Skip to main content

Posts

Paradigm Shift

The old guard built this movement. Without them, it’s unlikely any of us would be aware that a liberty movement even exists! This alone is an accomplishment. And the history books will look favorably upon them for it - & justifiably so. Their preference for a political approach however, has been ineffective at bringing about liberty (just take a look around, if you’re still permitted). Progress hasn’t just stagnated, we’ve been losing ground rapidly. It’s time for a paradigm shift. One that moves away from the old way of thinking & instead focuses on teaching people how to opt out of corrupt systems & to build competing, market-based alternatives to state institutions. Like sports teams, ideas also get tired & worn out, old players retire, & new, fresh ideas take their place. In the world of ideas, when paradigm shifts occur, the old guard resists the change at first, but eventually comes around to seeing the benefits and virtues of the new way. This is how progres
Recent posts

In Defense of Hoppe

One common misconception about agorism - one that’s even held by many agorists - is that we’re natural adversaries of Hans Hoppe, or that his & Konkin’s philosophies are mutually exclusive. Nothing can be further from the truth. Agorists & Hoppeans are in fact, natural friends. True, agorists don’t advocate covenant communities or secession, and hoppeans don’t see counter-economics as the way forward - but there’s plenty of common ground nonetheless. For one, agorists & hoppeans share a common legacy rooted in logic. Agorism is born out of the application of logical consistency to the socio-economic arena. Likewise, Hoppe was and is a master logician. Argumentation ethics is a purely logical argument and perhaps the most important academic contribution to the social sciences in the past 50 years. Agorists and hoppeans also share an unparalleled mastery of economics. Whereas agorism exists exclusively in the economic sense, Hoppe’s mastery of economics imbued his followers w

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom

The Party Once More

  The following is excerpted from "The Party Once More", written by Murray N. Rothbard for the May, 1972 issue of The Libertarian Forum. "More substantially, Mr. Nolan writes that the primary purpose of the Libertarian Party is not immediate electoral victory but to educate the public in libertarian ideas. We never thought otherwise. But the problem with this approach - a long-standing objective of minor parties - is that the psychology of the mass of the public being educated is overlooked.  Let us take, for example, the poor old Socialist Labor Party, which, doggedly, every four years for nearly a century, has been nominating Presidential candidates and gettting them on the ballot. What impact on the electorate has the SLP achieved? The problem is that the party has been so small, so flagrantly unviable, that the educational impact for socialism by the SLP has ranged sternly from zero to negative.  For what is the reaction of the public? The reaction of the average cit

Reclaiming Your Sovereignty

Like an overgrown jungle, the state has become so all encompassing that the path to reclaiming one's individual sovereignty can at times, be difficult to even see. Here is an attempt to clear the weeds.  What follows are 3 simple steps everyone can take, designed to drastically reduce dependance on the parasitical, political class... Step 1. Read Rothbard Read Rothbard & Hoppe, to know & understand freedom. This is the most difficult step, because it requires you to question everything you’ve ever been taught - from the moment of your birth up until now. Understand Rothbard’s invocation of natural law in defense of Lockean homesteading theory. Then, learn why Rothbard said Hans Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics made his natural law defense seem positively weak. When you understand this, you’re ready to move on. Step 2. Be Your Own Bank Be your own bank, because a Goldman Sachs debt slave can’t be free. Cut your shackles & release yourself from the bondage of Federal Reserve

In Defense of Left Libertarianism, Part II

The early anarchists - the first anarchists, were undeniably leftists. In fact, the Father of Anarchy , William Godwin, sought the abolition of the state only insofar as it served as a means of achieving his true end, the elimination of private property. Godwin’s immediate ideological successors largely agreed. Pierre Joseph-Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau & Ben Tucker - all rejected the idea of private property to a greater or lesser extent. Under the influence of these thinkers, several attempts at more "equitable" communal living were made; all of which now litter the dustbin of history. Some, like the New Harmony colony, Brook Farm, the Oneida colony, or the Amana colonies, were lucky & either closed or converted to market-friendly models. Other communes like Jamestown, tell a much darker tale. But how much blame can we assign to these early anarchists for their economic shortcomings? If it’s true contemporary anarchists can see f

In Defense of Left Libertarianism

Marx was right, but Marxism is stupid. Let me explain… Marx’s fundamental critique that the working class is being exploited by the upper class is true. This is so inherently obvious in the modern political climate that I find it bewildering the notion even needs defending. In fact, today, the working class has been so thoroughly exploited that they can now be more accurately termed the working poor . Go to Manhattan, the neoliberal shithole from whence I came - and try to find a worker who both lives & resides there. You can’t. There aren’t any. The elites have successfully used a combination of high taxes & a denial of civil liberties to expel the working class from their homes. Trust me, I am among the expelled. The anarcho-capitalist habit of turning a blind eye to class theory is a grave mistake, as it sweeps real concerns under the rug. In doing so they dismiss the plight of an enormous contingent of the public - labor. No, we agorists aren’t seeking an abandonment of met