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
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.
As far as the question goes if a Trump presidency would be good or bad for libertarianism, depends on various factors, themselves depending on exactly what Donald Trump will be doing as president (as opposed to merely spouting campaign rhetoric which is notoriously vapid coming out of any politician’s mouth). Continue Reading
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
On twitter, a Gary Johnson fan (whose behavior is suspiciously akin to a cult follower) tweets about an article that allegedly destroys most arguments against a Johnson/Weld ticket.
I offer arguments why this is not the case at all (and can offer MANY more by the way), after which the Gary Johnson fan tweets the following amusing response:
In other words, a minarchist libertarian, who thus obviously believes in both the state itself and in the possibility of limiting the power of the state, through the political process, claims i am an “anarchist nutter” with “deluded opinions”.
The amusing part, however, (because the part that she still believes the state can be both maintained and limited is just sad, precisely because they are deluded opinions, as proven by history) is the fact that she makes an argument that an article has destroyed most of the arguments against a Johnson/Weld ticket, and then calls my counter-arguments “deluded opinions of an anarchist nutter”. Because slinging lazy and cowardly ad hominem, of course, is a much easier way of dealing with inconvenient counterarguments to your own supposed “facts” than to actually address them.
‘Are you trying to prove me wrong? Well, your arguments are just deluded opinions and you’re an anarchist so you’re nuts anyway. So there.’
With this ‘logic’ i find myself forced to understand why such people believe that the state can both exist and still be limited by the voting process. Believing in fairy tales is after all a denial of reality. And with a denial of reality comes a denial of any inconvenient counterarguments.
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.
Watch the whole video, and especially Stefan Molyneux’s message at the end.
At ISideWith.com, someone posited a stance on whether or not there should be any background checks before the purchase of fire-arms.
“Libertarian in Paris, TN” said:
“no. the government has no right to tell an individual what products they can and cannot buy.”
Leave it up to progressives and other gun control zealots to come up with some of the most retarded types of responses imaginable from a logical point of view, in some cases a moral point of view, and as a result of omissions of important facts.
Let’s take a look, shall we? Continue Reading
“Saying that taxation is voluntary, is like saying that rape is love-making,” — Stefan Molyneux
Taxes being voluntarily paid is like Defense Spending in the United States. It is a contradiction in terms.
If you want to get to the trurh about politics, the first thing to do is to get rid of all euphemisms and to recognize the nature of the act, not its nice-sounding label.
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.