Freedom of Association Works Both Ways

With today being Martin Luther King Day I felt that it would be a good day to rehash on what freedom association really is. One of the biggest negatives on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from a libertarian perspective is that it interferes with freedom of association with it's anti-discrimination laws. Like many laws with "good intentions" it tends to be the direct opposite. People should not be forced to deal with one another via government force nor should that same force be used to keep people from dealing with each other. That was the problem with Jim Crow laws, the state used it's gun to keep people from dealing with each other.

Left-statists basically took Jim Crow, repackaged it and called it something new. That's not reform and it's definitely not liberty. Also the social justice warrior faction of the left-statists whether they realize it or not are re-arguing for Jim Crow type laws. Right-statists (specifically the culture justice warrior faction) argue that government forced separation should come back in the name of society and those who wish to associate with others of different traits are viewed as "degenerates". Both these views are anti-liberty, the only difference is that left-statists don't make the claim that they believe in liberty. Real freedom of association is a two-way street, people have the right to associate and not associate with whoever they want while at the same time people have no right to interfere with the associations or the non-associations with others. If one believes in one and not the other then they don't support liberty no matter what kind of flowery rhetoric one uses.

Things NFL Players Could Do Than Kneeling

I originally wasn't going to waste energy on this episode of conservative political correctness however a tweet from Anarcho-Capitalist rapper Eric July got me thinking.

Eric July  @EricDJuly

2d

"It's not about disrespecting, it's about the injustice" The fact that you have to explain this at a massive level, shows it's not working

July is 100% correct here, the whole kneeling thing isn't working for what Kapernick and others are opposing. In general I've never felt that protesting accomplishes much of anything other than making oneself a target for government or political enemies. If Kapernick and other players really want to make an actual difference when it comes to government goon squad abuse here's what they should do.

1. Support Gun Rights and Self Defense

Athletes should know that they're a much higher target for crimes (both government and private) given their high public profiles and wealth. So arming themselves should really be a no-brainer. However it shouldn't be enough to be armed themselves they should go into neighborhoods and teach about gun rights and usage. There is a great guy named Maj Toure who runs the organization Black Guns Matter . Toure's organization is decided to introducing if not reintroducing gun rights to black neighborhoods. Athletes should absolutely be backing Toure's project and if not they should be doing something on their own.


2. Support Self and Community/Neighborhood Defense

Anarcho-Captialists know government security is a joke and harms people more than it helps. Not to mention that it has been ruled that government security has no obligation to protect you. So this is an area that should be promoted.

The Black Panthers while an awful left-socialist and racist group did three things right; they exercised their right to carry firearms, patrolled their neighborhoods and filmed cops. The result of this was that cops were significantly more "civil" when Black Panther patrols were around.

Also reaching out to organizations like CopBlock and Photography is Not A Crime is a must. Given that the media, no matter if it's the local or the national they are stenographers for the police. These two organizations are one of the best when it comes to documenting government security abuse. 

3. Stop caring on what the opposition thinks

Like communists, cop supporters cannot be reasoned with. There is no reason to attempt to win these people over they will always hate you even if you choose to lick the boots. Their criticisms only exist to distract you from the real problem, they have no interest in changing their line of thinking.


There is no guarantee that any of this will work or change anything but it's more productive than taking a knee.

The Pointlessness of Denouncing

So the "battle" between right wing socialist Alt-Right and left wing socialists Anti-Fascist Action (aka AntiFa) in Charlottesville Virginia has come and gone. I sit here and try to make sense of it. The conclusion is that there was no sense to it at all. Just two statist factions who's cornerstone philosophy is socialist identity politics arguing over who gets control of the boots of the state.

Then afterward people come out saying that they denounce the alt-right or denounce anti-fascist action. Personally I see all these denouncing to be pointless. Here is the thing no matter what ideology it, is the people who say that so and so needs to denounce "insert-group/person-here" will still hate them no matter what they do. It doesn't just pertain to the altright and antifa, for example; whenever there is a terrorist attack (or should I say CIA/FBI false flag) the right is quick to squawk "Why won't muslims condemn attacks?" On the surface they say there is a difference between the innocent muslim and the radical one but it's a farce. They've declared years ago that muslims are the enemy and it doesn't matter what they say there is no changing their mind. It's all but a pathetic attempt to get people to jump through hoops for them. It's not just terrorist attacks, it's immigration, mass shootings, guns, taxes, police brutality/bootlicking, war, political/patriot correctness, etc.


My father once said to me; "Not everyone is going to like you but that doesn't matter just live your life" I consider that one of the best pieces of advice he's given me to date. In my view thats how people need to handle things when the left and right start screeching for people to denounce things. Why should I apologize or denounce something that I didn't engage in personally? The answer is that you shouldn't and if you do it doesn't matter to those people anyway.

The Libertarian Solution to Police Brutality?

Getting one's rights abused by the government is awful because in general, people tend to have little chance of getting restitution against their abusers. Government has more financial muscle (by stealing from everyone else) and it's various laws that give agents of said abuse sovereign immunity to prevent accountability. This along with the libertarian understanding of history are why many if not all view government as evil. One can argue that police brutality is one of the worse abuses of government given how much of a presence police have in the general populace.

Unlike conservatives (with very few exceptions) who think police brutality is a myth (or alternatively think certain groups of people deserve it from initial contact), libertarians of all stripes know that abuses from armed agents (along with their unions) of government are a serious problem that needs to be addressed. People that actually see that there is a problem want to know what can be done to stem the abuse and hold abusers accountable.

While filming police (tactics promoted by excellent organizations such as Copblock and Photography is Not a Crime) has increased attention to the issue and exposed lying cops, the actual accountability is far and few in between. Filming also comes with risks, with police confiscating recording devices and deleting the footage along with arresting them on bogus charges. Along with independent citizens filming there have been suggestions that having police wear body cameras would help stem abuse but so far the results are mixed. Some suggest to working within the system to remove bad laws that police use to harass people that cannot fight back. Within the system one has to attack and dismantle police unions (which for some reason anti-union conservatives won't attack) who are very responsible for the little to no punishment police receive when they infringe on the rights of the citizenry. Full and complete end of all victimless crime laws (drug, gun, etc) would also stem much of the harassment of lower income people.

With the continuing of militarization of police there must be a call to limit police interactions and government is not going to help with that. The solution is to use alternatives to relying on government agents. Those solutions would be the following:

1. Cell 411

Cell 411 is a free emergency management mobile service. Create your own personal network with friends and family that you trust in case anyone needs help. In addition it's useful for those who engage in protests and activism with it's option for live broadcasting. Think a more personal version of a neighborhood watch.

2. Asserting Your Right to Bare Arms

A common trope that police worshipers like use against their critics is that without them nobody would protect you. Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Libertarians believe gun rights are an absolute and that everyone has the right to defend themselves and carry arms. Banding together with other gun owners who distrust police to patrol neighborhoods with deter potential criminals who see that they'll get shot. In addition any potential police harassment will shine a light on the conservative lie that police won't confiscate arms.

3. Creating private defense/security companies

The private sector has a significantly better track record than the government (parasite) sector and security is no different. When Detroit went bankrupt many of the government "services" were cut back including the police. In enter Threat Management founded by Dale Brown a private security firm that does the same thing government police do but without violating the rights of people. For more information on Brown here are some interviews with Copblock, Tom Woods and Jeff Berwick.
3. Avoiding the police and Blue Lives Matter when possible

Defense attorney's make their case (Part 1 and Part 2) that one should never talk to police. This should also should apply to people who apart of Blue Lives Matter. Not wanting to associate myself with cops and conservatives are one of the reasons why I personally am not a member of any gun groups. Statists don't like being challenged and sometimes may get violent (either directly or indirectly) when they are. De-associating one self from open authoritarians of all political stripes who may or may not make use of Swatting when these types of people hear of your views can help with preserving your own personal liberty.

Part of the reason for using alternative solutions to government is to deny government revenue. This is why I view protesting as pointless and ineffective. This may different depending on the state but in my state of New York, police are paid overtime when out covering protest gatherings. As we libertarians know, a cop's "paycheck" is in reality a welfare check so by protesting people are in fact increasing the tax (read stolen) money given to the parasite class. Not to mention that government will always try to infiltrate these protests with agitators to get them to turn violent in order to justify more liberty crackdowns.

I'm not going to sit here and say these solutions will put the government monopoly out to pasture overnight. However it's been long overdue to get people to realize that individuals must provide their own self defense.

The Hillary Clinton Non-Indictment was Predictable

To those of us who have been paying attention for awhile, we saw Hillary Clinton getting left off the hook by the FBI a mile away. Some of us are actually laughing at it. In reality the whole investigation was nothing but a dog and pony show. My question is, did the Hillary non-indictment actually wake more people up to the joke that is the U.S. justice system or is most of the anger just because of Hillary Clinton?

I see all over social media people saying that the "Republic is Dead" and that "Justice does not exist". The truth of the matter is that the republic has been dying a slow death for decades; from Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, Woodrow Wilson arresting and deporting critics of the U.S. entry into World War 1 and the Japanese interment under Roosevelt are examples in U.S. history of politicians flat out abusing the citizenry and never facing punishment. Sure once in a while the people are thrown a bone but overall punishment for the big offenders is far and few in between. I also notice that majority of these people that are saying this are also ones who are against police accountability or label any type of reform to police militarization as "being soft on crime" among other things.The reality of the fact is that if you're against holding one section of the government (the enforcer class) accountable don't freak out when another section of the government (political class) gets the same kid glove treatment.

I've have been saying for awhile that in the U.S. there are three types of laws:

One set for politicians, their cronies and their enforcers,

A second set for celebrities and athletes

and last a third set for the rest of us 

To quote George Carlin: "It's a big club and you ain't in it"

The next question is are the people that are angry actually ready to hate the state or do they just want their brand of socialism in charge at the District of Criminals. If one just wants a leader wearing their colors then they have learned nothing. Most people who just want a different criminal in charge just want the state jackboots to go after their respective outgroups while pretending to be for liberty.

Secession, decentralization and nullification are certainly steps forward, at the bare minimum those who support secession (including myself) recognize that Washington D.C. is beyond reform and other methods must be explored. I'm not going to claim to have the grand answer but an important step is to realize that no matter who is in charge the state is 100% evil.

Secession is a Libertarian Value

While the Brexit has yet to be fully completed, secession has become a hot topic on the political forefront once again. Secession has unfortunately gotten a bad reputation due to being wrongly and exclusively tied to the U.S. Civil War and slavery. This is a tactic is used by statists to discredit the idea of secession. While the Confederate States of America did want to secede from the U.S., that doesn't tell the entire truth about the concept of secession.

What is secession exactly? Well wikipedia defines secession the following way;

the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity (a country), but also any organization, union or military alliance. 

Using this definition how can anyone think that secession would be a bad thing? Another way to view secession is that it's a political divorce. Last I checked divorce is a pretty socially acceptable thing now a days. Just how when two married people no longer decide that they can make a union work they agree (or one serves divorce papers to the other) to go their seperate ways, political entities should be allowed to do the same thing when they feel that the relationship no longer is mutual beneficial.

Secession is a libertarian value because libertarians advocate for self rule, self determination and decentralization. Secession is a important step to achieving those three goals. This is why the Brexit vote happened. The British were tired of being ruled by unaccountable people in Brussels, Belgium and decided that they had enough of being involved in the European Union. Despite my own personal view (the Anarcho-Capitalist view) that people don't need a ruler, breaking away from a ruler of a large entity to a smaller one (who in theory is more directly accountable) is still a good idea. It's also why I support the Texas Secession movement despite being from New York. As a matter of fact I support secession of all fifty states from the United States Federal Government. Let Hillary or Trump be left to rule the District of Criminals and that's it.

However libertarians shouldn't just cheer one secession movements, they also should be leading them. Lets be honest winning the White House isn't going to be happening anytime soon, the Libertarian Party having one of the best opportunities in decades essentially blew it when it nominated Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as their 2016 Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.
Before that, the original libertarian Tea Party movement (the one that was birthed out of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, not Glenn Beck's crocodile tears) allowed itself to become corrupted and statist after foolishly extending hands to paleoconservatives, warvangelicals and neoconservatives who then in turn kicked libertarians out. Taking advance of the secessionist sentiment along with taking them over and leading them would be a boon for liberty. What I mean by such a take over is to get into high positions in these movements and diminish the statist conservative (sorry for being redundant) voice. History has shown that conservatism isn't about liberty but just a different breed of statism. Just how they pulled the rug out from under us, it's time for payback while advocating for liberty at the same time. Libertarians (yes even the non-politically active ones) should use these movements to spread the ideas of liberty such as ending the fascist Drug War, the welfare state, warfare state, national security state, showing that taxation is theft among others. Such an opportunity to push real liberty can't be overlooked.

Here is a few secessionist movements that exist already:

California National Party

Republic of New England (site) (Facebook)  (Twitter)

Texas Nationalist Movement (Site) (Twitter)

What I Learned About the Democrats Sit-In

So with currently no action on barring people who are the authoritarian no-fly list from buying guns. Democrats including prominent civil rights figure Jon Lewis have staged a sit-in on the House floor. I personally don't see this sit-in accomplishing anything than getting attention in the media and creating funny internet memes. On one hand a government doing something outside of passing more statist legislation that will continue to erode our rights to me is a good thing. Politicians should sit around and do nothing more often.

The reason for this sit-in should also put to bed the notion that the left is for civil liberties. With some rare exceptions such as Glenn Greenwald who has been consistently against the national security state since 9/11 majority of the left has made it's peace with the national security and warfare states. Alternatively you could say that they were just anti-Bush, anti-conservative (not that I don't disagree with that sentiment) and just were anti-police state out of spite rather than actual interest in defending civil liberties. However it's not just the sit-in that points this out, it's been the entire Obama error, the anti-war left fire more or less died (again some very small exceptions) and the left learned to love the police state. Sure they do a dog and pony show for issues such as police brutality but in reality it's just all bark and no bite. There have maybe a time when the left actually defended civil liberties but that time has lone passed.

Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean I all of a sudden I trust conservatives with civil liberties. No way in hell this current episode in political theater changes that. I've said for years that conservatism (and all three flavors; paleoconservatism, neoconservatism and neoreactionary) and liberalism are just two different flavors of socialism. I still hate conservatives but one can't help but see that the left's latest stunt makes conservatives appear in a better light on the surface. Sadly there are still libertarians of several stripes out there who think that movement can work with conservatives but that's another argument for another day.

In conclusion with very few expections such as Rand Paul, Justin Amash along with Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich (when Feingold and Kucinich were in office) liberalism and conservatism has no interest in protecting our liberties. It's foolish to think otherwise. They'll do their respective songs and dances to show that they are somehow different from their "opposition" but in reality they don't want to roll back the state just be in control of it.

  

I'm a Gun Owner and No I won't Apologize

Sadly another mass shooting has happened and has taken the lives of many innocent people who just trying to have a good time. Predictably, the left had attacked gun rights with some calling for an outright ban on the Second Amendment. Whether these new attacks lead to legislation is unknown at this time but how the left continues to lie about gun owners and pushes another attempt at this collective responsibility bullshit.

One of the principals of libertarianism is individualism; you own yourself, your responsible for yourself and you are your own man. The left thinks as a gun owner I'm some how responsible for the massacre that happened in Orlando. I'm not the one who pulled the trigger so how can left blame me or any other gun owner for what happened? This particular attack has no logic to it, does the left realize that this is the same collectivist blame that conservatives and neoreactionaries like to place on muslims, jews and non whites for when individual members of these groups commit crimes? The left is correct when they decry when these type attacks happen but have no problem using them for their own statist agenda. Then again the left is no stranger to hypocrisy nor do they care about being called out on as such. I refuse to bow down to pressure from any statist to apologize for something that I did not do.

Collective punishment and blame runs counter to a constitutional republic given how in constitutional republics everyone is equal under the eyes of the law. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Greece under the Junta (1967-1974), North Korea, Cuba, Spain under Franco are examples of countries who believed in collective punishment. Those in favor of collective punishment don't care about facts and innocent until proven guilty, all that matters to them is that if one belongs to a group of people, expresses a particular opinion, engages in particular activity etc that person is guilty and is responsible that simple association. Alternatively collective punishment and blame can be viewed as guilty until proven innocent which puts the burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the accuser.

The left says that they just want to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. On the surface of this statement isn't evil because who wants thugs and terrorists to have guns to kill innocent people? I would wager not many people. However in reality people who wish to harm others are going to do it anyway whether there is a law on the books or not. Criminals don't care about legitimate laws thats why they're criminals. All gun legislation does is harm innocent people. Background checks, lists, databases, mental health screening, ammunition stamping does nothing to prevent future tragedies but cause more red tape for innocent people to defend themselves. Also not just red tape that such measures create, seeking government approval to exercise one's right it creates a tool in which people can use against political enemies.

Some on the left say that only the government should be armed. The same government that has agents that willingly violate the 4th amendment? The same government agents who openly violate the rights of people knowing full well they'll get away with it if they ever reach a courtroom? This kind of logic is insane.

Historically gun control was started to prevent newly freed slaves from defending themselves from people who wanted to harm them. Today's gun regulations can still do just that. For example lets take someone who is gay, some in this country still think homosexuality is a mental disorder. A state with mental health screenings as a precursor to obtaining a firearm could be used against a gay individual who wishes to arm themselves. Similar gun control measures can be used against other groups of people by those who issue gun licenses such as county clerks and sheriffs. Why should the rights of individual be subjected to the approval of others? When a right is to be determined to be granted by another then it's no longer a right it's a privileged and last time I checked the second amendment is not a privilege but a right.

In a free society there will always be bad events, bad people and bad situations that's the reality. No piece of legislation will ever fully eliminate the horrible elements of society. However it has been proven statistically that the more armed a society the less likely tragic events such as what happened down in Orlando will happen. Criminals like easy targets because an unarmed person is less likely to deliver any serious harm to a criminal. If the left was ever actually serious about protecting the rights of minority groups (they weren't) then they would ditch gun control and allow gays and minority groups to arm themselves to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them. Also not just them but everyone.

Libertarian Infighting Needs to End

There are several different ways to cripple if not outright destroy a movement. Infighting in my opinion has to be the worst among them because it destroys a movement from within. Infighting causes movements to take sight off of the enemy, view themselves as the enemy while the main goal becomes swept under the rug. It's bad enough when one has to worry about their enemies attacking them while not being sure if the ones you call friends won't sucker punch you.

Over the past week or so I noticed on twitter various libertarian anarcho-capitalists I follow attacking each other because some are advocating voting for one of the Libertarian party candidates in the presidential election in November. For the record I don't vote as I like many anarcho-capitalists view voting as a waste of time because the system itself is rigged. However I won't attack a fellow libertarian for voting like I would attack a liberal, a conservative, or a neoreactionary on their brand of statism. In Man vs The Welfare State, Henry Hazlitt said that libertarians need to attack from multiple directions if the movement has any hope of advancing real liberty. Hazlitt is right in that regard, especially in today's world where statism has morphed into several different forms.

Getting into awful and hateful arguments because some in the movement are pushing others to vote is a waste of time. I was watching a YouTube video between radio host Scott Horton and Jeffery Tucker in which Horton said that he views the Anti-Trump and Pro-Trump groups getting into fights as when red shirts were getting into fights with brown shirts in 1930s Germany. These are the types of groups libertarians as a whole should be fighting with, not with ourselves. There will always be people within the movement that people will or won't like. I'm sure those who are reading this can name three to five writers, podcasters, speakers, etc that they like or have a problem with. Libertarians should be attacking warmongers, protectionists, economic interventionists, anti-government accountability groups, those who hate individual rights and believe the "greater good or the majority" takes precedent, anti-self defense groups, drug warriors, those who support foreign aid, etc. These are the people who are enemies of liberty not ourselves.

Does the Black Lives Matter Movement hurt the Police Accountability Movement?

Police are out of control; the militarization that has gone on since the beginning of the drug war, the complete lack of accountability and their blatant and sometimes open hatred and disregard for the civil liberties of the citizens they claim to protect to name a few. Those who think that this doesn't exist are the same who said "If you're not doing anything bad then you have nothing to be afraid of" when the PATRIOT Act was passed. Whether you're in the camp of Robert Higgs who believes there is no such thing as a good cop or the camp of Radley Balko who believes that there are good cops, the overall issue is that domestic policing in the US is a problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm a open supporter of police accountability sites such as Copblock and Photography is Not a Crime. These are two of the best sites out there when it comes to exposing police misconduct no matter who the victim of said misconduct is. In addition they both highlight police officers who cross the thin blue line who get punished by the same corrupt system that they are exposing. Obviously like any group they have their own share of criticism from both those within the movement and it's enemies.

One group within the police accountability movement that I believe is hurting the movement and giving more talking points to government defenders (collectively known as Blue Lives Matter or like some Anarcho-Capitalists say Blue Lives Murder) is the Black Lives Matter movement. The movement that spawned after the death of Michael Brown and trial of Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. When it started on it's face it had a legitimize set of grievances that appealed to the police accountability movement. However this is before the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore and most recently the movement assault on libertarian activist Adam Kokesh. Assault on innocent businesses and innocent people is wrong as is also collective judgement and punishment. Nobody has the right to assault another outside of self defense despite what some on the left and right think it's wrong. More evidence seems to emerge every so often that Black Lives Matter has devolved like most liberal movements into just being against anyone who isn't liberal and unfortunately a racial competent is involved too.

Not only do assaults on innocent people hurt the police accountability movement, their gun control stances hurt it too. Despite US Supreme Court rulings that haven shown that police forces do not have an obligation to protect individuals just enforce laws, government defenders continue to use the argument that any reforms such as actual accountability will prevent the police from protecting you. One of the solutions that should be included in any police reform proposal should be unrestricted civilian access to firearms. To quote Freedoms Phoenix owner Earnest Handcock "The second amendment is for everyone" Gun control laws only hurt innocent people and embolden those who want to commit acts of violence against peaceful people. As the old saying goes; "An armed society is a peaceful one".

With these acts I personally see no reason why any libertarian anarcho-capitalist could in good principal support the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole nor it's faces of the movement such as Cassandra Fairbanks (who many libertarians rightly and openly dislike). Support for the Black Lives Matter movement only give police statists more ammo to use against us which will undo much of the work the police accountability movement has done.

What Should the Libertarian Response to the Refugee Crisis?

Like immigration and abortion libertarians have a different opinions on what the proper response to accepting refugees from Syria are. Before answering we should look at these factors:


The Welfare State

As far as we know, any refugees that are taken in can receive welfare benefits (housing, medical care, public "education" etc). As libertarians we know that the welfare state in it's current form is evil. It's a system build on theft and force with the threat of being locked in a government cage if one refuses to pay into the system. Adding more people to this system will only result in the state forcibly confiscating more of our hard earned labor in order to keep up with the increased burden on it.

Private Property

While nothing has been state on either the mainstream media or alternative media outlets lets not be fooled that with the state importing people that we have a good chance of seeing private property rights being violated. What if lands and public housing project which are designated to house the refugees all of a sudden become full for whatever reason and then the government starts going after people who have large amounts of land such as farmers? As a rule libertarians don't put anything past government and what they may or may not do. It's completely believable that governments would threaten large land owners into accepting refugees on their land. Also not just farmers, people who own apartment complexes and buildings could be told that they have accept refugees at whatever rate that the government thinks is "fair".

Based on these two issues alone any libertarian in good faith can't be for the state importing massive amounts of people at a fast rate. Even if the state says it's being humanitarian we all know that anything that the state does has an underlining purpose from what they say upfront. However it's not to say that libertarians should be against people who wish to sponsor refugees with their own resources. That's perfectly within libertarian philosophy and should be encouraged instead of a massive all at once importation. It actually somewhat surprises me that even the MSM isn't even suggesting that this is even an option.  

Some may be reading this and say that this is no different than what conservatives are saying. I would say Yes but it's not just against the massive importation that libertarians should be against. In addition to this we as a movement should be highlighting on our blogs, podcasts, YouTube videos that this crisis is the result of years of meddling in the Middle East. It should be highlighted that once again Ron Paul was right. As horrible as it sounds, Iraq, Syria and Libya were much more stable when Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were in charge. Yes all three of these countries were socialist hell holes but the religious and ethnic strife wasn't there as all three leaders stressed nationalism over religion and ethnicity and believe it or not Islamists weren't tolerated in those countries. When Islamists attempt to set up shop they were regularly jailed and executed. With them gone the fringe hate groups took over the country with the regular people fled or got killed. Conservatives don't want to acknowledge this, there solution is just to continue to bomb these countries like the government has been doing since 2003. The warfare state created the instability but it's not going to fix it, only make it worse.

Middle American Radicals?

An interesting article in National Journal goes into discussing the ideological makeup of those who support Trump. For those of us who activitly pay attention to politics one can agree that most of Trump support stems from Pat Buchanan style paleoconservatism. These are considered radical voices in US politics but I have to disagree with that sentiment. Being a radical in regards to politics is supporting positions outside the mainstream. Which from the naked eye yes it appears that those voters are radical but from a liberty perspective they're really not.

When you look at people like Pat Buchanan who is widely considered the face of US paleoconservative thought. The three main tenants of paleoconservative thought are economic nationalism, supporting the drug war and immigration controls. All three of these positions are not voluntary as they require men with badges and guns to enforce. Those who support them don't trust the market to come to these positions or regard the market as to slow to adopt them. For the non-political they would see this as ironic that those who are under the banner of conservative would take an anti-free market stance. However paleoconservatism was never about the free market, just less socialist than the left's economic ideas.

Using men with guns and badges to enforce a particular way of thinking, conducting one's self or business isn't radical. In the US and in pretty much most of the world this is the norm. To consider that way of thinking to be radical is absurd. When you really look at elections what is it really about? It's about getting a politician or group of them to use men with guns and badges to enforce a particular way of life. It's not radical, it's statist and the difference between the supporters of the various presidential candidates is which version of statism that they want to force on everyone else.

The Indiana Law is about Property Rights

Among the hysteria that has been caused by Indiana's religious liberty law there is sense to be made in all this. First thing, despite it's name, religion was not the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law was to reaffirm private property rights. The core was to return control to property owners to regulate their property the way they see fit. Unfortunately some turned this into an anti-gay/lesbian debate.

To start off I think organized religion is full of more bullshit than a politician and being a libertarian anarcho-capitalist I hate conservatives (both the Bill Kristol neoconservatives and Pat Buchanan paleoconseravtives) as much as I hate liberals. My support for this law is the agreement that one has the legal right to run their property. What the left seems to not get that is that if a a conservative christian refuses service to a gay person than the gay person can (and in my opinion should) take their money elsewhere. For one business that refuses service to someone for whatever reason there will always be another business who will be happy to give service to that person. That's the way the free market works. Another way to look at it, is if a business wants to refuse service to someone based on a trait of theirs why should that person give that business money? It's akin to asking someone to punch you in the face. If the left thinks that business owners shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to people then they should consider this:

Jewish businesses having to give service to Neo-Nazi's

Hispanic businesses having to give service to members of the Minutemen or Pat Buchanan supporters

Black businesses having to give service to KKK members

Muslims business having to give service to Conservative Christians and so on.

Under such government involvement these business owners can't legally refuse service to people that obviously don't like them without the threat of a potential lawsuit coming against them which could possibly put them out of business. With a real affirmation of property rights, these owners while could still face a lawsuit would have a much better chance of winning the case or getting it thrown out of court completely. A true free society allows the right to associate with who you wish and not fear government repercussion.

Libertarians who don't like Ron Paul?

I stumbled onto this weird piece and for the life of me can't really find any reason to agree with the author. There are some reasons in which I personally sympathize (but don't agree fully) with fellow libertarians on why electoral politics doesn't work which Dr. Paul attempted to bring about change. That I get as someone who doesn't vote. However even with small disagreements in the tactics to bring about liberty I really see no reason not to support Ron Paul.


However it seems that this author is just repeating all the same talking points neocons are using against Paul. No where has Ron made any excuses for Vladimir Putin. Putin is as much of an authoritarian as any of the other despots in the world, no libertarian denies that fact. To say that Paul's arguments in regards to Russia and Ukraine are nothing but "blaming America" are lazy which you would expect from a neocon or a "humanitarian" liberal not from someone who claims to believe in libertarianism. Perhaps this author comes from the Eric Dondero brand of "libertarian" in which they support foreign intervention and that the US is supposed to be a global police force, we may never know but it wouldn't surprise me.

Conservative Hypocrisy and Why Liberals Should Dump Gun Control

A few days ago Vice did an article on the Huey P. Newton Gun club and their patrolling of black Dallas neighborhoods. Based on the article the group acts in way what libertarians have been envisioning in a world without government provided law enforcement. A band of people uniting under a guise of protecting their community, openly carrying their firearms which is their right and educating others about gun rights.

One would think that those who are for the right to self defense would actually be in support of what the club is doing right?

Wrong.

Being that the club is liberal it has obviously ruffled some conservative feathers like those at Conservative Tribune describing them as a band of thugs.

Now for the record as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist, I'm pretty open about my hatred for liberals and conservatives (that includes the branches of neoconservatism and paleoconservatism). However that hatred doesn't blind me to the fact that they don't deserve to have the same rights as me, they do. Despite that they want to take my rights away via the guns of the state in one way or another. Also I will note that while I'm a gun owner I do not belong to any groups. Reasons being that; 1. I don't want to associate with conservatives as I hate them and 2. That majority of gun groups don't see (or choose to ignore) that foreign policy affects domestic policy which includes gun ownership. It should be also noted that the NRA technically has a branch in New York state but it's called the New York Rifle and Pistol Association.

Some of the quotes from the statist writer that stick out to me:

"Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect."

"Of course, said flag represents the Constitution that allows them to demonstrate with weapons to intimidate people, but shh."

"It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention."


"Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter to stand up to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club’s intimidation."

If the website wasn't named Conservative Tribune you almost think that this would be coming out of a anti-gun liberal. It seems that this statist and others who share his "concern" want the guns and boots of the state to keep a special eye on the gun club if not outright stop their right to assemble peacefully. However this wouldn't be the first time that conservatives had demonstrated a double standard for non-conservative gun owners and it won't be the last. It also shows that liberals really need to kick the gun control habit because it helps no one. While the gun club most likely supports liberal economic policies they at least recognize that the police are not your friend, despite all the programming that we are put through in public school and the individual is responsible for their own self defense. However I highly doubt liberals will dump gun control anytime soon.

Law and Voluntaryism

Libertarians have been point out for years that the notion that we can change government into a non-parasitic and non-rights violating entity is false. The common response to this is "Who will prevent gangs and other people from violating the rights of others without government?"

Well the answer to that question is the free market. I had stumbled upon these three videos by the YouTube user Man Against The State and they explain how such an arrangement would work.

Part 1: Principals

Part 2: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society

Part 3: The Bargaining Mechanism

Explination of government using toys

A new way to teach children or hell even adults the evils of the state?

HT: @catoletters

Anarchast Ep. 105: The Story Of Adam Kokesh's Victimless Crime

For those who still keep with with Adam Kokesh, he did an interview this week for The Anarchast.

Conservative Sacred Cows

Fighting for real liberty is an ever daunting task. One such tasks is taking on sacred cows of various political movements. Besides the bullshit that is organized religion one of the biggest sacred cows of the conservative movement is the military. Thomas DiLorenzo of LewRockwell.com praises Ken Blackstone's comments in regards to the national anthem being played at various sporting events on ESPN.

Clicking on the YouTube link and you see the predicable and same old comments from conservative military jock sniffers. However it does get better as Mr. DiLorenzo did post one of the responses he got from a conservative statist (is that redundant?):

“Screw you.  Thank GOD you’re in the ignorant minority.  There will always be the ANTHEM at sporting events, ESPN’s 2 foolish so-called sport analysts will pay for their stupid comments.”

If your interested in sending this statist hate mail, his email was posted on the blog post as well. It's amusing when you see reactions from conservatives. Why? Conservatives correctly reject political correctness but whenever someone has a different view in regards to things that they worship they break down and act emotionally to those criticisms. Such as Mr. Amick's letter or rant towards Mr. DiLorenzo. In other words they behave like liberals. Such reactions to criticisms level against the military (along with criticisms against the police for that matter) separate the real liberty lovers from those who only praise liberty in order to control the boots of the state themselves to use for their own statist means.

I also recommend this older article from Laurence Vance when another conservative attacked him for daring challenging the conservative sacred cow.

Matt Drudge the Libertarian?

Activist Post reports on a couple of tweets Drudge Report's own Matt Drudge made on September 3rd.

Tweet #1:

"Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!" 

Tweet #2

"It's now Authoritarian vs Libertarian. Since Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between parties..."


One thing Drudge gets right is that the battle for liberty is authoritarian vs libertarian. Republican vs Democrat has been a joke since the days of Bush senior. At least back then it was just which party wants take which rights away from you. However if he really wanted to make an actually believable statement he would replace Republican vs Democrat with Conservative vs Liberal. Republicans and Democrats aren't political ideologies, they're parties that are used as vehicles to advance political ideologies. If he was actually interested in liberty he would reject conservatism by announcing that it's no better than liberalism in addition to quoting my favorite Lew Rockwell quote.

Point being, Drudge and other conservatives like him to claim to "seeing the light" and actually want to support liberty as opposed the false liberty that they've been trumpeting for years on end have to do alot more than a couple of tweets stating what libertarians have been saying for years.