reaches the point where it is less, by reason of the difficulties of exchange, than the satisfactions that could be procured by direct, individual action.”[9] …

…”The improvement of the commercial machinery, therefore, is equivalent to moving the two towns closer together. Hence, it follows that bringing men closer together is equivalent to improving the machinery of exchange. And this is very important, for it is the solution of the problem of population; here in this great problem is the element that Malthus has neglected. Where Malthus saw discord, this element will enable us to see harmony.

By means of exchange, men attain the same satisfaction with less effort, because the mutual services they render one another yield them a larger proportion of gratuitous utility.

Therefore, the fewer obstacles an exchange encounters, the less effort it requires, the more readily men exchange.

And the closer men are together, the fewer the obstacles, the smaller the effort. A greater density of population is, therefore, necessarily accompanied by a greater proportion of gratuitous utility. It transmits greater power to the machinery of exchange; it makes available a greater part of human effort; it is a source of progress.”[10]

This harmony in population will be discussed in more detail in the upcoming chapter 16 review concerning Malthus and his fear of overpopulation. But even here, it can be illustrated clearly in the same principle of having more people in closer proximity to better facilitate exchange. However, what must be remembered here, is that one fault of the classical economists is that they often assumed that man sought after solely monetary and economic gains in so far as consumer wealth and ability to continually obtain goods and services on better terms is concerned.

While I am not accusing Bastiat of that here, it is important to note that not all people desire solely monetary gains. Many people today still cling to parts of the labor theory of value, have protectionist or mercantilist leanings in so far as espousing and/or acquiescing into the idea that outsourcing of production, trade deficits, and heavier flows of in sourced labor are inherently bad for domestic producers and employees.

Once you consider the scope of advancement in economies and globalization, of prices of inputs such as raw materials, capital goods, intermediary goods, and final consumer goods and labor, taking on a more global nature and giving investors more opportunity to offshore their capital, in source some labor, this extent of liberty applied to free trade and movement of people is still met with alarm for many. Many techno phobic tech heads (if I can coin a term) today are even advocating for UBI, or a universal basic income, to supplement a mass of workers who they believe will be automated out of work permanently due to nanotechnology and A.I.

While I believe there will undoubtedly be sharp dislocations and reallocations of labor, I do not believe the extent of effects that the alarmists are warning of are well thought out. They are ignoring the fact, as Bastiat elaborated on in chapters two and three, that man’s wants are not static, but progressive. This must not be lost sight of because if it is, then people can assume all too easily that we will “run out of things to do and be idle.” That benefits of cheaper goods and services, the freeing up of labor to pursue newer talents for newer goods and services will meet a wall with A.I. is to be determined but I have my hope for liberty, for the creative destruction and the ingenuity of mankind. Don’t forget that people had the same fears from the tractor, automobile, and many other forms of machinery.

Either way, we can explain to some people these benefits of free exchange with great logic, points and data until we are blue in the face, but if they were a “victim” of free trade, automation, or downward pressure on wages due to migrant workers willing to work for less or a competing product in another market outside the U.S., it is much more difficult getting this to resonate with them. The offsetting benefits aside, as I’ve already explained, at the individual level, no one disputes the benefits of exchange, at the national level, it has been, is and will always be heavily debated. I know the logical inconsistency is still absurd, although that is just my opinion. So long as exchange is voluntary and not forced and/or restricted, I believe it’s benefits will always outweigh it’s costs, especially since voluntary exchange implies a subjective valuation of an end that one can obtain on better terms than what he/she could produce themselves, although this does not mean that after the fact, we can’t come to the conclusion that we’ve made a poor choice.

The restrictions and limits on exchange were a big issue in Bastiat’s day as well. The revelations from him concerning the class tensions between the working class and wealthier land owners and capitalists of the day during the February Revolution of 1848 are still present today, 170 years later in the U.S. and much of the world. That contagion of legal plunder that he so eloquently warned about in The Law and here as well, is prescient and should always be heeded. That, when the privileged classes can obtain it, instead of an outcry against all privileges, we see it spread pervasively so that there is more robbing of Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, until everyone succumbs to it, not necessarily in principle but even consequentially only as a means to hopefully offset some of what was plundered. I call this the pocket picking circle. Eventually everyone wants their hand in someone else’s pocket and no one wants to pull it out. We can only imagine how frustrating it must have been to be able to so eloquently describe and spread these ideas, these benefits of liberty, economic freedom and exchange, and his country only wind up embracing more legal plunder. In light of what is happening with the “Skinny Repeal” of the “Affordable Care Act” in 2017 here in the U.S., I feel the same pain.

“Take from some to give to others! Permit me to point out the danger and the absurdity of the economic thinking in this so-called social aspiration, which welled up in the hearts of the masses and finally burst forth so violently during the February Revolution.

When there are a number of strata in society, it is understandable that the uppermost one should enjoy privileges at the expense of the others. This is hateful, but it is not illogical.

Then the second stratum from the top will not fail to batter down these privileges; and, with the help of the masses, will sooner or later stage a revolution. In that case, as power passes into its hands, we can understand that it too creates privileges for itself. This is always detestable, but it is not illogical; at least it is not unfeasible, for privilege is possible so long as it has the great mass of the people under it to support it. If the third and the fourth strata also stage their revolutions, they too will arrange, if they can, to exploit the masses of the people, downtrodden, oppressed, exhausted, stage their revolution too. Why? What do they propose to do? You think perhaps they are going to abolish all privilege, inaugurate the reign of universal justice? Do you think that they are going to say: “An end to restrictions; an end to restraints; an end to monopoly; an end to government interference for the benefit of one class; an end to heavy taxation; an end to diplomatic and political intrigue”? No, their aim is very different. They become a pressure group; they too insist on becoming privileged. They, the masses of the people, imitating the upper classes, cry in their turn for privileges. They demand their right to employment, their right to credit, their right to education, their right to pensions. But at whose expense? That is a question they never stop to ask. They know only that being assured of employment, credit, education, security for their old age, would be very pleasant indeed, and no one would deny it. But is it possible? Alas, no, and at this point, I say, it is no longer detestable, but illogical to the highest degree.

Privileges for the masses! People of the lower classes, think of the vicious circle you are placing yourselves in.”[11] …

“…And they do not see that by extending and systematizing more and more the axiom: Take from some to give to others, they are encouraging the error that creates the difficulties of the present and dangers for the future. …

…Even greater is the harm done by our university system, which fills all our heads with Roman prejudices, that is, with everything most incompatible with social truth.”[12]

Does anything really ever change? Bastiat ends the chapter with an enlightening point, and makes plausible one of the reasons why these logical consistencies exist. Like I said earlier about how contentious free exchange is at the national level but never is it contested at the individual level, the question of free exchange implying that some producers will inevitably go out of business with evolving economies, changing demands, and the same effect happening at the national level when certain investors move their capital abroad, does imply that because domestic output of product and employment of labor is under more competitive pressure with advancing economies worldwide, it is not surprising that those employed who may believe that they are at risk of being dislocated from work at least temporarily, and those that have capital outlays on the line and risk losing on investments as producers, would only naturally be inclined to favor of some protectionist measures, believing that it could not be harmful since it “keeps Americans employed or shielded against foreign competitors.”

“How happy will nations be when they see clearly how and why what we find false and what we find true of man in isolation continue to be false or true of man in society! …

…And, since the more keenly all those about us are aware of the obstacles that stand in their way, the more generously they are inclined to remunerate our efforts, it follows that we are all disposed, from this point of view, as producers, to dedicate ourselves almost religiously to exaggerating the importance of the obstacles that it is our business to combat. We consider ourselves richer if these obstacles are increased, and we immediately conclude that what is to our personal gain is for the general good.”[13]

This ending of chapter four is a timely fit for chapter five which is titled Value. In it will be discussed the nature of value, how it differs from utility, and where the classicals went wrong in conflating the two, inevitably giving fuel to the communists fire!

[1] Ibid, p.71

[2] Bastiat, Frederic. Economic Harmonies, p. 61, The Foundation for Economic Education, 1996.

[3] Ibid, p.69

[4] Ibid, pp.70-71.

[5] Ibid, p.71-72.

[6] Ibid, p. 72

[7] Ibid, p. 74-75

[8] Ibid, p. 76

[9] Ibid, pp.76-77

[10] Ibid, p.78

[11] Ibid, pp.90-91

[12] Ibid, p.93

[13] Ibid, pp.97-98

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

The post Economic Harmonies: Chapter Four Review – The Expediency of Exchange appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

The proposed Minimum Wage Law increases in various US jurisdictions is an act of aggression against businesses and willing workers. It is also an act of treason by elected officials against the very citizens who entrusted them to protect their well-being.
Here is the analysis to prove my claims.

Individual property rights includes 4 components which we all possess: our BODY, MIND, EFFORTS and the ASSETS we acquire through the application of the first three.

Employment is a form of trade – an economic exchange between two willing parties.

Property and Exchange

The terms of employment are based on each employee’s (party #1) willingness to apply his or her body (skills), mind (knowledge), and effort (productivity) to meet the goals set by the employer to fulfill the expectations defined by the job description and responsibilities thereof. The employer (party #2) agrees to pay each employee from assets that have been earned by the business owners which constitutes their legal property. As part of this arrangement, the employer also makes available other assets to the workers including a work place, equipment, co-workers/teammates/management, intellectual property and, of course, paying customers who make the entire enterprise viable.

Hiring a new worker is no different than any other business investment, regardless of its nature – equipment, energy, services or labour. The business expects a return on investment (ROI) or else they will not invest. Some jobs provide a lower ROI than others due to their low skill/knowledge requirements and the wages for these jobs reflect this reality. Overqualified workers will not apply for these jobs knowing that other jobs can leverage their skills and knowledge at a higher pay level. Under-qualified workers will need more training and time to become productive at the ROI levels expected by the employer. All employers seek the best candidates for each job and usually choose the person who is not overqualified and too expensive or so under-qualified as to require too much time and effort to meet expected performance goals.

When governments enact laws like the Minimum Wage Level, the business case for hiring new workers is taken out of the hands of the employer and potential workers. This is a violation of the property rights of both and is actually harmful to both parties. Like medical doctors who swear an oath to “do no harm” to their patients, is it too much to ask our political and government leaders to abide by the same oath?

Gene Balfour
Professional recruiter for 35 years
Fenelon Falls, ON

The post Treason by Elected Officials: the Minimum Wage appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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

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

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

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

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

To begin with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic
_______________________________________________________

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