3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time

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

What matters to them is their own “political ego” and nothing else.

But, it isn’t my business to decide the best political opinion, statement or scientist because ‘politics is inherently a waste of time, energy, mind and wealth’.

Read the following reasons to know why, and figure them out at your discretion without feeling guilty, low and manipulated: Continue reading “3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time”

Vedic Anarchism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diet Coke of Fascism

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

It is just not a belief but also a modern ideology. They worship this political ideology, like the way jihadists worship Islam, but without directly initiating violence. The tribe also believes that it is morally correct to have freedom in all economic activities because they trust the principles of government-constituted free market.

When it comes to defense, police and courts or law, the tribe would not mind distrusting the principles of laissez-faire. To add, the tribe does not realise that it suffers from a psychotic disorder called ‘stockholm syndrome’ (which means, sympathising with the crime doer).

For example: they chant, blog & podcast “government is evil” (without realising that they’re the ones who are always eager to necessitate the evil at the expense of everyone else). They tend to forget that ‘limiting’ the evil does not equate to abolishment of evil.

Evil is evil, no matter what’s the size of it.

I do not intend to bash these intellectuals in this article. I am simply analysing their unnoticed hypocrisy.

Drink in the hypocrisy of minarchism

What makes their myth so different from other political ideologies like democracy, communism, etc., when their own ideology is a diet coke of all the fascist tendencies? Continue reading “Diet Coke of Fascism”

Misunderstanding Anarchism

It is fashionable to misunderstand the theory, character, principles and applications of anarchism, in the age of alt-internet. Due to this, anarchism is considered as a ‘ludicrous illusion’ whereas government (the idea so mandatory that violence can civilise people without their consent) is considered to be the best gift of reality.

Misunderstanding anarchism is also an auxiliary activity of the mainstream media, public schools, bureaucrats, politicians, and the ignorant populace.

Their imagination isn’t only limited to the belief that ‘government is a magical institution’ but it also extended to the practice that everyone else should also survive within the limits of their perspectives.  If you attempt to reason or discourse with them then they will ensure that you’re ashamed and defamed.

Thus, the burden of proof is not on the anarchists to prove “why freedom is vital” but on the pro-slavery advocates to prove “why people should be forced to live in a system of organised chaos (government)”. 

Worse, some who call themselves “anarchists” don’t even know the meaning of the term. These people fall, in general, into three classes:

1) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the society with collectivism spirit, wherein “anarchists” should not be allowed to reap fruits from their own labor,

2) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the ‘welfare policies of Stalin’ with the ‘welfare policies of Mao’, and

3) advocating that the state should be abolished and then replacing the society with ‘Trump’.

Therefore, it is also necessary to save anarchism from such “anarchists”. Continue reading “Misunderstanding Anarchism”

The Libertarian Party has Strayed from Founding Principles

By Tyler Leonhardt


The Libertarian Party is a waste, an absolute cesspool of nonsense.

Instead of promoting what should be the most consistent ideology in politics (the opposition to violence against peaceful people), they sit and argue over whether they should be Republican Lite or Democrat Lite, or in other words anti-tax liberals or pro-pot conservatives.

We are not “socially accepting and fiscally responsible”. We do not fight for any particular race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or miscellaneous.

Rather, we fight against the encroaching power of the state, and the rest fall into line. We do not promote or disparage culture or values, or encourage opinions or beliefs. That is for the realm of the family and social organizations. A religious organization has just as much right to state their views an individual. But we do not fight for religion any more than we fight for homosexuality. Rather we fight for the rights of the religious and the homosexual.

We fight for freedom of association and freedom of property. Continue reading “The Libertarian Party has Strayed from Founding Principles”

Hoppe on Coase

Excerpt from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s lecture:  Law and Economics


From 40:40 through 47:54:

Now I come to, as I said, to the Chicago view.  Which is, as you will see, is a very different approach, and a very dangerous approach at that.  And I want to explain that, in using an example, when I talk about Chicago Law and Economics tradition, I have in particular in mind Ronald Coase and Richard Posner, two of the most, Coase by far the most prominent man in this field and Posner his aut latos.

And I want to use an example that Coase gives of a conflict.  I want to explain how this is solved, so to speak, in the traditional way and how he will solve it instead.

The problem is, that did he describes, is something like; goes something like this:

There is a railroad that emits sparks and the sparks burn down the wheat of an adjacent farm, and the question is now:  who is liable for the damage? Should the railroad be punished or should the farmer be forced to accept the sort of thing and so forth?

Now how does the Austrian, the traditional approach solve this problem?

For them the question is who was there first and who came later.

If the farmer was there first and had, so to speak, spark-free wheat and then the railroad was built afterwards and then the sparks burn down the wheat, then of course the railroad would be held liable would have to stop it or would have to pay compensation to the farmer.

Otherwise if the railroad was there first and emitted sparks, and then the farmer built his wheat field right next to this railroad track, then the decision would be after all the farmer acquired property that was “sparked” instead of spark-free and he has no claim against the railroad owner.  If he wants to have his environment spark-free, would now have to pay the railroad to stop it.

So depending on whom was there first, the case would be decided either in favor of the farmer or in in favor of in favor of the railroad.  It depends, so to speak, who was there first and who has acquired what type of easement.

Now this is not the way Coase would solve this problem.  And I read you what Coase says how to deal with this problem he says:

It is wrong to think of the farmer and the railroad as either right or wrong, as aggressor or victim.  The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B, and what has to be decided is how should we restrain A?  But this is wrong.

We are dealing with a problem of reciprocal nature.

To avoid the harm to B, would be to inflict harm on A; the real question that has to be decided is:  should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A?  The problem is to avoid the more serious harm.

Now I want to translate that into some sort of slightly absurd example to show to you, in a very drastic way, what an outrageous position this is.  I slightly rephrase Coase’s words here, just to use a slightly different example.  So let’s say we have the case where person A is raping person B , and according to Coase we would not simply have to restrain A, the rapist, rather and now I quote him from the previous quote:

Rather, we are dealing with a problem with reciprocal nature.

In preventing A from raping B, harm is inflicted on A because he can no longer rape freely.  The real question is:  should A be allowed to rape B or should B be allowed to prohibit A from raping him?  The problem is to avoid the more serious harm.

Now you might think isn’t that easy to determine what the more serious harm is, but again this is not that easy either.  Imagine the following scenario:

So A the rapist has been incarcerated for a long time.  For 20 years, he hasn’t seen a woman in 20 years.   Then B, on the other hand, is a professional prostitute.  She is in the business of the sort of stuff.   Now A rapes the professional prostitute.  Now the question is is more harm done to A by preventing him from raping the prostitute, or is more harm done to the prostitute by letting A rape her?

Now the question is obviously a difficult one, right?  You see the perversity of this of this type of thinking.  We might well come to the conclusion that the rape was perfectly alright, because after all, more harm would be done to A if he would be prevented from going on with his activity.

 

Property and Exchange

By Murray N. Rothbard
[This essay originally appears as Chapter 2 of For a New Liberty]


THE NONAGGRESSION AXIOM

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as “civil liberties”: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in such “victimless crimes” as pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as “crimes” at all, since he defines a “crime” as violent invasion of someone else’s person or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate.

All of these positions are now considered “leftist” on the contemporary ideological scale. On the other hand, since the libertarian also opposes invasion of the rights of private property, this also means that he just as emphatically opposes government interference with property rights or with the freemarket economy through controls, regulations, subsidies, or prohibitions. For if every individual has the right to his own property without having to suffer aggressive depredation, then he also has the right to give away his property (bequest and inheritance) and to exchange it for the property of others (free contract and the free market economy) without interference. The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of “laissez-faire capitalism.”

In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and economics would be called “extreme right wing.” But the libertarian sees no inconsistency in being “leftist” on some issues and “rightist” on others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. For how can the leftist be opposed to the violence of war and conscription while at the same time supporting the violence of taxation and government control? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war, conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions, and unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military-industrial complex?

Continue reading “Property and Exchange”

Utopian? You talkin’ to me?

Utopianism – impracticable schemes of political or social reform

In the early twentieth century, the progressive movement called for war to advance the ideals of Christendom worldwide. In the aftermath “The Great War” ideas like temperance, universal suffrage, and income equality went from theories to practice through the tyranny of government.

These same ideas permeate the minds of statists throughout the world today. We just need more laws, more government control, more collectivism to solve the ills of society.

If the state could control guns there would be less death.

The state should use progressive taxes to provide services the private sector cannot and to provide more income equality.

The statist argument presupposes that the average person is not smart enough to rule himself (the linked article talks about intelligence and democracy, but a quick read shows the mindset of “our betters”). Continue reading “Utopian? You talkin’ to me?”

What Are the Costs of the Surveillance State

THE WORST STEWARD

While I love the environment and wish that my children and their children, etc…have a healthy environment in which to live – I know that the government is the ABSOLUTE WORST STEWARD OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

Not only does “common ownership” bring problems of diffusion of responsibility.  There are no incentives to preserve resources unless they are owned by private entities who have a stake in the capital value of the property or resource.

A similar situation exists when the government “owns” resources and leases out the rights to extract them.  It is in the interest of those leasing to extract as much as possible in the amount of time allotted – and since they do not own the property (just what they can extract) they have no interest in preserving the capital value. Continue reading “What Are the Costs of the Surveillance State”

Podcast Names Itself “Actual Anarchy,” Causes Actual Anarchy

We were contacted by the fine folks at www.actualanarchy.blogspot.com who originally had the idea of this name as far back as 2011.  We respect that they, and we, agree that the name is a good one.  And we appreciate their warm welcome to the internet, and extend the same courtesy.

Here is a link to their article:  http://actualanarchy.blogspot.com/2017/02/podcast-names-itself-actual-anarchy.html


The folks over at ReadRothbard have recently launched a new podcast, re-branding themselves as the “ActualAnarchy” podcast. In so doing they have actually demonstrated anarchy thereby enacting an entirely new concept, meta-actual anarchy. We will endeavor to explain.

While we firmly assert that the ActualAnarchy blog has been in existence since at least February 9, 2011 (Happy Birthday! – just around the corner) and therefore the originality of our use of this name supersedes that of the new kids on the block, we are also of the conviction a la Stephan Kinsella that ideas, words and branding are not, per se, scarce and therefore no such thing as an “intellectual” property right exists. We’ll let Stephan make this a teaching moment. And while we don’t even have to use quotes, we will do so out of courtesy instead of compulsion:

“Like the magically-reproducible lawnmower, ideas are not scarce. If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton,your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique (as well as my cotton). Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity.”

And because we actually do believe in the merits of a natural law based social order, we will stand by this conviction by not attempting to disallow the homonymity of the podcast with our own esteemed blog. We will not even express any snobbish resentment. Though, we will standby our superior originality.

This assertion of rights by the podcast in using the same name as the blog will be respected by the blog of the same name, and both will live up to their libertarian ethos, demonstrating indeed that actual anarchy in this sense is both an objective intellectual concept recognizable by society and a fully attainable reality.

We must become the actual anarchy we wish to see in the world.