Progressivism: a Primer on the Idea Destroying America, by James Ostrowski
“Progressivism” is not a neutral or objective book, make no mistake about that. It is a book written by a classical liberal that tries, and in my opinion succeeds, in explaining what progressivism as a political ideology really is and amounts to in practice, what it means for the existence of freedom, and how it ought to be battled.
Ostrowski goes through the political ideology of progressivism by explaining first how a certain type of people draw progressive conclusions about social issues, what reasons they have to come to those conclusions, the basis on which they feel the need to come to those conclusions, the veracity and rationality of those conclusions and how they are put into the kind of political policy that effects everyone’s lives. Continue Reading
On Lew Rockwell, Jack Perry had this to say about the actions of Trump thus far:
I’ve tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and have applauded some of his actions. However, I can’t do that anymore. What I’m seeing is the same thing I couldn’t abide about Obama: The executive order dictatorship. We have invested the president with the power of passing policy without the proper actions of Congress and Senate. Mark my words, this is going to bite all of us. What, he sends an executive order telling SecDef to hand him the wish list of military spending? Ships, planes, and other weapons they want? Oh, I’m sure this is going to cost us, too.
Sorry, readers, I cannot support this man in good conscience. I am seeing the same executive order end-runs around due process of law that Obama did. Again, we are headed into tyranny with this. One man is not supposed to have this kind of power. I didn’t agree with Obama doing it and I’m darn sure not going to be a hypocrite and support Trump doing it, no matter what reasons are given. So, that said, I cannot support this man. What he’s doing is not right.
Now, it is certainly possible to criticize the very specific ends that Trump is looking to reach with the means of executive actions. But is Jack Perry REALLY suggesting that executive action as a means is intolerable no matter the ends? Continue Reading
In a Twitter battle between myself and several other Anarcho-Capitalists, several arguments have been exchanged that serve either to justify concepts such as “open borders”, “freedom of movement” or “mass immigration, or to reject them from a libertarian point of view.
I will present some of these here, and may present more in the future. Suffice it to say that i was very unimpressed by the arguments in favor of “freedom of movement.” Continue Reading
The initiation of force against innocents by one person is WRONG.
The initiation of force against innocents by a group is WRONG.
The initiation of force against innocents by a group delegating this initiation of force to another group on their behalf is WRONG.
The initiation of force against innocents by a government as a result of a group of people voting on it is WRONG.
An action that in itself is WRONG, does not become RIGHT when a larger number does it, nor when they delegate the action to an armed group of proxies and call it “government.”
There is NO argument that gives logical or moral legitimacy to the opposite.
Just a small conversation between an anarchocapitalist (AC) and a constitutional libertarian (CL):
CL: “The Non Aggression Principle you AnCaps believe in so much is stupid. How are you gonna force people to abide by it? Better to have a Constitution.”
AC: “We would insist on our NAP-derived rights and liberties through the supreme right to self-defense and by hiring the services of protection agencies that work in the free market, and thus need satisfied customers to flourish. How are you going to force people to abide by a piece of paper written centuries ago by elitists who had no societal unanimity for the document, and who were hypocritical slave owners?” Continue Reading
The following article tries to make some kind of ‘libertarian’ case for state welfare. There are several logical flaws in it which I will point to and explain.
The italic and yellow text is from the author of the piece. My response is the ordinary text underneath.
As a libertarian, I try to judge the abstract legitimacy of any institution or government policy by asking whether it would exist without a state to uphold it.
Libertarianism itself does not ask whether any government policy is legitimate by wondering if such “policy” would exist without it. Libertarianism only concerns itself with the question of the legitimate use of force. Even if some policy could be considered good or even necessary for some people, if it wouldn’t exist without government it would still not legitimize a government policy for it. One very obvious example is non-discrimination laws. Many people abhor discrimination, but discrimination of all kinds, the sole exception to which is discrimination by force, would be allowable. The existence of non-violent discrimination does not legitimize anti-discrimination laws by state force. Precisely because they would be based on force. No government policy whatsoever is morally legitimate, regardless of what it aims to do, because it is based on the initiation of force.
Psychologic Anarchist knows how it’s done.
Step 1, child-rearing: destroy the child’s emotional circuitry through culturally accepted abuses, including spanking and coercing, which occurs throughout childhood, so the child only knows fear and resentment.
See the other steps that turn children into monsters here.
Take a look at the video below. Take note of the pure hatred, the propaganda, the attempts at assault, the lies and generally the atmosphere of large conflict that is being created.
Hey, Libertarians: It’s Austin Petersen or Bust in 2016
Bust it is. Because if this fawning supporter of Austin Petersen is anything to go by, then Austin Petersen is an imposter and saboteur, and destructive to the libertarian movement and philosophy.
Let’s investigate why. Continue Reading
Spanish Economist of the “Austrian School” Jesus Huerta de Soto explains why Classical Liberalism has failed, and almost must fail, because freedom and any state, no matter how ”limited”, are a logical, moral and above all practical contradiction in terms. The state cannot be limited, and the growth of its power not curtailed.
The only society guaranteeing liberty, the curtailment of widespread aggression through the state and private property rights, is the society that is Anarchocapitalistic — or if one prefers: private property anarchism.
Jesus Huerta de Soto, author of the article, has left the Classical Liberal position and has embraced Anarchocapitalism as the only consistent and feasible form of libertarianism.