"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

— Martin Luther King (via canadian-resistance-army)

(Source: free-metis-army, via privilegedwhore)



Well, it finally happened: I finally read a libertarian post so silly I couldn’t resist a response.

Yet you could resist directly responding… (thanks to huskerred for bringing this post to my attention).

To simplify, the libertarian in question claimed…

Laliberty is my freaking hero. This is a very good read and I highly recommend everyone to click through and view the exchange between Laliberty and an Illinois State University political professor.

TL;DR: Political professor’s bad arguments get completely—and somewhat embarrassingly considering his profession and all—CRUSHED by Laliberty.

[The best part about this is that while Laliberty does an incredibly thorough job of addressing the post, OP’s arguments (? I don’t know if analogies are technically arguments) are so terrible that any mildly intelligent person could dismantle the bad logic.]

Quick Recap

Before I go to bed, some highlights:

  • I didn’t get to meet Paul. :[[[[[ Fuck the po-lice. They wouldn’t let me past.
  • Lots of Ron Paul fans were complete dicks when it came to a simple matter of, “Umm, this is where we’re trying to clear a section for HANDICAPPED people, can you please move back?” Some were very polite and moved immediately, most stared straight at us pretending they couldn’t hear a word we were saying, and refused to move.
  • We had a great turn-out.
  • I got to sit very close to watch Paul’s speech.
  • He was inspiring and fantastic as always.
  • After I had given up trying to kill the police with my mind and get to Paul, a man came up to me [all the club kids wore the same shirt to get access and whatnot, so I assume he identified me by my shirt] and handed me $200 and said only, “Students for Ron Paul.” And walked away. …I didn’t even say thank you I was so stunned and confused.
  • That money was supposed to be mine, amirite?
"[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again."

— Edward Gibbon (via hipsterlibertarian)

My favorite place to get lunch

My favorite place to get lunch


No one is joining my In-Flight Liberty chat room on my plane to DC :[

…Clearly they must all hate freedom


DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - Women passengers complain that TSA agents are targeting them for extra screening.

The Transportation Security Administration has a policy to randomly select people for extra screening, but some female passengers are complaining. They believe there is nothing “random” about the way they were picked.

A Dallas woman says TSA agents repeatedly asked her to step back into a body scanning machine at DFW International Airport. “I feel like I was totally exposed,” said Ellen Terrell, who is a wife and mother. “They wanted a nice good look.”

When Ellen Terrell and her husband, Charlie, flew out of DFW Airport several months ago, Terrell says she was surprised by a question a female TSA agent asked her. “She says to me, ‘Do you play tennis?’ And I said, ‘Why?’ She said, ‘You just have such a cute figure.’”

Terrell says she walked into the body scanner which creates an image that a TSA agent in another room reviews. Terrell says she tried to leave, but the female agent stopped her. “She says, ‘Wait, we didn’t get it,’” recalls Terrell, who claims the TSA agent sent her back a second time and even a third. But that wasn’t good enough.

After the third time, Terrell says even the agent seemed frustrated with her co-workers in the other room. “She’s talking into her microphone and she says, ‘Guys, it is not blurry, I’m letting her go. Come on out.’”

When TSA agents do a pat down on a traveler, only female agents are allowed to touch female passengers. But the TSA allows male agents to view the images of female passengers.

Ellen and Charlie Terrell are convinced that the extra screenings were unnecessary, possibly even voyeuristic. “I think it’s sexual harassment if you’re run through there a third or fourth time,“ responded Texas State Representative Lon Burnam of Fort Worth. “And this is not the first time I have heard about it,” said Burnam, who adds that a number of his constituents have voiced concerns about privacy.

CBS 11 News dug through more than 500 records of TSA complaints and found a pattern of women who believe that there was nothing random about the way they were selected for extra screening. TSA redacted the names of the passengers who complained, but here are quotations from several complaints.

  • “I feel I was targeted by the TSA employee to go through the see-you-naked machine because I am a semi-attractive female.”
  • “The screener appeared to enjoy the process of picking someone rather than doing true random screening. I felt this was inappropriate. A woman behind me was also “randomly selected.”
  • “TSA staff ‘trolling’ the lines looking for people to pull out was unprofessional.”
  • “After that, I saw him going to the private room where x-rays are, to speak to the guy on that room.”
  • “I know he went to that room to see my naked body through the machine with the other guy.”
  • “When I looked around, I saw that there were only women that were “told” to go through this machine. There were no men.”
  • “Maklng American citizens unwilling victims of a peep show by TSA employees using full body imaging devices is an over-the-top invasion of privacy to which I strenuously object.”

(via antigovernmentextremist)

ISFLC Cool Kids Room

Hey Everyone,

Unfortunately for us, the lovely Christina is busy being a Titan this weekend so she will not be able to attend the conference.

Fortunately for you, a spot has therefore opened up in our room (aka the coolest room)!

So, if any of you are still in need of a room, and want to hang out with me, Adam, and Nate, message one of us!

"It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve."

— Henry George. (via fatescolliding-loveundying)

(via a-war-you-cannot-win-deactivate)

"Liberty Income Tax"

There’s seriously a tax place called that down here. When I saw it I just burst out laughing and my friends just stared at me… Then I saw their sign-holder person wearing a statute of liberty costume and I just lost it hahaha

"This is the way the world ends: Not with a bang but a whimper."

T.S. Eliot

This is all I can think of when I think of the overwhelming apathy about the NDAA

Woohoo, the NDAA passed in the House!


(via libertarians-deactivated2014020)


Considering your other posts in the last two days, I offer this response with considerable benefits of doubt that you wish to genuinely engage and are sincerely willing to understand the libertarian position.



a ) To argue that the govt can never use “use of force” or coercion to get anyone to do something is to say that a democratically elected  federal government cannot actually govern.

Well, yeah.

Why is “democracy” legitimate? Subset A has more numbers than Subset B or Subset C, ergo all must abide by the wishes of Subset A? That’s tyranny of the majority. That’s a lynch mob. That’s, as the old adage with the unknown originator goes, two wolves and a lamb deciding on what’s for dinner. There is no minority smaller than the individual, and no majority can usurp the individual’s fundamental claims to his self-ownership, his rights to life, liberty, and property.

It would not be able to enforce any laws or get the populous (sic) to do anything. It wouldn’t be able to get anyone to do anything that is within your ideology or philosophy or anyone elses (sic).

Government is composed of people, you would agree? Often, it’s composed of the corrupt and rich and powerful and corporate and connected - but for now, let’s table that point. Government is composed of people. Why should the people known as “government” have power to get the populace to “do anything,” a power that would be improper for any other individual to employ?

In other words, no one, no matter what group he belongs to, has the right to interfere with the consensual interactions of peaceful individuals.

The govt would be irrelevant.


If you are an anarchist then this makes perfect sense.


But the point you are trying to articulate, considering your concern about being able to “enforce laws,” is the assumption that only a government can or should create or enforce laws, and to eliminate government is to eliminate the protections all individuals have from the coercive force of the unscrupulous masses that surround us.

But we’ve already established the illegitimacy of a state that claims a monopoly on force by either democratic force or otherwise. We own ourselves and thus no one can have a higher claim on our lives. So there is no moral standing to create force in order to replace some other force. Put another way, violating liberty to protect liberty doesn’t actually accomplish the purported goal.

That is the deontological case. And, even with that, your concern remains: what happens? No doubt you would still fear individuals who would seek to harm others.

Minarchist libertarians would tell you that law, courts, police, and defense are legitimate, and many would say the only legitimate, functions of a government. As an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist, I do not make this argument as I see even these functions as not only able to be capably serviced in a free society, but they would be less prone to the corruption, abuse, and failure we’ve come to expect with the state’s monopoly services.

How, exactly, would this work? Well, we cannot determine the specific order that would emerge from the voluntary associations of free individuals for the same reason no all-knowing, benevolent angels could ever determine and account for the specific preferences and behavior of millions of people acting freely.

But the truth is that even without a state, there would still be law: the universally preferable behavior of natural law

Walter Block summarized it thusly

Under libertarian law, no one may threaten, or initiate violence against a person or his justly acquired property.   All else is open, however.  That is, a man can do anything else he  wishes, provided only that he respects this one axiom of liberty. 

As I wrote just a few days ago:

[T]he only just law is that which initiates aggression against none. In other words, one that echoes natural law; that is, one that protects and respects the life, liberty, and property of all equally. Any violation of a person’s self-ownership is illegitimate. So laws against theft, assault, battery, murder, slavery, rape, fraud, trespass, destruction of property, and the threats thereof are all legitimate because they would exist irrespective of a state. They are axiomatic consequences of human self-ownership.

So those would essentially be the likely sum of generally agreed upon laws, with contracts and respect of private property serving the structural basis of all other interactive behaviors - and the enforcement, courts, and protection would happen privately with the consent of all involved.

This is obviously a topic with too broad a scope to cover such details here, but Murray RothbardHans-Herman HoppeRothbard (again)Hoppe (again)Gustav de MolinariBob Murphy, David Friedman, and Walter Block (Ch. 9) - for starters - have covered the topic thoroughly.

b) What would be the difference if a state government instead of a federal government coerced an individual to do something against their will? ( Seeing as how libertarians and Republicans are always talking about states rights and states should decide damn near everything.) 

This is a bit of a separate argument than above, as this is less about what is ideal than about what is less preferable, but you are absolutely correct in your insinuation: there is no real difference between an individual’s rights being violated by a state government than by a federal government (or a city government, or county government, or individual…).

(And, consequently, it’s not about “state’s rights” as many claim. States don’t have rights, individuals do.)

The point is that by making government more localized, by pushing the power structure downward closer to the individual, the individual retains more control over his or her own life. Instead of one vote in a nation, he is one vote in a state. It would be much easier to move to another state to flee an oppressive state government (and thus keep states more accountable lest they lose citizens) than it is to flee a country.

Furthermore, there is an additional Constitutional component to the argument. Constitutionally, the federal government should have very little power, and there are specific, limited roles it was established to fulfill. Many libertarians advocate a return to that flawed-but-superior-to-the-status-quo arrangement laid out in the Constitution. I view that as a starting point: we start there and then continue that trend toward as localized governance as possible - ultimately down to governance of the individual.

2. “Might Makes Right” Libertarians apparently HATE might makes right. However, allow me to deprogram you; in a society with no regulation and everything is privatized and the govt cannot coerce anything; “might makes right” would reign…because you would effectively be in a “state of nature”.

Just because there would be no government regulation doesn’t mean there would be no regulation. Every service that the state provides has, does, and can exist absent the state: education, health care, mail, security, etc. I think the deprogramming that needs to take place is the automatic non-sequitur employed by statists that presumes that without government, nothing is possible. 

And might doesn’t make right, no matter how that might was attained. But when you advocate for majority rule and for a cabal of ostensibly superior individuals to lord over others, who is really advocating coercion? Who is really advocating “might makes right”?

Look at this. NAOW. All of you. Wake the fuck up and smile, because something in the world has gone right tonight.

(Source: artdrugsnirvana, via laliberty)


I’ve been in a list mood lately. Here are links to buy them and online versions if I can find them.

In no particular order:

Also make sure to check out the Austro-libertarian book list Brian put together earlier this year as well as LALiberty’s concise book list on introductory and intermediate libertarian philosophy and economics.

Welcome to XKit.
Please wait, initializing the XKit Installation Tool.
Depending on your internet connection, this might take a few seconds.
Please do not navigate away from this page.

(Source: antigovernmentextremist)


To me are a cross between Corporatists/Conservatives. They want to shut down the education department which is what Ronald Reagan wanted to do but his vice president, Bush Sr stopped him. And will only destroy education so that it becomes privatized like the corporations want. They want more deregulation which is what Republicans have argued for; for over 30 years (and Democrats have gone a long with it). Some Libertarians think gay people shouldn’t get married which conflicts with the whole “liberty” thing. The only difference between Republicans and Libertarians is that Libertarians are supposed to believe in people having freedom too not just corporations. They both say the same corporatist talking points. Now you got Rick Perry saying the same shit as Ron Paul. And why are Libertarians on the right and not the left if they believe in more freedom or less state power?  Republicans just want to give the state and the corporations more power that’s why America has become a fascist state so being on the same page as them or even a lot of Democrats is dangerous.

Note:Democrats principlely are technically supposed to believe in more economic freedom too because they’re “liberal” which means more freedom in general.

So, I think perhaps you’ve met some strange Libertarians if you believe they’re a cross between Corporatists and Conservatives. Either that or you’re trolling?

Most of the Libertarians I know are left-leaning and would neither refer to themselves as conservative or support Corporatism in any way. The reason many of them believe shutting down the Department of Education would be a good thing, is not because that would serve some sort of corporate interest (actually, because large corporations are in bed with the government, they are pretty much in favor of the government having power over education and anything/everything else) but because they see what an awful job the government does in “educating” with their cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all, restrictive system that is failing more and more students every day.

My school is technically “public”. But it’s considered the #1 public university in the country. In order to keep that title, we have to compete with the other top universities for the best professors, the best research programs, etc. That competition is what keeps our standards so high. However, at a lower level (K-12) the poor and middle class are not given the opportunity to choose “the best” school for their children, because the government—via The Department of Education—basically dictates where the kids can and cannot go and then serves to them the most creativity-killing, conformist, standardized nonsense it can muster. THIS is why many Libertarians believe it would be a good idea to open all levels of education up to competition. So that not only the rich can afford to send their kids to good schools.

Yes, many Libertarians want deregulation, because they see how poorly the government regulates things in the first place and they don’t think it’s ethical to use force against nonviolent citizens. Also, I’d just like to point out that while the Republicans argue for a lot of things such as deregulation and less spending, they only mean that when Democrats are in office. They have no problem spending tons on war and their own agendas when they’re in power, hence most Libertarians do not really agree with them.

The Libertarians who are against gay marriage because of “the whole ‘liberty’ thing” are against state-sanctioned marriage entirely. For everyone, not just for gays. It honestly makes no sense to have to go through the government to declare your love for a person and for most Libertarians, it’s just another unnecessary way the government has control of your life.

If Ron Paul supported a Corporatist agenda, don’t you think he’d be getting tons of Corporate sponsors like all the candidates [including Democrats] instead of continuing in his small grassroots fundraising? The fact is, corporatists know that Ron Paul is not on their side, which is why not only do they not give him money, but they rally against him every chance they get.

Libertarians are not on the right or the left because they value freedom over state power. Both the left and right believe it is okay to use state coercion to further their own agendas, which is why Libertarians do not identify with either.

I hope this has helped answer some of your questions. If you would like to discuss it further, I’m always listening.

(Source: artdrugsnirvana)