MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘anarcho-capitalist’

« Previous Entries

Transcript: The Foundations of a Libertarian Foreign Policy

Posted by M. C. on July 29, 2025

Transcript: The Foundations of a Libertarian Foreign Policy

By The Savvy Street Show

July 18, 2025

Controversies in Libertarianism, Podcast 3

Date of recording: June 3, 2025, The Savvy Street Show

Host: Roger Bissell. Guests: Walter Block, Vinay Kolhatkar

For those who prefer to watch the video, it is here.

Editor’s Note: The Savvy Street Show’s AI-generated transcripts are edited for removal of repetitions and pause terms, and for grammar and clarity. Explanatory references are added in parentheses. Material edits are advised to the reader as edits [in square brackets].

Roger Bissell

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to The Savvy Street Show. My name is Roger Bissell, and I’m your host for this third installment of our series on controversies in libertarianism. Tonight’s topic is libertarian foreign policy. Is there even such a thing? And if there is more than one candidate, are any of them correct in their basics or, if not, can they be fixed? So again, here to explore this topic are my two guests, the eminent economist and libertarian theorist and author of the series, Defending the Undefendable, Walter Block. Welcome to the show, Walter.

Walter Block

Thanks for having me. It’s always a pleasure.

Roger Bissell

Pleasure for us, too, Walter, good to have you. And second, we have my friend and frequent co-host, a novelist and screenwriter, chief editor of The Savvy Street, and co-author with me of Modernizing Aristotle’s Ethics, Vinay Kolhatkar. Welcome to the show, Vinay.

Vinay Kolhatkar

Thank you for having me.

Roger Bissell

Well, we’re going to just plunge right in. The first question is rather open-ended, just to kind of warm up with. Does a nation-state, such as the United States, have rights or obligations or any kind of moral principles that it needs to act according to? Walter, let’s have you begin, if you would.

Walter Block

On the one hand, I wear an anarcho-capitalist hat. And on the other hand, I wear a moderate libertarian hat; call it classical liberalism.

I guess I’m torn on this because I wear two hats. On the one hand, I wear an anarcho-capitalist hat. And on the other hand, I wear a moderate libertarian hat; call it minarchism or classical liberalism or something like that. Now, with the anarcho-capitalist hat, paradoxically, we’re not against government. We just want everyone to have one. So, from the anarcho-capitalist point of view, the optimal number of governments is about 8 billion, because there are 8 billion people here, and everyone should have one. You know, be the first on your block to have a government, and everyone should get one. And then my government should be nice to your government, Roger, and nice to your government, Vinay, and we should all follow the non-aggression principle, and we should all cooperate with each other. We don’t have to like each other, but we’ve got to keep our mitts off each other—unless we agree to put our mitts on each other, like in a voluntary boxing match or something like that. So, the foreign policy of me should be the same as the foreign policy of you guys, and that is to adhere to the non-aggression principle and uphold private property rights based on homesteading—and as Robert Nozick would then say, on anything subsequent like voluntary trade. So, if I homestead some land and you homestead a cow, and I produce corn and you produce milk, and now we trade, I now have the righteous ownership of the milk even though I didn’t produce it, because I can trace it back to homestead and voluntary trade.

Now for the tough part. Now we’re minarchists for the moment, or classical liberals, and what should the government do? Well, it’s going to collect taxes, which is a no-no, but now I’m not an anarcho-capitalist anymore. I’m schizophrenic. I’m now a limited-government libertarian. And yes, we’re going to have taxes, and the taxes are mainly for armies to protect us from foreign invaders; police to protect us from local invaders, rapists, murderers; and courts to determine, what should be the statutory rape age, or is my music too loud at three in the morning? Things like that. Or Vinay and I had a contract, and I say he broke it, he says he didn’t, so I’ll appoint you, Roger, as the court. You would decide, based on the evidence that Vinay and I give to you.

I don’t see anything in the bowels of libertarianism that says you can’t have any allies.

So, what should the foreign policy be? The foreign policy should be to protect the country. Don’t let any invaders come in and get us. Now, this leads to an issue. Should we have allies? Well, I don’t see why we shouldn’t have allies. I don’t favor an alliance with everybody from our country, let’s say that our country is the United States, but I don’t see anything in the bowels of libertarianism that says you can’t have any allies. So, I would say that if we’re the ally of Israel, and Israel is under attack, we help them; and on the other hand, if we’re under attack, we would expect Israel to help us. This leads to a whole can of worms. Who should be our allies? NATO? How about China? Better yet, Taiwan. Should the Taiwanese be our allies? That would be my opening answer to the question.

Roger Bissell

Okay. Well, Vinay, do you see it that way or do you have a different slant on it?

Vinay Kolhatkar

Governments only have rights that are delegated to them by their citizens.

Well, a little different slant. First of all, I’ve held this view, I think, for many decades, which is a view that we do have allies [naturally]. So, for instance, if the three of us are walking down Central Park, let’s say somebody attacks Walter Block. He doesn’t have a gun, he doesn’t have a knife, and Roger being a big strong guy, I’m going to encourage him to intervene. [Laughter]. I will intervene as well, especially if it’s a physical fight, and poor Walter could be beaten to death, but three against one, we might have a better chance. And it’s an implicit contract because we’re friends or colleagues, we help each other out. But the critical question was, do nation-states have rights and obligations? And I found out that my answer is identical to [Ayn] Rand’s. She explores that in an essay called “Collectivized Rights” in the book The Virtue of Selfishness. She divides the world into black and white, no gray in that hypothetical, which is typical of Rand. So, let’s say there are nations that are fundamentally secular, democratic, and respect the rule of law, have a wall between religion and the state, and, most importantly, they respect the rights of their citizens. Now, she’s a little bit uncertain where to draw the line, and she’s drawn the line where the US, the UK, in her time—the 60s, would clearly fall on the good side. And her favorite villain, Soviet Russia, would fall on the bad side, as would Cuba, because they’re completely communist, and they respected no rights, it was a kangaroo court system out there. So, in those, she says firstly, that the governments only have rights that are delegated to them by their citizens. So, the right to protect them from internal strife [requires that] we have the police, the courts. But in this situation, [the government also has] the right, clearly, and an obligation to protect the citizens from outside threats.

But what if the threat isn’t imminent to the United States itself, taking the US as an example? And this is a statement I completely agree with. Then the government has the right to intervene, but not an obligation. That’s a statement that is absolutely right in one sense. If you’re going by the beach and you see somebody drowning, [and] it’s a complete stranger, not your own son or daughter or somebody that you love, then you do have the right to jump in the water and save him or her; but you may not be so confident of your swimming, you might drift away and you might drown yourself and such things have happened, and so you don’t have the obligation. You’ve got to make a split[-second] decision, a quick decision; but in foreign policy, we don’t have to make that quick a decision.

Governments like Iran’s, that abrogate the rights of their own citizens, have no right to exist, and any country has the right (but not the obligation) to help topple that kind of government.

Essentially, these kinds of governments, like the government of Iran, that abrogate the rights of their own citizens, have no right to exist, and we, or the US or any country, according to Rand, and I agree, has the right to help topple that kind of government, especially if the end result is going to be a better one.

Even Murray Rothbard, about as anti-war [an intellectual] as you can get, said that the Indo-Pakistan War in 1971 was a just war.

Even Murray Rothbard, about as anti-war [an intellectual] as you can get, said that the Indo-Pakistan War in 1971 was a just war, because you had East Pakistan on the east of the Indian subcontinent and on the west, you had Pakistan. It was a funny kind of unified country [the old Pakistan] with a large area in the middle that belonged to India. Apparently, Pakistan was raping, pillaging, and looting out in East Pakistan, and there were refugees coming in hordes crossing over the Indian border. To cut a long story short, the Indian army went into what is now Bangladesh. They repelled the Pakistani army, freed the people, and then they just came back, and they [people there] had a new election and called it a new state: Bangladesh. That was, even according to Rothbard, a just cause. Now, I don’t know how many Indian soldiers died in that, and somebody might argue, wait a minute, you’re still using taxpayers’ money to intervene, and even if one soldier died, what right did you have to put him into an external conflict? But there was a danger in the future to the Indian subcontinent from Pakistan winning against East Pakistan. So, I rest my case there. The principle is there. The particulars get very complicated.

Roger Bissell

They sure do. I like your example of our pal Walter [being] out there in Central Park, and he’s being set upon by some violent person. Now, let’s expand it a little bit to a situation where the guy has not attacked Walter yet, but we’re strolling along, the two of us, and we know Walter is not far away. Maybe he’s over at the food wagon getting a hot dog or something, and we hear this guy over in the bushes, and he says, “I’m going to get that blasted Walter Block,” and he’s loading up his pistol. Now, by the NAP [non-aggression principle] and the right to self-defense and the right to help your friend by defending them—this gets into preemptive stuff, right? —if there’s no policeman nearby, and our phones don’t have any charge in the batteries, then it’s up to us. Do we have the right to apprehend, subdue, disarm this guy, to initiate force against him? Or, in fact, is he initiating force already, even though he hasn’t laid a hand on Walter yet? He’s planning, and he’s loading up his gun. Maybe he’s mentally deranged, and he’s not really going to do anything, he’s just hallucinating. But what kind of chance do you take in a situation like that? Do you go after the crazy person? Vinay, go ahead and comment.

Vinay Kolhatkar

If the threat is absolutely imminent, we do have the right to intervene.

If the threat is absolutely imminent, we do have the right to intervene. I’ll give you a couple of other examples. Even in a libertarian society, you would probably take away the firearms from a person who is a paranoid schizophrenic, has a history of violence, has been in and out of jail, has been warned plenty of times but can’t help himself, and has already shot at a few people. He’s not in jail because fortunately his aim was pretty bad, and he ended up injuring people in the leg or the arm, hasn’t killed anyone simply because he’s not as good a shot, but he keeps doing this, and even a libertarian society would take away his firearms. And in cases otherwise, even this person may have made many threats to Walter, he has mailed him [threats], has shouted from his soapbox that “I don’t like Walter’s existence, he should be eradicated from the earth.” And suppose in this case, Roger and I are policemen, so it makes it a little bit easier than us unarmed taking on an armed, deranged person. We are policemen, we sight him, and he is right behind Walter, about to draw his gun. Yes, we have every right at least to use the taser guns on him to disarm him and disable him. And if nothing succeeds, and he lunges at Walter with a knife, and there’s only five feet between them, at that stage we have the right to shoot [the assailant] in the chest or the head area.

Roger Bissell

So, you’re going to wait till you see the whites of his eyes or something? You wouldn’t preempt him if he’s just off in the bushes loading his gun and muttering ominously?

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Milei Is Little More Than a Political Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Beware the False ‘Libertarian’ Hype

Posted by M. C. on April 27, 2024

By Gary D. Barnett

He made many claims while campaigning for the highest position in government, something no real anarchist could ever carry out, making promise after promise to free the people, and make them prosperous, while claiming he would tear down the very government he was seeking to control. Hypocrisy at this level is saved for the most corrupt among us, as no sane or honest person could pull it off without losing his soul. What that means of course, is that he had no soul to begin with,

Milei Is Little More Than a Political Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Beware the False ‘Libertarian’ Hype

“And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stol’n out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”

~ William Shakespeare, Richard III

How easy it seems to me that people are so readily deceived, and that extreme gullibility among the masses remains as the primary attitude evident. I do realize that this is not uncommon, but it is amazingly confounding, after thousands of years of continuous lies by the ruling State; absurdity beyond reason to be sure. But still they vote to choose (have selected) a master to lord over them. Will this idiocy never end? Now, there is a new ‘Saint’ in town, and as depicted by weak-minded so-called freedom advocates, he is alluded to as a ‘self-described’ Anarcho-capitalist. This is Javier Milei, the new god of ‘libertarian’ type posers. Murray Rothbard would roll in his grave at such an idiotic pronouncement as this.

Yet another politician, the lowest form of human possible, is lauded and bowed down to by the fake alternative crowd, who claim to be the freedom society of the peasant class. Those being fooled by these deceitful political imposters have become tiring to say the least, as one after another of these trimmers takes his place at the top of the power pyramid, only to affect his personal and political desires on others, and sees his need for power over the many as his highest purpose. This is always at the expense of his subject class. There are many of these plotting chameleons who reach high positions of power; Trump comes immediately to mind, but in fact, there will always be more to come, as they gleefully follow in the footsteps of their duplicitous predecessors.

This Milei character is no different, but he has been able to trick the alternative media into a frothing state of undue worship, and has taken center stage by storm, even in the face of complete and total contradiction. First and foremost, he is certainly no Anarcho-capitalist. That term is reserved for true anarchists who abhor government and the State, and capitalists, who in the real sense of the word, believe only in actual free markets; meaning private markets without government or government interference or control. Milei is neither of these things, and in fact is the exact opposite. This can be easily uncovered by merely observing every action he has proposed, mandated, or initiated.

He made many claims while campaigning for the highest position in government, something no real anarchist could ever carry out, making promise after promise to free the people, and make them prosperous, while claiming he would tear down the very government he was seeking to control. Hypocrisy at this level is saved for the most corrupt among us, as no sane or honest person could pull it off without losing his soul. What that means of course, is that he had no soul to begin with, but was seeking a position that he was at the same time condemning. This is a common practice of politicians, and is double-speak of course, but could only be meant to fool the weak-minded proletariat, and claimed ‘intellectual’ liberty frauds, and never be a sincere objective. The proof is in his actions, and they are oh so telling of lies, corruption, manipulation, and power-seeking.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Those Who Fall for the ‘Right Wing/Libertarian-Leaning’ Election Madness Are Acting as Absolute Fools!

Posted by M. C. on December 5, 2023

By Gary D. Barnett

There are several labeled ‘right-wing’ candidates being touted as saviors by the maniacal herd, especially those blind ‘pro-freedom’ pretenders, who continue to trust the State and the heinous and fraudulent political process, while leaping on the band wagon with both feet of every single candidate promising them to do it right this time. It would be difficult to find a more pathetic exercise than this, but at least it is eternally predictable.

Those Who Fall for the ‘Right Wing/Libertarian-Leaning’ Election Madness Are Acting as Absolute Fools!

“I have never voted in my life… I have always known and understood that the idiots are in a majority so it’s certain they will win.”

~ Louis-Ferdinand Céline

Here we go again. Each side of the coin being flipped is the same; both sides indicating parties of evil. It is the same game as always, and the same stupid people jump on board because this time, things will be different, and your guy will fix everything. This story is as old as time, but gets even more idiotic each and every election, as even more historical evidence and fact exposing the voting scam are easily obvious, showing the pure idiocy of voting for a master. For the thousandth time, doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome, but finally, the good guy is here to save you. What a crock of crap is this, and how can any sane, thinking individual, fall into that same trap every election, without once understanding that he is in a circular game of hysterical lunacy?

There are several labeled ‘right-wing’ candidates being touted as saviors by the maniacal herd, especially those blind ‘pro-freedom’ pretenders, who continue to trust the State and the heinous and fraudulent political process, while leaping on the band wagon with both feet of every single candidate promising them to do it right this time. It would be difficult to find a more pathetic exercise than this, but at least it is eternally predictable. If human nature is nothing else, it is a showcase for hypocrisy and gullibility, and in light of this current trend, those falsely calling themselves ‘libertarians,’ anarcho-capitalists,’ staunch ‘conservatives,’ and fighters for freedom, are all showing their bare asses in broad daylight. It is a sad sight to be sure.

There have been several of these claimed freedom ‘pretenders,’ immigration ‘warriors,’ monetary fixers, and free-trade imposters, who have been recently elected around the world, and the faux alternative media sites have bought the hype hook, line, and sinker, without once standing in any light of reality. For purposes here, let us concentrate on just one of these trimmers; the most flamboyant in fact, although they all can be lumped together concerning much of their ridiculous rhetoric.

Javier Milei has captured the hearts and minds of most all those who loudly pretend to oppose the State, while believing that the answer to freedom lies with the State. No, I did not make that up, it is the common attitude accepted every time a new face says the ‘right’ things when attempting to gain great power as a ruler in a State system, while at the same time, promising to tear down that same system. This time is no different, and this is so simple to point out and see, but it belies imagination that most people who vote for their next ruler, never learn anything at all from thousands of years of mistakes. All these candidates are Statists, whether they claim that status or not, so are their supporters really fooled, or are they exposing their real character and lack of intellectual reasoning, by embracing complete contradiction?

Milei has said that he will “blow up the central bank” in Argentina, but how is he supposedly going to achieve that goal? He states that he will eliminate central banking, but he has no plans whatsoever to use any free market in money. He also said he would name a new central bank head, and would appoint a new economic team, which is a total contradiction of his statements, leaving government in charge of all monetary policy. While saying he will tear down the central banking system, he is mandating the use of the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar is a failing currency, but is also dependent on the most evil central bank in the world, so in essence, Milei is planning on partnering with the most powerful and criminal central bank to affect ‘his new system.’ He has not mentioned any free market alternative that the people could freely choose themselves, as he wants to force ‘his’ choice as the only choice. This is an extremely complicated process, and the problems that will arise would likely be monumental. These consequences could easily cause more major economic problems. While Argentina is in the midst of economic hell, a common problem that has plagued that country for decades, all due to government control and corruption, will this change simply due to a different government controlling everything? I think not.

Milei has also said he will cut ties with Russia, China, and Brazil, but does that not eliminate markets for all Argentinians, all at the whim of Milei? He claims to be ‘libertarian,’ but also an ‘anarcho-capitalist.’ This must be a big lie. An anarcho-capitalist would necessarily have to rely on being an anarchist, which means no rule, but did he not just seek rule, and win rule, and now plans to put ‘his’ policies in place by fiat?

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Javier’s Milei’s Populist Strategy in Argentina Is Working | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2023

Regardless of whether the charismatic Milei ultimately wins the election, his campaign has sparked a young and powerful libertarian movement. His triumph in the primaries may be more significant than the Ron Paul Revolution of 2008 and 2012. The incredible fact is that he is successful.

https://mises.org/power-market/javiers-mileis-populist-strategy-argentina-working

Philipp Bagus

The Austro-libertarian movement has the better ideas. They continue to be discussed, elaborated, and intellectually defended. But how can the right ideas be implemented? What good is it to be right if the reality is left-wing? In fact, most of the population, or at least public opinion, seems to be drifting further and further to the left, with cancel culture, climate hysteria, a sprawling welfare state and ever higher taxes and levies.

The right ideas and theories are there, but they have not yet been put successful in practice. How can this be changed? Of course, ideas are important, they must also be disseminated, from below, from the grassroots up. It’s an arduous process. And there has been undeniable progress in recent years. Nevertheless, the left-wing zeitgeist is rolling over the freedoms of citizens almost unhindered; most shockingly during the Covid crisis. The left tries to paint anyone who stands in the zeitgeist´s way as an extremist or even a Nazi.

Against this background, what can a successful strategy look like? Murray Rothbard addressed this question in an article in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report entitled Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement. His contribution is groundbreaking and forward-looking. He anticipates the successes of Donald Trump in the United States and, more recently, of Javier Milei in Argentina.

Javier Milei is making a splash on all sides, because on August 13, 2023, he won the primaries for the presidency in Argentina. In the German media, he is described as ultra-right and ultra-libertarian. Recently, the Financial Times dealt with the self-confessed anarcho-capitalist in a column, in which the author insinuated that the libertarian Milei would follow the strategy of right-wing populism designed by Murray Rothbard in 1992. This gives rise to the question if that claim is true and what exactly is this right-wing populism?

According to the paleo-libertarian Rothbard, the program of right-wing populism includes 8 main points:

  1. Radical tax cuts
  2. Radical reduction of the welfare state
  3. Abolition of privileges for “protected” minorities
  4. Crushing criminals
  5. Getting rid of bums
  6. Abolition of the Federal Reserve
  7. A program of America First (anti-globalist and isolationist)
  8. Defending traditional family values

Indeed, Milei’s election manifesto is very much in line with Rothbard’s right-wing populism and paleo-libertarianism. Milei wants to radically reduce taxes. He never tires of calling taxes what they are, theft.

He also wants to radically grind down the welfare state and likes to illustrate the reduction in government spending and his proposal of reducing Argentinian ministries from 18 to 8 with a chainsaw. His “Chainsaw Plan” is intended to radically trim the state.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on the World’s First Anarcho-Capitalist President

Posted by M. C. on August 30, 2023

Doug Casey: It could be the most dramatic thing that’s happened politically since at least World War II. Anywhere. Why? Because he’s an AnCap libertarian who’d like to abolish the State—or come as close as possible.

International Man: Milei has called central banking and fiat currency a historical fraud. He has vowed to “burn down the central bank” and replace the peso with the dollar and whatever commodity the free market would choose as money. He is favorable to precious metals and Bitcoin.

Doug Casey on the World’s First Anarcho-Capitalist President

International Man: Anarcho-capitalist Javier Milei recently won Argentina’s presidential primary. He is now the undisputed front-runner in the upcoming elections.

The outcome took many by surprise. Milei is an outsider who bested the country’s two entrenched establishment parties.

How did this happen, and why should anyone outside of Argentina care?

Doug Casey: It could be the most dramatic thing that’s happened politically since at least World War II. Anywhere. Why? Because he’s an AnCap libertarian who’d like to abolish the State—or come as close as possible. If he’s elected in October, he’ll make every move possible to eliminate—not just reduce—as many government departments as possible as quickly as possible. And most people seem oblivious to it.

Milei was in first place in the primary. Historically, in Argentina, the person who wins the primary wins the general election. There’s only been one exception to that rule. Even more encouraging is his ratings have gone up from 30% to 40% since the primary. It appears his campaign is not just a flash in the pan but a trend that’s building momentum.

Argentina was one of the most prosperous countries in the world a hundred years ago when it was about as free as any country economically. Before Peron, the Argentine GDP equaled the rest of the continent put together. But since the accession of Juan Peron in 1946, it’s consistently gone downhill every year.

Why might that be?

Peron was an overt fan of Mussolini and fascism. Fascism—a word coined by Mussolini—is defined as the complete subordination of corporations and business to the State. After WW2, the word “fascism” was a no-no, so the system was rechristened “Peronism” in Argentina. It’s not a consistent philosophy; it has many mutations. It’s all about businessmen and politicians using each other, through the State, to get rich. The lower classes are made dependent, and the middle class is impoverished. Fascism has little to do with militarism and jackboots; it’s an economic system. Almost every country in the world is fascist today—including the US, the EU, China, and Russia.

Despite the triumph of Peronism, Argentina still has the most classically liberal traditions in all of Latin America. It’s always been the most outward-looking country in Latin America. I’ve always believed it was the most fertile ground for a pro-individual liberty revolution in Latin America. Now, that may be happening.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Genuine Check and Balance: Privatize Law and Order | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2023

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/a-genuine-check-and-balance-privatize-law-and-order/

by Michael Huemer

Here, I explain the anarcho-capitalist solution to the basic social problem (from fakenous): Recap from two previous posts: 

– The basic problem of human social life: People are selfish. How do we stop them causing enormous amounts of harm to others, to benefit themselves? 

– A traditional solution: Have a government to police the people. 

– The basic problem of government: Government officials are selfish. How do we stop them from causing enormous amounts of harm to others, to benefit themselves? 

Traditional solutions to the problem of government are pretty lame. They really aren’t thought through at all well, and they don’t work very well empirically. 

Here, I explain how the libertarian solution is better. I’m only going to talk about police and courts here, though; I’m not going to discuss national defense or anything else. 

– 

  1. The Private Solution 

– 

The anarcho-capitalist solution to the basic social problem is similar to the government solution, except that there are multiple, competing agencies for enforcing rights, instead of just one. In other words, anarcho-capitalists want to privatize the essential functions of governments (i.e., the functions that we actually need; other functions can be eliminated). 

So your neighborhood could have an homeowner’s association that would hire a private security company instead of government police. Many competing security companies would operate in the same area (like security guard companies in the status quo; today, there are more private security guards in America than there are government police). In case of a dispute (including disputes about whether someone committed a crime), you would go to a private arbitration company instead of government courts. Many competing arbitrators would operate in the same area. 

– 

  1. Two Differences 

– 

You might wonder whether this arrangement counts as an instance of the “government” solution — if your HOA is hiring security guards and enforcing rules, maybe it is just a small government?

That is a semantic question that doesn’t matter. But here is a substantive question that matters: Is the anarcho-capitalist solution subject to the same problems as government? Why don’t we just have the problem that, since the people running security companies and arbitration companies are selfish, they will do things that benefit themselves and harm the rest of society? 

In reply, there are two important differences that explain why an-cap is better than traditional government: 

– 

2.1. Voluntariness vs. Coercion 

– 

In the anarcho-capitalist society, individuals (or private organizations) voluntarily choose to hire a security company; in our society, everyone is forced to “hire” the government, whether they want to or not. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Try Libertarians’ Souls – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 19, 2020

On the one hand, the libertarian position on oceans, rivers, lakes and all bodies of water is to privatize them. But is this Chinese initiative a move in this direction or not? I think the answer is yes, but it is a close call.

On the bad side, state ownership of anything is a move away from private propertarianism. The People’s Republic of China is certainly a government, so we must count this on the debit side. On the other hand, before this initiative of theirs, the ruling doctrine was freedom of movement on the seas, alternatively known as “Freedom of Navigation Operations.” But that is the exact polar opposite of the libertarian doctrine of privatization.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/walter-e-block/try-libertarians-souls/

By

According to that old aphorism we owe to Thomas Paine: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

Well, these are the times that try libertarian’s souls too. Here, I do not refer to Covid, to Black Lives Matter, to the riots, to vast unemployment, to the U.S. imperialistic system, etc. Nor, even, to issues on which libertarians disagree: immigration, abortion, voluntary slavery, anarchism, reparations, etc. Rather I have in mind a series of episodes about which libertarians are, if not indifferent, then at least ambivalent. What is ambivalence? It is, according to the dictionary, “the state of having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something…”

So which events engender in us this reaction?

1. Strikes by public sector unions

Who is in the right when a public sector union strikes against the government? Who do we as libertarians “root for?” The difficulty here is that at least for the anarcho-capitalist division of libertarians, all of government is illegitimate, and, anytime anyone attempts to undermine this institution, we strongly tend to incline in that direction. And, certainly, the teachers union, the civil servants union, the firemen’s union, the post office workers union, the police union, the municipal clerks union, etc. are all in effect destabilizing governments with their gigantic salaries and fringe benefits which lead to bloated budgets and subsequent risks of bankruptcy for statist entities. On the other hand, libertarians naturally look askance at all unions, certainly including these examples, since they do not limit themselves to mass quits. Rather, they engage in threats and actual violence against “scabs,” against anyone else who stands in their way.

One way to resolve our ambivalence about this occurrences is to favor the weaker of the two, on the ground that the stronger is to that extent more of a threat to liberty. This is akin to when the Nazis fight the Communists. We support both, unless one of them is clearly winning. Then, our support transfers to the other side.  On this ground, we would be inclined in the direction of preferring public sector unions. Ugh!

2. Defund government police

Government police are a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are funded through compulsory taxation, which is certain one strike against them. On the other hand, sometimes they do good work in the direction of liberty: stopping murderers, rapists, thieves, etc., or, if not preventing these occurrences, at least, sometimes, catching the miscreants afterwards and imprisoning them. On the third hand, to say nothing of every once in a rare while stepping on the neck of a handcuffed prisoner and murdering him, they attack victimless criminals such as those engaged in “capitalist acts between consenting adults” (in the felicitous phraseology of Robert Nozick) regarding sex, drugs, gambling, etc. But, then, they comprise a “thin blue line” protecting us not from “anarchy” but from criminal savagery.

So, should the police be defunded or not, in our view? Well, as I say, that is a difficult question. Ideally, they should be replaced, holus bolus, with private cops. But that is not the question on the table. As to that one, we are, gulp, at least somewhat ambivalent.

3. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)

This bit of real estate has been taken over by what can best be characterized as Maoist Cultural Revolutionaries. A white member of this take-over crew is demanding that “All white people must pay black people $10.” Can reparations from all whites to all blacks be far behind? This is not, exactly, the Rothbardian vision of privatization.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied, this group of Antifas, Black Lives Matter people and other such folk are to be congratulated for in effect seceding from the dreaded, evil, monstrous U.S. government. Pretty much nothing that does that can be considered all bad.

So where oh where are libertarians supposed to stand in this matter? No doubt more commentators will soon be piling on, but as of the time of this writing I am aware of only two responses to this challenge; one at least vaguely supports this move, the other decidedly does not. I do not propose to answer all of these questions. My goal here is mainly to point to instances of libertarian ambivalence.

4. Chinese ocean encroachment

The Chinese government has been converting semi-submerged sandbars into small islands, all over the South China Sea. Then, they claim a twelve-mile extension into this body of water as their sovereign territory. Do we favor or oppose this initiative of theirs?

On the one hand, the libertarian position on oceans, rivers, lakes and all bodies of water is to privatize them. But is this Chinese initiative a move in this direction or not? I think the answer is yes, but it is a close call.

On the bad side, state ownership of anything is a move away from private propertarianism. The People’s Republic of China is certainly a government, so we must count this on the debit side. On the other hand, before this initiative of theirs, the ruling doctrine was freedom of movement on the seas, alternatively known as “Freedom of Navigation Operations.” But that is the exact polar opposite of the libertarian doctrine of privatization.

Imagine if there were such a natural law as “freedom of movement on the land.” That would mean, if the analogy holds, that everyone would be free to wander wherever he wanted to: onto someone else’s farm, factory or, indeed, private residence. Under such a ruling, there would be no such thing, any more, as private property. Water is just fast moving land (some of it moves slowly: icebergs); land is just slow moving water (e.g., mudslides, volcanic ash). Libertarian principles apply, and equally so, to both.

So, I give the nod to China, but it is indeed a close call. At least that country is undermining this water socialist rule that ships may wander wherever they please.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey: “The State Is Not Your Friend” – Casey Research

Posted by M. C. on March 21, 2020

The State isn’t a magical entity; it’s a parasite on society.

The power of the State comes out of a barrel of a gun.

The State is pure institutionalized coercion.

The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society, mainly benefitting those who control it, and their cronies.

Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn’t necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.

When there is another 9/11 – and we will have another one – the State will lock down the US like one of their numerous new prisons.

Even under the worst circumstances – even if the Mafia controlled the United States – I don’t believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people’s income every year.

Judging from the movies the “protection” racket doesn’t cost 40%. Not the mafia kind.

https://www.caseyresearch.com/daily-dispatch/doug-casey-the-state-is-not-your-friend/

By

Editor’s note: Before we get to today’s essay, a quick note on the gold markets…

Regular readers know our founder, Doug Casey, sees gold as the ultimate safe-haven asset. So if you’re wondering why gold has been taking a hit this week amid massive sell-offs on Wall Street, you’re not alone. But it’s still an important protective asset to hold for the long term.

In fact, we’ve seen this happen before – take the recession of 2008. Just a few months after hitting bottom, gold started a massive rally, hitting an all-time high of over $1,900 an ounce.

And we see another breakout on the horizon. So the best thing you can do right now is not let your emotions run rampant and dictate your actions. Panic selling is the worst course of action today.

Sit tight, keep a cool head, and check out our Ultimate Crisis Playbook for a compilation of the best advice from the strongest investing minds in our industry. And next week, be ready for a full series on how to handle the current market climate.

Now… Onto today’s essay. Read on to see why our founder is “quite pessimistic about the future of freedom in the US”… especially in light of the recent heavy-handed restrictions due to coronavirus…

By Doug Casey, founder, Casey Research

Doug Casey

Allow me to say a few things that some of you may find shocking, offensive, or even incomprehensible. On the other hand, I suspect many or most of you may agree – but either haven’t crystallized your thoughts, or are hesitant to express them. I wonder if it will be safe to say them in another five years…

You’re likely aware that I’m a libertarian. But I’m actually more than a libertarian, I’m an anarcho-capitalist. In other words, I actually don’t believe in the right of the State to exist. Why not? The State isn’t a magical entity; it’s a parasite on society. Anything useful the State does could be, and would be, provided by entrepreneurs seeking a profit. And would be better and cheaper by virtue of that.

More important, the State represents institutionalized coercion. It has a monopoly of force, and that’s always extremely dangerous. As Mao Tse-tung, lately one of the world’s leading experts on government, said: “The power of the State comes out of a barrel of a gun.” The State is not your friend.

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it’s not just unnecessary, but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that’s increasingly true as technology advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous.

The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society, mainly benefitting those who control it, and their cronies. It shouldn’t be reformed; it should be abolished. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.

People have a misconception about anarchists – that they’re violent people, running around in black capes with little round bombs. This is nonsense. Of course there are violent anarchists. There are violent dentists. There are violent Christians. Violence, however, has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn’t necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.

It’s always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I’m on the side of the individual. An anarcho-capitalist simply doesn’t believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?

Let me put it this way. Since government is institutionalized coercion – a very dangerous thing – if you want a government it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion.

What does that imply? It implies a police force to protect you from coercion within its boundaries, an army to protect you from coercion from outsiders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to coercion.

I could live happily enough with a government that did just those things. Unfortunately, the US Government is only marginally competent in providing services in those three areas. Instead, it tries to do everything else conceivable.

The argument can be made that the largest criminal entity today is not some Colombian cocaine gang, but the US Government. And they’re far more dangerous. They have a legal monopoly on the force to do anything they want with you. Don’t conflate the government with America; they’re different and separate entities. The US Government has its own interests, as distinct as those of General Motors or the Mafia. In fact, I’d probably rather deal with the Mafia than I would with any agency of the US Government.

Even under the worst circumstances – even if the Mafia controlled the United States – I don’t believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people’s income every year. They couldn’t get away with it. But – because we’re said to be a democracy – the US Government is able to masquerade as “We the People,” and pull it off.

Incidentally, the idea of democracy is an anachronism, at best. The US has mutated into a domestic multicultural empire. The average person has been propagandized into believing that it’s patriotic to do as he’s told. “We need libraries of regulations, and I’m happy to pay my taxes. It’s the price we pay for civilization.” No, that’s just the opposite of the fact. Those things are signs that civilization is degrading, that the members of society are becoming less individually responsible. And therefore, that the country has to be held together by force.

It’s all about control. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why the worst people – not the best – want to get into government.

What about voting? Can that change and improve things? Unlikely. I can give you five reasons why you should not vote in an election (see this article). See if you agree.

Hark back to the ’60s when they said, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?” But let’s take it further: Suppose they gave a tax and nobody paid? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted? That would delegitimize the State.

I therefore applaud the fact that only half of Americans vote – although it’s out of apathy, not as a philosophical statement. If that number dropped to 25%, 10%, then 0%, perhaps everybody would look around and say, “Wait a minute, none of us believe in this evil charade. I don’t like Tweedledee from the left wing of the Demopublican Party any more than I like Tweedledum from its right wing…”

Remember, you don’t get the best and the brightest going into government. That’s because there are two kinds of people. You’ve got people that like to control physical reality – things. And people that like to control other people. That second group, those who like to lord it over their fellows, are naturally drawn to government and politics.

Some might ask: “Aren’t you loyal to America?” and “How can you say these terrible things?” My response is, “Of course I’m loyal to America, but America is an idea, it’s not necessarily a place. At least not any longer…”

America was once unique among the world’s countries. Unfortunately that’s no longer the case. The idea is still unique, but the country no longer is.

I’ll go further than that. It’s said that you’re supposed to be loyal to your fellow Americans. Well, here’s a revelation. I have less in common with my average fellow American than I do with friends of mine in the Congo, or Argentina, or China. The reason is that I share values with my friends; we look at the world the same way, and have the same worldview. But how much do I have in common with my fellow Americans who live in the trailer parks, barrios, and ghettos? Or even Hollywood and Washington? Not much.

How much do you really have in common with your fellow Americans who support Bernie Sanders, AOC, antifa, or Elizabeth Warren?

You probably have very little in common with them, besides sharing the same government ID. Most of your fellow Americans are actually welfare recipients, dependent on the State in some way. And therefore an active threat to your personal freedom and economic wellbeing.

Everyone has to be judged as an individual. So I choose my countrymen based on their character and beliefs, not their nationality. The fact we may all carry US passports is simply an accident of birth.

Those who find that thought offensive likely suffer from a psychological aberration called “nationalism”; in serious cases it may become “jingoism.” The authorities and the general public prefer to call it “patriotism.”

It’s understandable, though. Everyone, including the North Koreans, tends to identify with the place they were born, and the State that rules them. But that should be fairly low on any list of virtues. Nationalism is the belief that my country is the best country in the world just because I happen to have been born there. It’s scary any time, but most virulent during wars and elections. It’s like watching a bunch of chimpanzees hooting and panting at another tribe of chimpanzees across the watering hole.

It’s actually dangerous not to be a nationalist, especially as the State grows more powerful. The growth of the State is actually destroying the idea of America. Over the last 100 years, the State has grown at an exponential rate; it’s the enemy of the individual. I see no reason why this trend is going to stop. And certainly no reason why it’s going to reverse. Even though the election of Trump in 2016 was vastly preferable to Hillary from a personal freedom and economic prosperity point of view, it hardly amounts to a change in trend.

The decline of the US is like a giant snowball rolling downhill from the top of the mountain. It could have been stopped early in its descent, but now the thing is a behemoth. If you stand in its way you’ll get crushed. It will stop only when it smashes the village at the bottom of the valley.

I’m quite pessimistic about the future of freedom in the US. It’s been in a downtrend for many decades. But the events of September 11, 2001, turbocharged the loss of liberty in the US. At some point either foreign or domestic enemies will cause another 9/11, either real or imagined.

When there is another 9/11 – and we will have another one – the State will lock down the US like one of their numerous new prisons. I was afraid that the shooting deaths and injuries of several hundred people in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, might have been the catalyst. But, strangely, the news cycle has driven on, leaving scores of serious unanswered questions in its wake. No competent reporting, and about zero public concern. Further testimony to the degraded state of the US today.

It’s going to become very unpleasant in the US at some point soon. It seems to me the inevitable is becoming imminent.

Regards,

signature

Doug Casey
Founder, Casey Research

Editor’s note: As many of us across the world are stuck at home… experiencing lockdown, quarantine, or “social distancing,” the question on our minds is this: “Is COVID-19 the catalyst for the complete loss of our freedoms?”

Is this why Americans are buying ammo left and right? (Send us your thoughts on this at feedback@caseyreseach.com.)

Fortunately, Casey Research friend Teeka Tiwari just told us all about an investment we like for its applications to privacy… that could also make you a millionaire.

Check it out here.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Power of Self-Ownership | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 4, 2019

If you don’t own yourself you are not free.

https://mises.org/wire/power-self-ownership?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=fe55b60ca0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-fe55b60ca0-228343965

As every reader of Murray Rothbard knows, the principle of self-ownership stands at the basis of libertarian thought. Each person is the owner of his or her own body. If we add a principle for homesteading land and natural resources, we can without much trouble get to an anarcho-capitalist society. But even on its own, the self-ownership principle rules out the welfare state. You cannot be compelled to labor for someone else, even if the other person “needs” your labor more than you do.

You would expect Marxists to brush aside self-ownership as bourgeois apologetics, and for most part they do. G.A. Cohen, a Marxist who taught political theory at Oxford University, was an exception. In his book Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Cambridge University Press, 1995), he says that he finds self-ownership intuitively plausible:

In my experience, leftists who disparage [Robert] Nozick’s essentially unargued affirmation of each person’s right over himself lose confidence in their unqualified denial of the thesis of self-ownership when they are asked to consider who has the right to decide what should happen, for example, to their own eyes. They do not immediately agree that, were eye transplants easy to achieve, it would then be acceptable for the state to conscript potential eye donors into a lottery whose losers must yield an eye to beneficiaries who would otherwise not be one-eyed but blind.” (p. 70)

As Cohen rightly notes, your right to your own body outweighs commonly used socialist principles that mandate redistribution. You are entitled to keep your eyes even if the fact that you have two working eyes is a matter of genetic luck and even if a blind person “needs” an eye more than you do. (You could still see with one eye but he cannot see at all.)

Cohen must now confront a dilemma. He finds self-ownership prima facie plausible. But self-ownership rules out the welfare state, and even worse, is a big step toward a fully free market society. What can he do to escape the dilemma?

Two courses of action suggest themselves. He might admit self-ownership, but deny that it leads to free-market capitalism. Alternatively, he might claim that, in spite of its surface plausibility, self-ownership ought to be rejected. It is the latter tactic that he adopts. He readily acknowledges that self-ownership rules out the welfare state.

Cohen says that the force of self-ownership really derives from something else. We have a strong belief that it is wrong to interfere with the integrity of someone’s body, and this, he thinks, is different from self-ownership. He asks us to imagine that everyone is born with empty eye sockets. The state implants two eyes in everyone at birth, using an eye bank it owns. If someone lost both eyes, wouldn’t we oppose an eye lottery to remove forcibly one eye from a sighted person to help the blind person? But in the example the state owns all the eyes. Cohen concludes that our real objection to an eye lottery in the actual world is not that it violates self-ownership but that people have a right to bodily integrity.

The “suggestion arises that our resistance to a lottery for natural eyes shows not belief in self-ownership but hostility to severe interference in someone’s life. For the state need never vest ownership of the eyes in persons.” (p. 244)

A defender of self-ownership can readily acknowledge that it would be wrong to remove someone’s eyes in Cohen’s science-fiction case. All he needs to preserve his principle is the fact that you own your eyes adds to the moral badness of making you enter the eye lottery. Bodily integrity and self-ownership supplement each other: they do not compete for our allegiance, as Cohen seems to think. The fact that Cohen had to resort to a bizarre example to try to escape self-ownership shows its power. Once you think about it, self-ownership is hard to reject.

Be seeing you

706a7-rothbard2bmurray

Murray Rothbard

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on Why the State Is a “Parasite on Society” – Casey Research

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion.

The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why the worst people – not the best – want to get into government.

https://www.caseyresearch.com/daily-dispatch/doug-casey-on-why-the-state-is-a-parasite-on-society/

By Doug Casey, founder, Casey Research

Allow me to say a few things that some of you may find shocking, offensive, or even incomprehensible. On the other hand, I suspect many or most of you may agree – but either haven’t crystallized your thoughts, or are hesitant to express them. I wonder if it will be safe to say them in another five years…

You’re likely aware that I’m a libertarian. But I’m actually more than a libertarian, I’m an anarcho-capitalist. In other words, I actually don’t believe in the right of the State to exist. Why not? The State isn’t a magical entity; it’s a parasite on society. Anything useful the State does could be, and would be, provided by entrepreneurs seeking a profit. And would be better and cheaper by virtue of that.

More important, the State represents institutionalized coercion. It has a monopoly of force, and that’s always extremely dangerous. As Mao Tse-tung, lately one of the world’s leading experts on government, said: “The power of the State comes out of a barrel of a gun.” The State is not your friend.

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it’s not just unnecessary, but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that’s increasingly true as technology advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous.

The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society, mainly benefitting those who control it, and their cronies. It shouldn’t be reformed; it should be abolished. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.

People have a misconception about anarchists – that they’re violent people, running around in black capes with little round bombs. This is nonsense. Of course there are violent anarchists. There are violent dentists. There are violent Christians. Violence, however, has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn’t necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.

It’s always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I’m on the side of the individual. An anarcho-capitalist simply doesn’t believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?

Let me put it this way. Since government is institutionalized coercion – a very dangerous thing – if you want a government it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion.

What does that imply? It implies a police force to protect you from coercion within its boundaries, an army to protect you from coercion from outsiders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to coercion.

I could live happily enough with a government that did just those things. Unfortunately the US Government is only marginally competent in providing services in those three areas. Instead, it tries to do everything else conceivable.

The argument can be made that the largest criminal entity today is not some Colombian cocaine gang, but the US Government. And they’re far more dangerous. They have a legal monopoly on the force to do anything they want with you. Don’t conflate the government with America; they’re different and separate entities. The US Government has its own interests, as distinct as those of General Motors or the Mafia. In fact, I’d probably rather deal with the Mafia than I would with any agency of the US Government.

Even under the worst circumstances – even if the Mafia controlled the United States – I don’t believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people’s income every year. They couldn’t get away with it. But – because we’re said to be a democracy – the US Government is able to masquerade as “We the People,” and pull it off.

Incidentally, the idea of democracy is an anachronism, at best. The US has mutated into a domestic multicultural empire. The average person has been propagandized into believing that it’s patriotic to do as he’s told. “We need libraries of regulations, and I’m happy to pay my taxes. It’s the price we pay for civilization.” No, that’s just the opposite of the fact. Those things are signs that civilization is degrading, that the members of society are becoming less individually responsible. And therefore that the country has to be held together by force.

It’s all about control. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why the worst people – not the best – want to get into government.

What about voting? Can that change and improve things? Unlikely. I can give you five reasons why you should not vote in an election (see this article). See if you agree.

Hark back to the ‘60s when they said, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?” But let’s take it further: Suppose they gave a tax and nobody paid? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted? That would delegitimize the State. I therefore applaud the fact that only half of Americans vote – although it’s out of apathy, not as a philosophical statement. If that number dropped to 25%, 10%, then 0%, perhaps everybody would look around and say, “Wait a minute, none of us believe in this evil charade. I don’t like Tweedledee from the left wing of the Demopublican Party any more than I like Tweedledum from its right wing…”

Remember, you don’t get the best and the brightest going into government. That’s because there are two kinds of people. You’ve got people that like to control physical reality – things. And people that like to control other people. That second group, those who like to lord it over their fellows, are naturally drawn to government and politics.

Some might ask: “Aren’t you loyal to America?” and “How can you say these terrible things?” My response is, “Of course I’m loyal to America, but America is an idea, it’s not necessarily a place. At least not any longer…”

America was once unique among the world’s countries. Unfortunately that’s no longer the case. The idea is still unique, but the country no longer is.

I’ll go further than that. It’s said that you’re supposed to be loyal to your fellow Americans. Well, here’s a revelation. I have less in common with my average fellow American than I do with friends of mine in the Congo, or Argentina, or China. The reason is that I share values with my friends; we look at the world the same way, and have the same worldview. But how much do I have in common with my fellow Americans who live in the trailer parks, barrios, and ghettos? Or even Hollywood and Washington? Not much.

How much do you really have in common with your fellow Americans who support Bernie Sanders, AOC, antifa, or Elizabeth Warren?

You probably have very little in common with them, besides sharing the same government ID. Most of your fellow Americans are actually welfare recipients, dependent on the State in some way. And therefore an active threat to your personal freedom and economic wellbeing.

Everyone has to be judged as an individual. So I choose my countrymen based on their character and beliefs, not their nationality. The fact we may all carry US passports is simply an accident of birth.

Those who find that thought offensive likely suffer from a psychological aberration called “nationalism”; in serious cases it may become “jingoism.” The authorities and the general public prefer to call it “patriotism.”

It’s understandable, though. Everyone, including the North Koreans, tends to identify with the place they were born, and the State that rules them. But that should be fairly low on any list of virtues. Nationalism is the belief that my country is the best country in the world just because I happen to have been born there. It’s scary any time, but most virulent during wars and elections. It’s like watching a bunch of chimpanzees hooting and panting at another tribe of chimpanzees across the watering hole.

It’s actually dangerous not to be a nationalist, especially as the State grows more powerful. The growth of the State is actually destroying the idea of America. Over the last 100 years the State has grown at an exponential rate; it’s the enemy of the individual. I see no reason why this trend is going to stop. And certainly no reason why it’s going to reverse. Even though the election of Trump in 2016 was vastly preferable to Hillary from a personal freedom and economic prosperity point of view, it hardly amounts to a change in trend.

The decline of the US is like a giant snowball rolling downhill from the top of the mountain. It could have been stopped early in its descent, but now the thing is a behemoth. If you stand in its way you’ll get crushed. It will stop only when it smashes the village at the bottom of the valley.

I’m quite pessimistic about the future of freedom in the US. It’s been in a downtrend for many decades. But the events of September 11, 2001, turbocharged the loss of liberty in the US. At some point either foreign or domestic enemies will cause another 9/11, either real or imagined.

When there is another 9/11 – and we will have another one – the State will lock down the US like one of their numerous new prisons. I was afraid that the shooting deaths and injuries of several hundred people in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, might have been the catalyst. But, strangely, the news cycle has driven on, leaving scores of serious unanswered questions in its wake. No competent reporting, and about zero public concern. Further testimony to the degraded state of the US today.

It’s going to become very unpleasant in the US at some point soon. It seems to me the inevitable is becoming imminent.

Regards,

Doug Casey
Founder, Casey Research

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries