“They might have aborted their plan ten minutes before they were scheduled to implement it. If so, what crime did they commit? If bad intentions, of which they are certainly guilty, are criminalized, then all of us — except, perhaps, for a few saints, and I am not even sure of them in this regard — would be in jail when caught.”
“But good sense and morality prevails, and I do not follow through on this dastardly deed. Am I a criminal nevertheless? Yes, according to the laws now on the books. No, on the basis of libertarian law and common sense.”
They are careful and exhaustive in their deliberations. They determine which of them will drive the getaway car. They discuss, intensively, the best access and egress routes before and after their crime. They study, over and over again, the electronic and other defensive measures employed by their target so that their gang can obviate them. They find out at which dates and times there will be the fewest customers at this bank so as to ensure not only their own safety, but that there will be the least collateral harm; they are bank robbers, not murderers. How many and how well motivated the bank guards will be is an issue over which they have pored for hours. They are not at all a bunch of nerds, such as those depicted by the television show The Big Bang Theory. They are indeed sophisticated in electronics, as are the aforementioned, but they were not bullied when they were kids; they were the macho bullies themselves. They are seriously planning to rob a bank and take rational steps toward this end. They plan for all contingencies. They agree that at 11 A.M. next Tuesday, they will engage in their heist.
Why rob a bank? Willie Sutton, famous bank robber, is their mentor. He explained: “That’s where they keep the money.”
Have they yet committed a crime? (Tuesday is now several days away.) Certainly, they have, at least in the eyes of extant law. Here is one definition thereof: “Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement’s goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.”
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,
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.
Free association means allowing gay people to lead gay lifestyles, but it also means allowing others to disassociate with them.
They are in effect asking the government to use violence of the sort previously employed against them at Stonewall, and for many decades before that time, against their present victims.
One of the very, very high points in the history of the gay community, from the libertarian point of view, was their fight against the police in New York City in 1969. This was the Stonewall riots, and the homosexuals and their supporters were entirely in the right.
Up until that time, the police would raid bars, pubs, bathhouses, etc., frequented by homosexuals. They would do so with impunity, with little opposition from gay men or from anyone else for that matter. But upon this occasion, they were met with fierce resistance and the relationship between these two groups of young men was never again the same. (Yes, apart from sexual preferences, there was not that much difference between the two; both were young men, for example).
Why did the police continually raid establishments patronized by this group of people? That was because it was illegal for consenting adults of the same gender to have sexual relationships with one another. These places were used by members of this community to meet each other for, among other purposes, such illegal relationships. This sounds horribly out of date to the modern ear, but in some Muslim and African countries such behavior is still illegal, and often severely punished.
The libertarian perspective is clear as a bell on this issue. No consensual adult behavior, whatsoever, should be banned by law. The gays at Stonewall were entirely within their rights, and the police, the law to the contrary notwithstanding, entirely in the wrong. (The Nuremberg trials established the justification of ex post facto law; just because an enactment was on the books does not necessarily render it justified.).
One might think, then, that homosexuals, at least a large percentage of them, would be libertarians. They were then, in 1969, or at least they were acting in a manner compatible with this philosophy. Alas, if it were ever the case, it is far from being true nowadays.
From defending their rights to freely associate with one another for mutually agreeable purposes, they have in the modern era moved to violate the rights of other people.
For example, many gay people now insist that others have a legal obligation to not only refrain from violating their rights by preventing their associations, but to actively cooperate with them in promoting their lifestyles. Thus, they are now willing to coerce bakers, florists, and photographers to cooperate with them in promoting their marriages with each other. Gays have filed lawsuits in court the purpose of which was to force others (mostly devout Christians) to violate their own principles.
Are these gay people acting in a manner compatible with libertarianism in doing so? Of course not. They are in effect asking the government to use violence of the sort previously employed against them at Stonewall, and for many decades before that time, against their present victims.
In this week’s Libertarian Angle, Jacob and Richard discuss the benefits of unilaterally ending all restrictions on trade by the U.S. government — that is, without negotiations or treaties with other nations.
Even under the worst circumstances, even if the Mafia controlled the United States, I can’t believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people’s income from them every year.
Remember you don’t get the best and the brightest going into government. 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 drawn to government and politics.
You’re likely aware that I’m a libertarian. But I’m actually more than a libertarian. I don’t believe in the right of the State to exist. The reason is that anything that has a monopoly of force is 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.”
There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other, either voluntarily or coercively. And the State is pure institutionalized coercion. It’s not just unnecessary, but antithetical, for 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 it’s ridiculous.
Everything that needs doing can and will be done by the market, by entrepreneurs who fill the needs of other people for a profit. The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.
People have a misconception about anarchists. That they’re these 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.
I simply don’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—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 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.
Vouchers constitute a direct violation of what is called the libertarian non-aggression principle, which is the core principle of the libertarian philosophy. That’s because vouchers are based on the initiation of force — i.e., taxation — to get the money to fund the vouchers.
Needless to say, vouchers are based on the continuation of the public-school system. They are simply a reform vehicle to enable some parents to use the coercive apparatus of the state to enable them to take their children out of the public-school system and place them in a private school, using the voucher to assist them with the private-school tuition.
Thus, vouchers are not freedom. They are actually antithetical to freedom.
One of the questions about libertarianism that has long fascinated me is: Why have so many libertarians given up on freedom? Everyone is given just one life to live. It seems to me that if there is anyone who would want to experience that one life as a free person, it is libertarians.
And yet, so many older libertarians gave up on freedom decades ago, and many younger libertarians have already given up on freedom.
Why?
Let’s look at one big example of this phenomenon. Let’s consider, for example, the massive governmental apparatus of public schooling, which is the crown jewel of American socialism at the state and local level. The state governments and local governmental school boards provide education for children. Students are there by state mandate. The state sets the curriculum and selects the textbooks. The teachers and administrators are employees of the government. Funding is through the coercive apparatus of taxation. Indoctrination, regimentation, and deference to authority are the name of the game, just like in the military.
In other words, there is nothing voluntary about public (i.e., government) schooling. As a socialist institution, it is the very antithesis of educational liberty.
What would educational freedom mean? It would mean the end of all governmental involvement in education, just as we have no governmental involvement in religion. No more compulsory-attendance laws. No more school taxes. No more government schoolteachers or administrators. No more government-approved curricula and textbooks. A total separation of school and state. A total free market in education.
How would the poor receive an education? How do the poor go to church? It’s the rich and the middle class who build and maintain the churches with their donations. No one excludes the poor. That’s the way freedom works in religion. It gives us an idea of how freedom would work in education.
Yet, freedom is not the position that many libertarians take. Many of them have settled on supporting the concept of school vouchers.
What are school vouchers? They are nothing more than a socialist reform measure, one that is based on the same principle of coercion on which public schooling is based. With vouchers, the state taxes one group of people and gives the loot to another group of people.
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.
“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?
“The tax recipient class is not the product of voluntary exchange nor is it providing value to consumers; it is the parasite on the productive class of society. What the productive class provides to the average man, the parasitic class takes through violence. It does not need to provide value to the average man nor is it receptive to the market price system—it is accountable only to the voting populace after years of its parasitism. This parasitic class provides no value, only extracting it from the better members of society.”
Seemingly coming out of nowhere was the song “Rich Men North of Richmond,” by singer-songwriter Oliver Anthony. Overnight, the laments of one man from Appalachia over the state of the American economy and government spread like wildfire.
In “Rich Men North of Richmond” Anthony decries the declining value of the US dollar, the lack of accountability for those on Jeffrey Epstein’s client list, and the use of taxpayer dollars to fund obesity through food stamps amidst high taxation. Whilst one could deconstruct the individual issues pointed at by Anthony, it can best be understood by the song title and the chorus:
Livin’ in the new world
With an old soul
These rich men north of Richmond
Lord knows they all just wanna have total control
Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do
And they don’t think you know, but I know that you do
‘Cause your dollar ain’t shit and it’s taxed to no end
‘Cause of rich men north of Richmond
The song is a lament about the poor state of America at the hands of these “rich men north of Richmond.” These men, of course, are none other than the politicians and bureaucrats of Washington, DC. Any libertarian worth their salt can both empathize and sympathize with the message. Government bureaucrats and politicians have racked up $32 trillion of debt (not including unfunded liabilities), have become involved in at least seven foreign wars since September 11, 2001, and devalued the dollar by more than 90 percent since 1913. It has hardly been easy to be in the working class since the advent of progressivism.
The explosion of Anthony’s song is a fitting time to discuss libertarian class theory, which provides insight into the very problems of these “rich men” and how they have led to the plundering of productive citizenry.
The first proper articulation of libertarian class theory is in Murray Rothbard’s bookFor a New Liberty, where he applies the theory of John C. Calhoun. This theory is that of the most basic conflict because of government: between those who are net “taxpayers” and those who are net “tax receivers.” The net taxpayers are, of course, those who are expropriated through taxation. They are the productive ranks of society, who fall victim to the contradictorily named “progressive income tax.” They are those who receive less in benefit than they pay into the system.
The other side to this class distinction are the net “tax receivers” or “tax recipients.” These are those who generate their income from the state taxation apparatus: the politicians, the bureaucrats, government contractors, and propaganda class. These are the corporations that not only build and maintain the road apparatus but also the dreaded military-industrial complex and other various industries.
The university system, feeding off subsidies through federal student loans, would be another such industry. These industries survive not through a marketplace of free exchange but through government handouts. Politicians might be the most easily identifiable member of this class, taking not only a salary but also other benefits that come with controlling the monopoly on violence.
While the candlemakers of the world may want to use the government to deprive us completely of sunlight, we must not go the other direction and act as though we have a so-called right to the sun. While, obviously, sun rights are not the battle of today, every time we hear an advocate coming out with a different idea of new positive rights, we must remember that each and every one of them is as ridiculous as a right to the sun.
When we think of “solar power,” we picture a field or a roof full of glass panels churning out electricity. However, this is just a more recent development in channeling the sun’s energy. Most histories of solar power will begin with stories regarding the use of magnifying glasses and mirrors to make fire. From the first to fourth centuries, the Romans began including large south-facing windows in their famous bathhouses, optimizing the heat energy the sun provided to heat the buildings.
However, this led to an interesting development. In the sixth century, not only bathhouses but also many Roman houses and public buildings all trended toward having a sunroom. As such, the Justinian Code actually enshrined “sun rights” so that each individual would be guaranteed access to the sun. Once the government enshrines access to the sun as a right, it is easy to compare “sun rights” to Murray Rothbard’s hypothetical government’s right to shoes:
The libertarian who wants to replace government by private enterprises in the above areas is thus treated in the same way as he would be if the government had, for various reasons, been supplying shoes as a tax-financed monopoly from time immemorial. If the government and only the government had a monopoly of the shoe manufacturing and retailing business, how would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business and throw it open to private enterprise? He would undoubtedly be treated as follows: people would cry, “How could you? You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It’s easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes? Wouldn’t regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound? And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn’t have the money to buy a pair?”
Once the right to sun is enshrined, all these same questions can be asked. A sunroom raises the price of a home, and the poor will be priced out without a guaranteed right to the sun. One could cry that if one didn’t support this right, one would be opposed to people having sun and receiving vitamin D. In fact, there is a stronger argument to regulate the sun. While the sun is not an economic good—it is not scarce—it far more meets the definition of a public good than shoes do.
MCViewPoint 