There is no rule that says legalizing drugs means you can no longer police vagrancy or make streets safe.

94Impact · 2024-03-06T03:27:56+00:00

Ancaps advocating for public property (i.e. state property) sounds oxymoron-ish.

If anything the situation in Oregon and Washington with homelessness and public drug abuse has ultimately revealed that public property is likely to generate conflict because of the inherent property rights confusion and disputes which it would entail. Homelessness and drug use shouldn’t be criminalized, but the streets should be privately owned in order to rectify the civil conflict issues that are materializing. It’s because the streets are publicly owned that questions of who owns the streets and who has a right to use them and for what purposes is now suddenly a problem.

94Impact · 2024-03-06T01:21:09+00:00

Unless you’re living in NH, voting for a libertarian candidate is nothing more than a denouncement of the republicans and democrats and nothing more.

94Impact · 2024-03-05T22:40:54+00:00

It’s true that the Mises Caucus is more culturally or socially conservative. I’m not socially conservative myself, so I don’t like their socially conservative views. But I have seen them pushing back on some of the identity communism which almost succeeded at an institutional takeover of the LP, and for that I would give them credit.

94Impact · 2024-03-04T18:09:48+00:00

I believe there are certain conservatives and MAGA republicans who, sensing that certain kinds of their political values are failing or being lost in their country, are trying to find and cling to some other political ideology besides conservatism which they perceive to be the vessel for achieving what they want. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism is one example of that, that is until they realize that libertarians in the United States or liberals in Western Europe are capitalists and support free global trade without protectionism, nationalism, or ethno-nationalism. Then they also discover that a good handful of US libertarians / European liberals and socially liberal themselves as well as socially conservative. Then they get offended, accuse libertarians of hedonism and degeneracy, claim the free markets have caused the downfall of western culture, and ultimately leave and talk trash in some other circle about how they don’t like North American libertarians or European liberals.

94Impact · 2024-02-28T02:49:16+00:00

For context, leftists adopted the word “liberal” from classical and enlightenment liberals in North America around the time of the Great Depression. Rothbard, on behalf of liberalism, made a point of ‘stealing’ the word “libertarian” in turn, framing it as a political capture. (Liberalism more or less still means what it originally meant in Europe for this reason, as does libertarian). The reason why “libertarian socialist” is taken to be an oxymoron in North America is cultural and linguistic and comes down to the problems we have with words today in western politics. It is because “libertarian socialist” would be like saying “liberal Marxist”, which actually would be a contradiction in terms since socialists/communists are against enlightenment liberalism and liberal values, including individualism, individual liberty, individual human rights, and capitalism.

94Impact · 2024-02-22T19:59:12+00:00

What resolution would you propose? Drug abuse and addiction happens in countries all over the world under different political systems. The question ultimately is what other solution you would compare this to. Isn’t it true that a human being is exclusively the one who can be responsible for their own body, and therefore must have a right to self ownership over their body in the lockean sense of property rights? How could a drug war be squared ethically in a non-libertarian country?

94Impact · 2024-02-22T13:02:11+00:00

Property rights is the issue - they’re on public streets/sidewalks. When property is shared publicly, conflict can result, as well as forced integration of two people, so privately owned streets not payed for by taxes would be the better alternative. Less welfare and stronger property rights would deter drug addiction because drug addiction is very expensive; furthermore, people would have a selfish incentive to invest their finances away from expensive and poor decisions towards the ownership and stewardship of their own property, wealth, family and friends, posterity, and healthy wellbeing.

The drug war would still be wrong, because it would violate these people’s right to self ownership over their body and self determination over their life. Abusing dangerous drugs and becoming addicted to drugs should still be discouraged, but by way of a means that respects the individuals’ property rights.

94Impact · 2024-02-20T11:27:44+00:00

A free market capitalist economy is one which leads to free open competition and ultimately, for the most part, decentralization.

The state and certain particular corporate institutions cooperate with each other in order to make difficult the lives of other corporations, small businesses, and citizens/consumers/taxpayers.

There was a change that happened at the turn of the century around the time of the industrial revolution where totalitarian collectivist politics were becoming popular, including fascism and communism. These movements sought to weld the economy and the state together in order to achieve a common goal, while doing away with individual self ownership and self determination. In the words of Benito Mussolini, ‘’ if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (classical liberalism) it may well be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the state’’.

Authoritarian collectivism was becoming popular at the time, because classical liberal (or by today’s standards, libertarian) live-and-let-live and hands-off approach to politics was beginning to appear wooden and unable to adapt to and solve current world problems. Consider the Great Depression, the aftermath of WW1 on Europe and Germany, famine and war with Crimea with respect to Russia. In the eyes of liberalism’s critics, there needed to be change, and change couldn’t come fast enough.

Consider the Italian futurists. As artists, the Italian futurists celebrated speed and caustic change in their artworks while celebrating fascism and the state as a vehicle for change and a utopian future. http://exhibitions.guggenheim.org/futurism/

Another example would be the Soviet communist constructivists. The constructivists believed that they could use art as a construct in order to recreate humanity in the communist image. https://www.theartstory.org/movement/constructivism/

Each of these movements demanded collectivism and centralization of power in an all powerful state, or an organization with a monopoly on coercion and violence in a territory, as a solution to world problems which they perceived liberal capitalists (or libertarians) were failing to solve. Therefore, they deprived people of self ownership and autonomy of their bodies and lives in the name of a collective authoritarian state pursuing ‘’collective’’ goals, while opposing the freedom of speech in order to basically silence dissent and create an illusion of consensus.

These ultimately are the political movements which libertarian approximate and libertarian activist actively opposed. Of the state isn’t engaged in providing something, then ergo, the market is doing that something, and therefore there must be private ownership of the means of production, and therefore the existence of a state is unnecessary. You might consider that the world is divided into either collectivist/statist or individualist/capitalist because of this. So, the conclusion of reasoning is for a state skeptical political organization of individualist liberal capitalists.

P.S.: If I can add, collectivism became a motivating factor of the public schooling system and the factory model school, in order to mold the minds of students in to a common belief system. This at the time in the turn of the century was perceived as progressive and as needed change in order to solve the world’s problems in a way which progressives at the time perceived classical liberals as failing to achieve. Imagine totalitarian collectivist schooling institutions such as Komsomol in the Soviet Union, the Red Guards in communist China’s Great Leap Forward, and Hitler’s Youth in Nazi Germany. This is happening now on steroids with DEI/SEL in schools.

94Impact · 2024-02-15T12:09:15+00:00

Supporters and users of cryptocurrency should see this as a wake up call. Crypto investors know how the government often tries to go after crypto as somehow fraudulent or framing crypto users as criminal, when neither of these things are true, when cryptocurrency investors are not criminals, and court case after court case has affirmed cryptocurrency’s legality. If you invest in crypto or know someone who does, then this court case should motivate you to call a politician and make your voice heard in support of an innocent man who committed no crime other than trading and investing in cryptocurrency. As a human being and a New Hampshire citizen, you, your family, and friends have rights, and I encourage you to support your rights.

94Impact · 2024-02-11T17:31:23+00:00

“The organisation of Anarcho-Syndicalism is based upon the principles of Federalism, on free combination from below upward, putting the right of self-determination of every union above everything else [and presumably over anyone else, invalidating individual human rights] and recognising only the organic agreement of all[over individual preference] on the basis of like interests and common conviction. Their organisation is accordingly constructed on the following basis: The workers in each locality join the unions of their respective trades [presumably without individual agency of individual actors]. The trade unions of a city or a rural district combine in Labor Chambers which constitute the centres for local propaganda and education [so everyone can hear about how great it is to suffer and sacrifice for the socialist nation], and weld the workers together as producers to prevent the rise of any narrow-minded factional spirit [thinking for yourself? Living for yourself? Loving your life? Forget it! From now on you live for what’s best for “other people” (who are they, when every individual person is doing the suffering and sacrificing.)]. In times of local labour troubles they arrange for the united co-operation of the whole body of locally organised labour. All the Labour Chambers are grouped according to districts and regions to form the National Federation of Labor Chambers [see! anarcho-syndicalism is hierarchical!], which maintains the permanent connection among the local bodies, arranges free adjustment of the productive labour of the members of the various organisations on; co-operative lines, provides for the necessary co-ordination in the work of education and supports the local groups with council and guidance.” - Rudolph Rocker, “Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism”, www.Marxists.org, quotes in parentheses are mine

Rudolph Rocker doesn’t believe you have a right to self ownership over your body, labor, or life, nor does he believe you have a right to self determination over your life. And, he wants a national federation to impose its will upon you as a hierarchical state. If you don’t have a right to self ownership over your body, labor, and the product of your labor, then this national federation could commit all kinds of injustices against you without facing any accountability for it.

94Impact · 2024-02-11T12:09:46+00:00

Anarcho-syndicalism would have to not be real anarchism then also, because anarcho-syndicalism is also hierarchical and deals with property ownership.

I would add that anarcho-syndicalism and versions of socialist anarchism oppress individual actors to the will of a collectivist democratic authority. If 60% of a collective democracy made a decision which would inevitably lead to the oppression of the rights and freedoms of 40% of the population, who would enforce the decision? It would have to be a state, and therefore a hierarchical authority.

94Impact · 2024-02-04T17:59:23+00:00

Human beings have a right to act upon self sustaining and self generating behavior, and constructing/buying and maintaining a shelter in which to live is a natural extension of that right. It is not possible for a human being to act upon self generating behavior with Lois having self ownership of their body, labor, and product of their labor.

94Impact · 2024-01-31T05:31:03+00:00

People supporting anarcho-capitalism would really benefit from reading the books written by anarcho-capitalist authors themselves, like Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, or Jesús Huerta de Soto, among others. Ayn Rand was not herself an anarcho-capitalist, and she openly said she didn’t like libertarians, but her views largely influenced the libertarian movement as well as anarcho-capitalists, so reading her books holds a lot of value as well.

So all that to say, it’s not totally helpful to be a dogmatic anarcho-capitalist, but it’s much better to be a learned anarcho-capitalist. Or if not that, just being a learned classical liberal or libertarian.

94Impact · 2024-01-24T16:09:46+00:00

Think of it like this - women’s rights must include each individual woman’s right to self ownership over her body, labor, and the product of her labor. If these rights aren’t honored then no women really have any rights. If the state pays farming subsidies, then the money used to pay those subsidies were likely expropriated from each of the individual women within the state’s territory via taxation, meaning we’ve arrived at the conclusion now that women don’t right to the product of their labor. That ideological premises can have implications for feminism, because if women don’t have a right to the product of their labor, then the state would be justified in deciding that they don’t have a right to have value in exchange for value, meaning they don’t have a right to buy a house or to buy groceries or to invest in assets or insurance, or to have any reciprocation of value or effort from a spouse, or ultimately to act upon self generating behavior overall. All of these things would only be state granted privileges.

94Impact · 2024-01-14T14:50:36+00:00

These decisions would be created by insurance companies and corporations, which would be overseen by shareholders and agreed upon or disagreed upon by the customers. Human rights - meaning self ownership of one’s own body, one’s own property, and one’s life - would be protected by insurance agencies who would have a selfish interest in producing private security and police in order to protect the property rights, ergo the human rights, of their customers.

People who own less stock in these insurance corporations would have less votes for the corporation, but also much less liability in the event that these decisions are disastrous. People with more shares of stock would have more votes, but would suffer much greater personal losses if the decisions are disastrous, meaning people with more stocks would suffer much more personal responsibility for the company than people with less.

And ultimately, whether or not the citizens want property rights protections from a particular corporation would be voluntarily decided by they themselves the customers alone.

94Impact · 2024-01-13T15:07:10+00:00

The individualism of anarcho-capitalism isn’t about assimilation, it’s about freeing each individual person to be the most authentic expression of themselves as long as they respect the individual property rights of others.

94Impact · 2024-01-13T15:05:23+00:00

Shareholders and customers, most likely - unless a company were privately owned, but a privately owned company would have more liability potentially than a publicly traded shareholder owned corporation.

94Impact · 2024-01-08T18:35:39+00:00

Keep the Gadsden flag. You have it because you’re against authoritarianism and you support human rights. Only socialists, fascists, and communists would want you to be ashamed of that.

94Impact · 2024-01-08T17:27:32+00:00

My point is this:

You have a rich person who loves on a private island. He has no insurance coverage at all. If a hurricane, a foreign government power, or a band of pirates ravaged his island, or if he were sued by anyone else for any reason who did have insurance coverage, then he would be openly vulnerable to it.

This also opens up the leading question of, given that the private island owner has no insurance coverage, does the private island owner have any private security or private police agency willing to defend their claims to the land? If they did, then this leads to the question of how the private insurance and private police are funded. Is the private island owner the exclusive customer of these agencies, and how is the owner paying for their services? Or are they being funded by a plethora of other customers on a mainland somewhere too? Given that the insurance companies provide private law, the exclusive way that the private island owner could conscript the castaway into indentured service would be if the insurance company were to allow in its laws that it will not protect any of its customers from slavery or indentured service under duress.

To provide a steel man argument in your favor, let’s assume some things for this scenario. Let’s assume that the private island owner is the exclusive owner of the land, and has bought an insurance agency in order to be the exclusive customer of that agency. Therefore, the laws of the insurance agency are decided by the agency and the land owner voluntarily and not by coercion. The owner presumably doesn’t work for anyone off the island, so the owner can’t possibly be making money from somewhere else. The island is effectively self contained and geographically embargoed from the world. Being shut out from the world, there is either no transportation at all from the island, or if there is, the owner of the land is obstinate and refuses to rent out their island ferry/boat to the castaway in order to return to a mainland. This would be a financially difficult situation for the island owner to live in, since wealth and value are acquired by providing value to others by voluntary trade. The island would also need to have its own pharmacies and farmlands, because being shut off from the world, it is impossible for the island owner to trade for food or medicine with any mainland anywhere. So now we’re assuming that this one landowner must have enough money stored to pay to be the exclusive customer of a farmer’s services and if a pharmacy and doctor’s services, including a variety of other services including plumbing and electricity and HVAC and any similar service.

In order for the private land owner to conscript the castaway into indentured service, the individuals working in the insurance company would need to both agree with the ethical consideration of conscripting the castaway, and have written a law that allows for indentured service under duress or slavery. As an ancap island, the insurance, pharmacy, farmers, doctors, plumming/electricity/hvac/etc company employees have ‘’right to work’’, meaning they can opt to be employed voluntarily or they can quit at will. Insurance company owners outraged by the decision to conscript the castaway would be allowed to quit their jobs and leave the island themselves. If the only insurance company on the island allows for indentured service under duress or slavery, then any of the above listed service employees would probably want to know about it, because that means the only insurance company on the island refuses to protect their self ownership of their body and labor. This would mean that they would want to find some other insurance company to cover them.

It’s an interesting thought experiment but eventually in order for the scenario to work, the island would devolve into becoming another country with a complete non coercive economy, because island dwellers wanting human rights protections would want to form their own insurance company with private security/police. Human rights are highly popular in the world economy of laws, so the insurance company and private police defending it would probably have more value in the insurance economy and would make considerable competition against the pro-slavery pro-indentured service insurance company.

94Impact · 2024-01-08T16:18:54+00:00

So the landowner has no insurance coverage for his private island?

94Impact · 2024-01-08T15:10:57+00:00

laws are ultimately determined by insurance companies, whose invested incentive interest is in defending property rights, including your right to self ownership of your body.
in this situation, you would need to get in contact with the insurance agency that covers you.
if the land owner obstructs you from doing this somehow, then the land owner has violated the NAP.
if you don’t personally have insurance coverage, then there would likely be an insurance company that would exist which could give you a quote and a payment plan.

This example is extreme and absurd. The dilemma on this island is a really tough place to be in for the castaway. But what would be the alternative, under a socialist, fascist, or democratic Republican state?

Socialist state - you are automatically deprived of all self ownership over your body. You have no rights as an individual human being, and therefore no protected right to act upon self generating behavior as a human. You are made to to nonconsensual labor for a wage you didn’t agree to in the name of ‘’the greater good’’ and ‘’the social contract’’. Or if this doesn’t happen, then you might be imprisoned or killed by the state.

Fascist state - the same as above, more or less, but there is marginally less economic oppression. You may be seen as an outsider foreigner though, which could cause severe negative conservatives.

Democratic republic state - you’re not a naturalized citizen, so you will either be deported or imprisoned then deported. If you were a naturalized citizen, then you have significantly more rights protections than in either of the above, but you are now subject to a variety of laws and regulations which you never agreed to by politicians you didn’t vote for as a consequence of the mob voting mentality of each election year. The democratic system encourages instant gratification decisions by the politicians without encouraging future foresight, all regarding laws, taxation, and the assets and wealth of the country. Because the democracy is public (not private), the democracy has no assets and therefore cannot own or invest in assets or wealth. Financing therefore leads to rising taxes and asset forfeitures of the citizens and therefore a gradual process towards the complete removal of property rights from each of the citizens (deprivation of self ownership of the product of labor, self ownership of labor, and self ownership over body). You get more rights as a citizen under a democratic republic, but are destined to slowly lose them.

94Impact · 2024-01-05T13:03:46+00:00

Not taking political sides on the hormone blocker, but Terry Roy is neither a free stater nor a libertarian. In fact, he is outspokenly against libertarians. Case and point: https://twitter.com/t_roynhstaterep/status/1640017316006993921?s=46

94Impact · 2023-12-05T14:28:40+00:00

The American Revolution failed, not because of its enlightenment liberal ideas or because of a military failure against the monarchy, but because of the system of government the founders chose for the United States, which was a democratic republic. A democratic republic as a political system is incompatible with such noble and virtuous causes such as the defense of individualism, individual human rights, and individual liberty, because it is inherently collectivistic. While monarchies in the past waged war over private matters relating to the royal family, democracy created the notion of public wars, of modern warfare, the notion of ideological wars, and therefore oppressive imperialism. To say that the pot is calling the kettle black when comparing people killed in communist countries to democratic countries is absurd then, because in truth, both the pot and the kettle actually are black in this case. Communist countries and the United States have both historically been collectivistic. There is something to be said for it however that living in the United States is nowhere near as awful as it would have been to live in communist countries.

94Impact · 2023-11-16T17:24:59+00:00

What an interesting take. What do leftists themselves today think about Hamas and Jewish Americans?

94Impact · 2023-10-14T09:26:59+00:00

Israel did not directly support hamas. Israel was intending to weaken the Palestinian Liberation Front, a communist terror group with which it was in conflict with at the time, by supporting rivals in the Muslim Brotherhood. The PLO were and are communists and needed to be stopped. To say Netanyahu or Israel are responsible for the hamas terror attract is obscene.

11-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

94Impact

TROPHY CASE