Property Feuds

The one (and probably only) criticism which communists are correct in making is that simply claiming or sectioning areas does not create property. Rothbard also took this stance, and it is the logical stance stemming from Lockean property concepts, self-ownership, etc: Production is the basis of rightful ownership, for how can someone own something which has not been produced, or has not been “touched” by labor? I have had discussions with advocates of capitalism who do not follow through with this. They often believe simply declaring something is yours makes it true with no labor (when it comes to land), but this makes no sense. It’s the same logic as the state claiming open expanses are their “jurisdiction.” More of a continuation of feudalism than Lockean property rights.

Hate Corporations and Love Governments; An Ideological Monstrosity

The combination “hate corporations/love governments” has to be one of the most bizarre ideological monstrosities of the past 150 years. It seems that people in general are utterly incapable of recognizing real threats and distinguishing them from threats that are inconsequential by comparison or actually not threats at all. Ideology’s power to blind people and twist their understanding is truly astonishing.

An Open Letter to The Left: No, Libertarians Are Not Selfish

Dear progressives, Democrats, socialists, social democrats, democratic socialists, and those that generally identify with the colloquial version of the word “liberal”: No, libertarians are not selfish people. We don’t hate poor people, and we don’t want to see the less fortunate of our society left behind in what you might describe as “economic Darwinism.” My goal here, is to dispel this misconception and to help you gain an understanding of how libertarian principles relate to the concept of caring for the less fortunate.

Ideology, Identity, Solidarity, and Collective Action

The interrelated complex of ideology, identity, solidarity, and collective action form the ground level in fruitful social analysis. Leaving out this complex, as both mainstream and Austrian economists usually do, means that one sacrifices the opportunity to understand what otherwise seems inexplicable or gets explained only by bizarrely twisting the standard model. At least, so I have argued since the early 1980s, most fully in chapter 3 of Crisis and Leviathan, but with some elaboration and many applications in later works.

The Role of Capitalism in Anarchy

Anarcho-capitalists have a tendency to fancy themselves as too far outside the normal sphere of anarchy when we are actually just anarchists who understand both economics and human nature. In a free society devoid of the fiction that is authority, some people would indeed acquire, improve, and trade natural resources. Ergo, capitalism. This would happen not because a system of capitalism was established but simply because no one was stopping production and trade from occurring.

The Law According to the Somalis

Many voluntaryists have looked longingly toward Somalia for evidence of our ideas in practice. But it’s a little tough when that real-world example also happens to be the quintessential image of extreme poverty and feuding warlords for most people. Nonetheless, sometimes an article appears that rightly points out that comparing Somalia to developed nations is a little intellectually dishonest. In fact, Somalia has improved by virtually every measure of standard of living without a state, or when compared to its neighbors that still have a state.

The Relational Anarchist Primer

According to relational anarchists, the better humans connect with each other, the more peace and understanding that will exist between them. The greater the strength of the relationships, the less likely rulers will become necessary or begin to emerge. Anarchism means “without rulers.” And besides being a political assertion, this is a psychological and relational preference. It is apolitical, based on preferred relationship standards. Instead of dispensing violence, these anarchists dispense compassion.

“Spanking” Children Is Domestic Violence

While the average American would look at you like you were crazy if you said it was okay for a man to hit his wife if she didn’t obey him, that same person would likely argue that hitting – or “spanking” – children is not only acceptable, but advisable for producing “well-behaved, functioning” members of society.

This not only defies logic, it defies science.