Whenever I am arguing with someone over the merits and morality of anarchism versus the horrible tragedy of statism, I am almost always confronted with the inevitable question: “What about the poor?” These ignorant statists (I’ve yet to find one aware of economics) are operating under the assumption that the government helps the poor, and so a stateless society would therefore leave the poor worse off. This assumption is false.

First off, let’s be generous and assume that the government actually has the intention to help the poor. That is, the government is genuinely working to reduce poverty and not just padding the bank accounts of state-allied business (note that most politicians are also businessmen). However, we all know a certain road that is paved with good intentions. They key is to look at the effects of government programs, not just the intentions. Do they really help the poor? Keep reading...

 

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
- Henry David Thoreau

The libertarian immigration debate is alive and well.1 Although there is no debate over the immigration policy of a free society, there is considerable controversy over the proper immigration policy in our currently existing statist society. However, this debate has neglected to address the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and its solutions fail accordingly. This article will attempt to resolve the debate by addressing the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and by proposing solutions that address these root causes.

Before we can address the problem of immigration under statism, we must establish several premises. Keep reading...

 

Naomi Klein’s joke of a book, The Shock Doctrine, represents the typical drivel that is modern state-socialism. It is chock full of logical fallacies, with straw man arguments on almost every page. You will almost never find a term that is defined, leading to compounding errors. And when she does actually stop using ad hominem attacks and address the issues, we find her advocacy of socialism is nothing more than unsupported assertions. She does not bother to prove that a minimum wage is good or that price controls work; she just assumes they are better than the free market.

Her entire book can be easily annihilated by exposing the errors in her thesis on page twenty-two: to challenge the idea “that the triumph of deregulated capitalism has been born of freedom, that unfettered markets go hand in hand with democracy. Instead, I will show that this fundamentalist form of capitalism has consistently been midwifed by the most brutal forms of coercion inflicted on the collective body politic as well as on countless individual bodies. The history of the contemporary free market – better understood as the rise of corporatism – was written in shocks.”

Now, any person even somewhat familiar with libertarianism will think this is written as a joke. However, pathetic as it is, Klein is being serious. She really believes this. Keep reading...

 

Among the libertarian movement, it is a given that the Marxist idea of wage slavery is a sophism. In a truly free society, individuals would only enter into wage employment because they perceive benefit from it. That is, the employee and the employer only exchange if, ex ante, they expect to gain. Otherwise the exchange would simply not occur. So, all voluntary exchanges in a free (stateless) society are mutually beneficial.

However, in 2008 we do not live in a free society. There are governments that murder, steal, and enslave innocent people. They prevent voluntary interaction and impose coercive relationships. Suffice to say, the present conditions are not at all close to those of a free society. Then, given that we live in an unfree society, are employees the victims of wage slavery? Keep reading...

 

Many people accuse market anarchists of being Utopians; of assuming that everyone will become angels once the government is abolished. However, this is simply not true. Criminals will likely always exist. Market anarchy is the best way to punish criminality and reward voluntary, cooperative behavior. Keep reading...

 

Today is election day. Many people will be heading to the polls to select the next tyrant to rule over their lives. Even liberty-oriented people feel that “participating in democracy” is a good strategy for reducing the size of government. They believe that if we can just get the right people in government, then everything will be all right.

This view is all wrong. Voting is not an effective strategy for liberty. To the contrary, the cause of liberty can be even better promoted by not voting. There are three strong reasons that warrant staying home on election day: First, the probability of your vote actually affecting the outcome is negligible. Second, renouncing democracy and its hallowed trappings is a big step toward developing a fully anarchist mindset. Third, and most important, not voting sends a stronger message than voting pro-liberty, or lesser-of-two-evils: low voter turnout delegitimizes the entire statist system. Finally, if we all become non-voters, what strategy should we pursue? The answer is secession – exercising our right to free association. Keep reading...