The Libertists

I am basically paraphrasing Von Mises here. I, therefore, cannot take credit for the ideas or concepts of this paper. I'm merely writing it as a means to explain to those that have not been exposed to Ludwig Von Mises his core idea: only the individual owns the authority to the right of the means of production. I will illustrate this point below. Let's say that my friend comes to me and says that he and a few people are getting together to form a kind of commune. They plan on eliminating money. He tells me that he really wants me to join and tells me that I can be whatever I want in his new commune. I tell him I'll join if I can be an artist that paints with oil paints. He suggests that such would make him very happy because his new commune is going to need artists (more than he knows in fact!) I show up on day one and ask where my studio is. It isn't built yet, because, my friend tells me, that they are building the houses for people to live in and it would be a re...

----The Letter I sent to Sheriff Ward---- To the Honorable David M. Ward, Sheriff 485 No Court Avenue #6 Burns, Oregon 97720-1524 2016.01.28 Sheriff Ward, I saw you on youtube today. You had released a statement that was played on CNN. In this statement, about the tragic death of LaVoy, You said a couple of interesting things. First, that you believe such things shouldn’t happen in the United States. Although I don’t know you, apart from the fact you are a member of a governing agency that is epistemologically in opposition to individual rights, I have to assume that you and I understood that statement the same way, because I must believe that being we are both human beings, we share some basic love for humanity and individual lives. I have to assume that you didn’t mean simply the death of a human was a tragedy. For me the reason it cannot happen here is because that the nature of Liberty precludes such; only the individual own the authority to determine the va...

How the vote works Nigel: Hi I'm Nigel. Joe: And I'm Joe. Corrina: Why are we here? Nigel: We have decided to form a collective. To pull our resources and define our individual identities as a single unit. Joe: Right, and we intent to equalize the three of us so that we all have, equal, fair lives. For the good of all of us! Nigel: Exactly. Corrina: Um, okay. Joe: That's consent! Let's go! Nigel: Before we start, though. I'm a little peckish. Is there any food? Joe: No, but Corrina has a purse. Nigel: Ah! Then to our first order. I proposed we establish a bill that requires those whom have purses, when the rest of us do not, share the contents. That the percentage that they share is 60%. They keep 40%. Joe: That doesn't sound fair to Corrina. We'd be taking more than half. Nigel: Oh, no, no, no. We'd split that 60% and each get 30%. She'd still get to keep 40%; the largest of the three shares. Joe: Right! Okay. Corrina:...

Recently a man was seen sitting with his very young son while a reporter was prodding the boy with a microphone.  The boy kept saying things like: "They want to kill us", "they will kill us", "they have guns" The father kept saying things like: "but we don't have to worry, because, look around, we have flowers. Look at all these flowers and candles." Obviously the argument the father was putting forward was that love somehow conquers all and even if the enemy of love outguns, outnumbers, and out maneuvers love, it will somehow survive...even if there is no one left on its side.  Of course, once the enemies of love defeat it, there is nothing left to defeat so most likely they would become the thing they hate... welcome to nature. I digress. As all of you know, I boil everything down to philosophy. If the argument the father is putting forward is Hegelian in nature and thus, follows upward politically to Engels view on social ...

I've been quiet on the incident where a student was beat in a classroom by an official officer of the State, because I needed to find a way to express the real issue here. To me it is not about the necessity of violence to get someone's child to comply. To me it is about the nature of individual freedom. The real question is: Does the State own the authority to force a child to be in that seat? Anyone that has read my book or posts here realize of course that no other person can morally or ethical take that responsibility from another person. It is a physical impossibility for one person to give another the authority to tell them what to do. The only method one person can use to gain this authority is by threat of violence and the willingness of the intended victim to comply. That said, for the sake of this argument, let us assume that the State does possess the authority to force people to do things, like say, get an education. Well, that's not exactly true eithe...

The problem with discussing taxation is that we are discussing incomes, that is money. Money holds an almost mystic definition and thus, an elusive methodology of determining its worth. People do not value money by the same measurement. They make the incredibly false determination about it not based on rational intellect but on the succubus of emotionalism.  Idiots like Bernie Sanders believe that those whom make the most should pay the most. Normally I don't like to sound angry, but frankly, idiot is the only appropriate word to describe such illogical nonsense. He does not understand the basic Economy of Liberty, let alone the construction of value of the First Estate. The fact is that every single one of us is limited to the amount of time we will have to work with on this planet. This time is in fact our only real commodity, and money is merely a tool by which we reflect the time we have spent. The socialist that has the idea that you...