Is Donald Trump Being Adopted by the Establishment?


Donald Trump ran a campaign founded on the idea of “draining the swamp” and implementing radical change, change which, at least on the foreign policy level, was practically non-interventionist. He ran promising to get rid of the fascist Affordable Healthcare Act, and even had an infrastructure revitalization plan focused on the privatization of highways and bridges incentivized by massive tax credits! Trump criticized warmongering NATO, said that ISIS can be defeated by getting out-of-the-way of Russia, and has wanted foreign nations to actually provide for their own security. Now, it seems that these promises and platforms are all going down the drain as Donald Trump is being integrated into the Deep State’s plans.

Trump has stated that he wants to “drain the swamp”, implying that the warmongerers who seek out American’s death and wealth will be forced from the Federal Government. However, instead of having a group of peace-oriented advisors, Donald Trump has basically invited the entire neocon Establishment onto his team. This list of names has been released [SOURCE: US MAGAZINE], detailing the members of his new “transition team”:

Donald Trump announced his Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee on Friday, November 11, and the list includes his children Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. (A transition team is put in place with every new incoming president to ensure that the transfer of power happens smoothly.)

Other bold-faced names who will join him as part of the executive committee include Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, RNC chairman Reince Priebus and venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who earlier this year revealed that he had funded a lawsuit against blog network Gawker Media.

Rebekah Mercer, a Republican donor; Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s campaign chairman and conservative news organization Breitbart News’ executive chairman; Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn; Pennsylvania Congressman Lou Barletta; New York Congressman Chris Collins; Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi; Pennsylvania Congressman Tom Marino; banker and producer Steven Mnuchin; California Congressman Devin Nunes and entrepreneur Anthony Scaramucci round out the team.

The New York Times also announced Friday that vice president–elect Mike Pence will helm the team, taking over for Governor Chris Christie, who previously led the transition effort. Christie will instead serve as vice chair to the transition, alongside avid Trump supporter and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, retired lieutenant general Michael T. Flynn and Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions.

As you can see, the only possibly good picks from this bad bunch is Peter Thiel, the libertarian businessman, and Stephen K. Bannon, chairman of Breitbart. Others, like Rudy Giuliani (yes, the same man who was smacked down by Ron Paul in the Republican debates on the subject of blowback), the bloodthirsty Michael T. Flynn, and the warmonger Jeff Sessions are absolutely the worst band of money-grubbing murderers available for hire. How is hiring men like Newt Gingrich and Tom Marino draining anything? Answer: it’s not. It’s inviting those same guys Trump campaigned against to come and join him. And looking at his cabinet picks, things don’t get any better: Trump is considering a prominent banker as his Secretary of Treasury. Here’s the full list [SOURCE: BUZZFEED]:

List of Potential Trump Cabinet Nominees:

Attorney General:

Gov. Chris Christie

Attorney General Pam Bondi

Sen. Jeff Sessions

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Secretary of Commerce:


Former Nucor CEO Dan DiMicco

Businessman Lew Eisenberg

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

Sen. David Perdue

Former Sen. Jim Talent

Agriculture Secretary:

Gov. Sam Brownback

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives CEO Chuck Conner

Gov. Dave Heineman

Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller

Former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue

Secretary of Education:

Ben Carson

Hoover Institution fellow William Evers

Secretary of Energy:

Venture Capitalist Robert Grady

Businessman Harold Hamm

Secretary of Health and Human Services:

Former New Jersey state Sen. Rich Bagger

Ben Carson

Newt Gingrich

Gov. Rick Scott

Secretary of Homeland Security:


Sheriff David Clarke

Secretary of the Interior:

Gov. Jan Brewer

Gov. Mary Fallin



Oil Executive Forrest Lucas

Rep. Cynthia Lummis

Former Gov. Sarah Palin

Secretary of Defense:

Former Gen. Mike Flynn

Stephen Hadley

Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr.


Former Sen. Jim Talent

Secretary of State:

John Bolton

Sen. Bob Corker


Treasury Secretary:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling

Businessman Carl Icahn

Banker Steven Mnuchin

Chief of Staff:

Reince Priebus

Director of Office of Management and Budget:


Secretary of Labor:

EEOC Commissioner Victoria Lipnic

Veterans Affairs:

Rep. Jeff Miller

White House Counsel:

Donald McGahn

Obama has now met with Trump, in order to ensure a “smooth transition of power“. We have no idea what was said during this 90-minute meeting (which was supposed to only last about 15), but we do know that afterwards Obama said that “Most of all, I want to emphasize to you, Mr. President-elect, that we now are going to do everything we can to help you succeed because if you succeed then the country succeeds.” This sound eerily like the Deep State wanting to help him “see the light”. And, even more significantly, Donald Trump after his conversation said that Obama was a “very good man, very good man” and that he “explained some of the difficulties, some of the wonderful things that have been achieved.” This coming after tweeting that Obama will go down in history as the worst president in history!

Not only that, but Donald Trump, after repeatedly saying that he will dismantle and abolish the Affordable Care Act, is now changing his position to one of merely “fixing” it and maintaining the individual mandate (the one that forces people to buy healthcare or else) and the preexisting conditions rules of Obamacare. Trump also said that he will try to make the FedGov’s healthcare more like the socialist MediCare (as opposed to the fascist ObamaCare). This is a blantant example of the treachery that Donald Trump will exhibit once he becomes president.

Finally, in a recent interview on 60 Minutes, Trump has called Hillary Clinton “very strong and very smart,” “a great competitor” and that she “couldn’t have been nicer” when she gave him a call. After gushing over Clinton like this, Trump was asked weither he would consider the Clintons as advisors, to which he replied, “I mean, this is a very talented family,” then, “Certainly, I would certainly think about that.” WHAT???!!! When I first read this, I thought that there must have been some sort of mistake. After realizing that this was real, I knew that all the populism coming from Trump had gone right down the drain. Instead of “LOCK HER UP!” we get “I’ll definitely consider taking her advice.” Here’s the video:

In conclusion, it seems to me that the only question remaining is whether or not Donald Trump is a Deep State trojan horse, pretending to be an outsider, only to get elected and turn on the American people, or if he has gotten elected and is now being manipulated to do the elites’ bidding. Or perhaps this is just a situation of Trump trying to build up alliances within the system so that he can accomplish at least some of his goals — as unlikely as that may be, it is possible. Any way you slice it, Trump is not going to fix the country’s problems, nearly all of which come from political power. This statist system is not going to last, and when it all collapses, we voluntaryists (what Leonard Read called the Remnant) need to be there to show people that there is another, better way, a better way that we can and should be working towards today.

Can a Voluntaryist Vote?


This presidential election has found me pensive on the matter of voting. There is something of a debate within voluntaryism as to whether voting is an immoral activity, or one strategy to be used in the fight for liberty. The anti-voters claim that voting is “supporting the system” and provides legitimacy to The State. The pro-voters assert that voting for whatever policy or candidate that results in the least amount of aggression is a positive (although not very effective) way of bringing about a more free world.

The most serious objection to voting is that it qualifies as an act of aggression. The reason the objectors believe this is that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil, and that voting is authorizing immoral and horrible government power. This is patently false because the government exists, whether people vote or not! The State is just giving it’s slaves the option to choose between evils — it will force evil on the populace even if no one votes! If you have an option to vote on a ballot that  will legalize marijuana even if with high taxes and regulations, that clearly isn’t authorizing aggression (which is impossible by definition), but only a selection for the reduction of government power. The same would go for voting for a Libertarian candidate, voting for a reduction in taxation, voting to reduce regulations, etc., etc.

The far more convincing argument against voting is the one which states that voting is a complete waste of time, is irrational behavior, and is focused more on exercising your “civic duty” and partaking in the sacraments of the State than it is on achieving libertarian goals. Notice that this is not so much about the morality of voting as it is about the effectiveness or strategic value of doing so.  While it is absolutely true that a person has a greater chance of getting into a fatal car accident on the way to the booth than influencing the outcome, voting is still a way of reducing government power. Even if the odds are small that you will affect just a little amount of good, why wouldn’t you take advantage of every opportunity to oppose the State and minimize the amount of aggression in the world? After all, filling out an absentee ballot is positively easy and takes virtually no time or hassle — you’re not even  herded into a little enclosure or made to stand in line!

Then there is the argument from those concerned with libertarian strategy that voting results in greater perceived legitimacy. However, voter turnout doesn’t have anything to do with “legitimacy”, and no one really cares how many people voted or pays any attention to those numbers, they show up to the polls because they’re passionate about what’s being voted on, not because of perceived legitimacy! I think the results of a vote matter more to people than which people didn’t vote (or why). If a Libertarian candidate gets elected, doesn’t that expose the libertarian philosophy to a large number of people, as opposed to only having the Republicans and Democrats in office? Doesn’t a Libertarian or a libertarian (non-Libertarian Party libertarian) getting lots of votes gather interest in what it is that they stand for? Besides, these people/ballot measure getting elected/passed really do make a difference – all those states that passed marijuana legalization measures are perfect examples of libertarian voting making a freer society.

In conclusion, voting is perfectly moral, doesn’t (necessarily) support the State, and can even be a somewhat effective tool to combat it. As a voluntaryist you should be doing everything you can to make a voluntary society — so go ahead, register as a Libertarian and vote without feeling like you’re doing something wrong! And, in case you were wondering, I supported Gary Johnson in the election, with Donald Trump ranking second on my preference scale, Jill Stein third, and Killary Clinton ranking last.

If you enjoy this content make sure to upvote and follow me on Steemit.

Animal Rights and Voluntaryism


One of the most controversial and unstudied aspects of voluntaryism is on the subject of animals and the proper relationship between them and humans. Some have put animals in the same moral realm as humans, others have put them as something between humans and inanimate objects, and still others reject the notion that animals have any rights at all.

The fundamental question to be asked is this: are animals persons? Hans-Hermann Hoppe has defined persons as rational beings, and rational beings as beings capable of argumentation. According to Argumentation Ethics, only those capable of argumentation (persons) are capable of property ownership and subject to the Non-Aggression Principle. It is, therefore, obvious that no animal known to man qualifies as a person. Perhaps in the future an alien race will be discovered which does qualify for personhood, but that day has not yet come. Animals must be seen as scarce means to satisfy a person’s wants, not as persons themselves. Personhood being ascribed to animals is a product man’s empathy: we see that animals have wills, experience pain and pleasure, suffer losses and enjoy gains, so we feel for them because we too experience these things, and by this make the mistake of thinking they are more like us than they are. Simply being able to feel hurt or happiness does not grant rights or qualify one for personhood — only rationality can do that.

Another way to demonstrate the validity of my position is like this: if animals have rights, that means that they also have the duty to observe others’ rights. Therefore, animals must be taken to court and take other animals to court for infractions of others’ rights. The wildebeest must take the lion to court for eating their brethren, all the animals must take mosquitoes to court for violating their self-ownership, the mice should take the cats to court for attacking them, the birds should take the snakes to court for eating their eggs, the dogs should sue the fleas for biting them, etc., etc. The absurdity of this makes the answer quite clear: animals are not persons.

Animal rights, conservationism, and environmentalism are all destructive, anti-human ideologies. On their surface, this is not readily perceivable. Nonetheless, it is absolutely true. If we are to treat (non-human) animals, the environment, and “Mother Nature” as people, where does that leave us humans? If animals are people too, we mustn’t aggress against their property, their air, or their environment. Everywhere humans try to live, move to, or develop, animals live or used to live. Chop down a tree? How dare you, an eagle used to live there! Built a house? You just destroyed many animals’ habitat! Drain a swamp in your backyard? You annihilated thousands of species entire ecosystem! Nearly every time someone homesteads or uses their property, they are invading animals’ living space. Nearly every industry uses natural resources which animals used to possess, or at least made use of the land (or sea) from which the resources were extracted. According to the animal rights advocates, conservationists, and environmentalists, animals would be better off if people just did………NOTHING! Don’t shower, don’t eat meat, don’t drive a car, don’t build that new factory or resort, don’t mine or drill for resources, don’t turn your lights on, don’t bag your groceries, don’t spray hairspray, don’t behave as if you’re actually alive. These people, deep down, wish that they (and everyone else) didn’t exist.

On the other hand, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t care about animals, or that animal abuse is fine and dandy, I’m just saying that it doesn’t qualify as aggression. All this article is trying to validate is that force cannot morally be used against the animal-harmer; it says nothing as to how animals should be treated other than as non-persons. Personally, I abhor the mistreatment of animals and am a volunteer at a local Humane Society, but I respect the right of control by owners over their animals.

This is a tricky subject, and I know that many will be made uncomfortable with these conclusions, but these insights are important to the libertarian theory of justice, and are needed to combat the progressive and anti-human nature of the animal rights position.

If you enjoyed this article be sure to upvote and follow me on

~Ethan from



The What, Why, and How of Unschooling

Unschooling is the practice whereby teachers facilitate the acquisition of knowledge which is of the highest value to the student. This seemingly unobjectionable practice is extremely controversial. The reason for this is that many people have been brainwashed into believing that what a child needs is education, education being forced learning. The problem with education is that it requires the ability to control other’s minds. The retention of technological knowledge requires the retainer to voluntarily retain the information given. It simply cannot be forced on to someone. “Aha! That’s where you’re wrong!” cries the objector, “I learned so-and-so at a school, therefore you’re whole theory is incorrect.” This objection is wholly untrue. It assumes that the school made him (or her) learn so-and-so, when in reality he (or she) must have committed it to memory because it was of value to him (at least at the time). The only reason that a person could learn in school is because that person saw that knowledge as valuable, either as a method to get good grades in order to graduate, in which case the information is forgotten as soon as it is done being tested for, or the information is of practical or recreational value to the student, in which case the information is retained until it ceases to have these characteristics associated with it. It is obvious that the former is functionally useless and the latter is what will bring about a successful child; a child who has the necessary information to produce the results he or she endeavors to achieve.

A student will learn the most (both qualitatively and quantitatively) when able to have the knowledge that the student most desires to have. The only way to judge the quality of information is subjectively. The subjective valuation of the information by the individual and for that same individual is the only proper measurement of utility because the usefulness of any technological knowledge differs from person to person. For an example (and these are just generalizations; the reverse may be true, although unlikely) a plumber places less value on knowledge of snakes than an ophiologist, and knowledge about the fine details of plumbing is of little value to an ophiologist. It is clear from this that the student should learn what is of most value to himself (or herself), using the medium that he (or she) most desires. Then there is the question of how much to learn of something. This can only be answered in the same way that the question of what to learn was answered: according to the subjective value judgements of the child. The school, in trying to dictate what the child must learn and how much of it is to be learned and the exact methods to be used, will inevitably draw the child away from learning what is more valued into what is less valued, otherwise the school wouldn’t need to exist because the child would do exactly what the schools wanted him or her to do in the first place.

The real question seems to be: How is it possible that children learn anything in schools? Besides the school just happening to teach what the student already finds valuable, what causes the student to learn what is taught? The student must learn something after all, or how would he or she be able to pass all those tests proving that he or she learned it? The answer is that a student really doesn’t learn (very much, anyway) at a school, and the student only retains the (worthless, at least to the student) information long enough to pass the tests on the subject. Many people do well in school, but (almost) nobody remembers the vast majority of what they were actually taught — just what was useful and relevent. Now the question becomes why does the student want to retain the worthless knowledge in order to pass tests? Because public education is free and compulsory, it’s use has become the norm, and, therefore, the only practical method of gauging the average person’s intelligence and knowledge is by knowing that the person in question has completed a high school education, with brownie points to those scoring high grades. The reason for this is that schools do teach some useful information, and (nearly) everyone goes to school, so the way to discover those who are really knowledgable is to find those who performed the best in school. This creates an environment in which students (for the most part) value getting a diploma and excellent grades, and, therefore, value (temporarily, only for the duration of time needed to pass exams) the information presented to them in school. Thus the government wastes the most critical learning period of a child’s life.

If “education” is the worst and most wasteful method of learning (or lack of learning), what are the particulars of this thing called “unschooling”? How does one engage in this practice of unschooling? Unschooling is not so much about what the teacher does so much as it is about what the teacher doesn’t do. The unschooling teacher doesn’t demand that their students perform tasks (like “read this book” or “listen to what I’m saying”) or take tests or go through courses. With unschooling, what the teacher does do is engage with the student, discovering what his or her interests are and guiding the student to find new and more valuable interests while providing the resources which the student needs to learn and pursue those interests. Unschooling is more about what the student does than the teacher. The unschooling student pursues the knowledge that he or she values the most by following his or her passions and interests. The unschooler can learn anything anywhere using whatever is needed.

I realize that at this point it would be helpful to use some examples to better illustrate how unschooling plays out in real life. Young children are always asking “why?”. Most parents are annoyed and discourage this kind of thing, but unschooling teacher encourages it, answering the questions to the best of his or her ability, and when necessary, discovering the answers with the student. As children get older, they still ask these questions, but typically in relation to the pursuit of specific knowledge regarding an interest which the student is attempting to learn and partake in. These interests are many and varied, with every student being different, and therefore having different interests and preferences as to how they want to spend their time, resources, and labor. One of my particular interests since the age of twelve or so has been coffee. I learned all about the different kinds of roasts and the different flavors resulting from these roasts, the best way to brew coffee (french press or vacuum pot), how coffee is grown, processed, and roasted, what the characteristics of coffee from different origins are, and finally, I learned to roast my own coffee and continue to do so to this present day. I have done/am doing this with numerous other subjects/passions/hobbies including, but not limited to economics, history, political philosophy, personal fitness (including nutrition), religion, finances/money management, entrepreneurship, business, travel, and accounting.

Many people are probably wondering: what does unschooling have to do with voluntaryism? Sure unschooling may be the much preferable method of learning, but how does this tie in to the non-aggression principle? My answer is that it doesn’t — not exactly. However, there are conclusions that are directly related to non-aggression which naturally tend to favor the use of unschooling. Voluntaryism is firmly against any form of governmentally funded schools, so that is a conclusion that makes voluntaryists look for alternatives. Voluntaryists know that the government distorts the economy through its interventions, so we suspect that the current system of schools and education may not best satisfy consumer preferences, but only exists because government interference. This also makes voluntaryists consider methods of learning radically different from the statist quo of public schooling. Voluntaryists know that public schools are the primary method by which pro-government ideas and solutions to various social, moral, and economic problems are transmitted in a positive way (indeed, as the best way), and act not as centers for learning, free-thinking, the store-housing of knowledge, and innovation, but as prison camps designed to indoctrinate the nation’s youth with government propaganda. This causes voluntaryists to question all of the tactics used in public schools and instead contemplate what would actually be the optimum approach to scholarship. It is for all these reasons that, while not strictly concerned with the non-aggression principle, voluntaryists generally, though not neccessarily, are in favor of unschooling.

As a closing comment, those who have teenagers who want to learn real history and economics and would like to unschool, I suggest the use of Liberty Classroom. I personally use Liberty Classroom and find it a valuable resource which is well worth the time and money (and will help out your favorite voluntaryist website when you buy through my link).

If you like this content, be sure to upvote and follow me on Steemit to get my latest posts and comments.


I Got Interviewed on the Peace Propaganda Podcast!

This post is a little overdue, but better late than never. A little while ago I was interviewed on the Peace Propaganda Podcast, and I’m pretty satisfied with how it turned out. I was contacted by Adam Allpow, who is the director of the Voluntary Institute, on the day I was mentioned on the Tom Woods Show, and then did the interview. Unfortunately, there were some issues with the audio file, which got corrupted. Then, after a while of scheduling and rescheduling, I finally did a second interview, which I believe turned out better than the first. Of course, I haven’t had any experience being on podcasts or being interviewed, and I know that I have a lot to work on in those areas. Anyway, this is a great podcast with lots of great guests like Jeffrey Tucker and Adam Kokesh, and it covers a wide variety of fascinating topics. It was an honor to be on the show, and I hope that my readers will listen regularly and enjoy.

~The Liberty Advocate


If you would like to learn real economics and history (and even logic!), than there’s no better place than Liberty Classroom, the site Tom Woods created for that very purpose. Liberty Classroom is the place to learn the truth from people who know what they’re talking about. Liberty Classroom is a great resource for adding to your personal enrichment and for dispelling the statist lies that are taught in the government indoctrination camps (public schools). I’m a customer, and I’m very happy with the courses which are taught by people Tom handpicked and trusts. Currently, I’m taking the Mythology, Austrian Economics, Political History, Logic, History of Conservatism and Libertarianism, and the U.S. History courses, all of which I thoroughly enjoy and highly recommend. Also, check out the secret coupon page and get a discount. Make sure that you sign up through my link, which is a great, rewarding, and easy way to support this site.


Interesting Articles #3

How Private Arbitration Could Nullify the State

This is an article providing a unique method of nullifying the state: have parties agree to binding arbitration in the case of a dispute. The arbitration agency would only enforce what was voluntarily agreed to by both of the parties and punish aggression instead persecuting people for victimless “crimes”. The government (at least in the U.S., where binding arbitration is legal) can’t do anything to stop it because they are unable to get either party into its court system.

Instead of Solving Rapes and Murders, Cops Spent Months Undercover in Burger King for $75 Pot Bust

This just goes to show both the senselessness of the Drug War and the fact that cops are the worst aggressors, not lousy protectors.

The Internet Was Just Taken Over by a Global Monopoly, And No One Even Noticed

This is scary. This also demands that we look to something more secure, more decentralized, and more anonymous than the internet the average guy uses now. Some great tools to achieve this are VPNs, Tor, and the largely unknown but excellent I2P.

Cop Handcuffs then Tasers Mentally Disabled High School Student for Being Tardy

Police State to children: “Get your daily dose of propaganda or else!”

‘F**k this Guy, I’m Going to Hit Him’ — Cop Records Himself Trying to Kill Mentally Ill Man With Patrol Car

The police are becoming soldiers trained to execute “disorderlies”. The worst kind of filth is found when someone’s job is to force his will or the will of others onto an innocent person with violence.

Breaking: Hillary Clinton Considered Using Drone Strike to Kill WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange

Hillary Clinton has a history of murdering people who inconvenience her, and even such high-profile persons like Julian Assange aren’t exempt from her reign of terror.

BREAKING: Pentagon Caught Paying PR Firm $540 Million to Make Fake Terrorist Videos

The first casualty of war is truth, and the USG is no exception. Produce propaganda, create mass hysteria, seize power (and money), wash, rinse, repeat.

BREAKING Wikileaks Bombshell Appears to be Coming

Can’t wait!

Is this man Bill Clinton’s love child? Prostitute’s son says ex-President is his father and claims Hillary ‘banished’ him

The Clinton Clan is morally disordered and absolutely disgusting.

Al-Qaeda Commander: US Forces Are Arming Us In Syria

This is something that needs to be known. The information is out there, but the mainstream media won’t let you uncover it.

Oops They Did it Again: US ‘Misdirected’ Drone Strike on Somalia Kills 22 Civilians, Soldiers

An accident due to incompetence or on purpose to create more angry terrorist organizations.

Libertarianism and War

A great article that I would recommend everyone read.

Spaniards, Exhausted by Politics, Warm to Life Without a Government

Got this from Lew Rockwell’s political blog, and thought it was interesting. Spain is not quite without a government, it just doesn’t have a growing government.

Wards of the Nanny State: Protecting America’s Children from Police State Goons, Bureaucratic Idiots and Mercenary Creeps

Children are brainwashed and subjected to all kinds of pointless government control for the very purpose of making them docile adults.

Hillary’s Glass-Hurling, Cursing Fit of Rage, and Dangling Noose Allusion

Hillary is a psycopath who, if it weren’t for politics, would be in a straightjacket sitting in an institution for the criminally insane.

Delhi Cuts Copyright: Why Are Government Courts Involved at All?

Finally great news of government courts curtailing government’s own privilages!

On This Speed Limit Business

From the article: ”

What are speed limits, exactly?

I know … a number on a sign.”

That’s all for today, folks!



But What About…?

The ideas of voluntaryism are sometimes criticized as utopian fantasy because “it just won’t work”. These people come up with difficult questions and hard problems that a voluntary society would face, and because the person they are asking doesn’t have the answers (or no one does), they assume that the status quo of statism is the only workable system simply because it actually exists. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it will agree that voluntaryism may be the only moral society, meaning that it agrees that it is the only system that should exist, it just denies that voluntaryism can exist or that it will function well, therefore it should not exist and not be the libertarian end-goal. It is pretty obvious that this line of thought is contradictory because it believes that a voluntary society should both exist and not exist at the same time, and it is a non-sequitor that because you cannot comprehend a voluntary society existing in reality that it should not exist.

So regardless if you can’t imagine a voluntary way of solving a technical problem, it doesn’t magically justify aggression. Minarchists in particular are guilty of committing this fallacy. The only consistent position to take is the anarchist, or voluntaryist, position. It is not possible to know in advance how people will live and thrive without initiating force against each other, but it is possible to speculate on the likely free market methods for provision of things like defense, justice, roads, and protection. This has been the subject of many excellent books, some of which I will do here (all of these are free on

The Market for Liberty

The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production

The Private Production of Defense

The Privatization of Roads and Highways


Interesting Articles #2

City Council Terminates Police Force – Town Doesn’t Decend Into Chaos

I was shocked when I saw this headline on — not that the town didn’t decend into chaos, but that the city council got rid of the police! Very interesting read. Every town should do this.

The Looming Financial Crisis That Nobody Is Talking About, but Should Be

This article reveals the major indicators of the coming collapse of the current financial system. As a side note, I would like to say that this may be done on purpose, to lead to the creation of a one world currency and a one world central bank. However, if we can change people’s minds, and get the messege out that central banks are the cause of these horrifying depressions, then when the next collapse comes, instead of being replaced with an even greater central bank, this destructive system could be brought to an end.

Yes, Hillary Clinton Served on the Board of a Company That Funds ISIS

Hillary Clinton is really and truly evil. I could not even make up all the terrible things that she has done. I believe that regardless of the votes, she is going to win the election because she is a pawn in the hands of the deep state, the deep state that determines who will be the next president regardless of votes.

Viral Video of Cops Dragged by Car Exposes the Senseless Violence Created by the Drug War

The title says it all!

Julian Assange: Hacked E-Mails Include Info on Hillary Arming Jihadists, Including ISIS

Great article, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is doing a great service for humanity.

Was WikiLeaks Whistleblower the Murdered DNC Staffer? and Mainstream Media Blackout: Two Prominent Anti-Clinton Activists Found Dead in Two Days, also A  Hot Month for Clinton’s Body Count

The question is: did Hillary order their assassination? I think we all know the answer.

Bitcoin and Mises’s Regression Theorem

I have a lot of respect for Jeffery Tucker, and his work on Bitcoin in particular has been very influencial on me.

Man Proves Software Stole Votes in All ‘Hillary Won’ Counties

Presidents are selected, not elected. The Deep State will always prevail in politics.

Soros Hack Exposes Plot Behind Refugee Crisis, His Media Control, Cash for “Social Justice”

Isn’t it odd that CNN (The Clinton News Network) didn’t report on this?

We Don’t Know If the Department of Defense Is Actually Providing Security

Actually, we do know that the DoD is making the American people less safe while murdering milllions.

Louisiana Officials Demand That Self-Reliant Locals Stop Surviving the Flood Without Permission

The story in a nutshell: voluntary help group saving people’s lives and making the government look bad (not hard to do) because the government doesn’t help anyone, so the government bans people from helping without their permission.

Potential Litigation? YouTube Is Not Private and Its Censorship Is Government Policy

Google is a creation of the US government designed to collect information and to censor it.

A Former CIA Director Just Endorsed Hillary: What You’re Not Being Told

Just another part of Hillary Clinton’s corruption.

Body Cam: Cops Pull Gun on Teen for Filming, Mock Him for Being Skinny, Challenge Him To Fight and Cop Gets Into Fight With His Own Son, Shoots Him TWICE — Dept Says it Was ‘Accidental’

Government police are terrible.

O, Come, All Ye Statists

An amusing article about how the USG celebrates the death of thousands which they used to grab power.

That’s all for today, folks!






Please Allow Me to Introduce Myself: Ethan from is on Steemit

This is my introduceyouself post on Steemit. Posted here for the purpose of verifying my libertyadvocate Steemit account. If you enjoy my content, please follow and upvote my posts.

Voluntaryist Symbol

Hello there, Steemit community! My name is Ethan, I’m seventeen years old (as of the time of writing), and I’m commited to the creation of a voluntary society. I discovered Steemit through Jeff Berwick in his Dollar Vigilante and Anarchast podcasts/websites. I have learned a lot more about it since then, and think that Steemit is a great idea with tons of potential, although whether or not it will be successful is unclear (at least to me). I’ve spent most of my life in Alaska, but have recently moved to Missouri. I believe that technology (including Steemit) will be key to the creation of anarchy by rendering the state unneccessary, but ideology will determine how and to what extent technology will be used and developed to replace the state.

For as far back as I can remember I’ve been libertarian-ish, but it was at about the age of 14 that I read Murray Rothbard’s book, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. From that point on, I was convinced that anarchism was the only moral system, but I wanted to know more about the particulars on the functioning of such a society, so I read, and am continuing to read, many books, essays, and articles on the subject. My favorite authors are Murry Rothbard, Walter Block, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, and many others.

Today, I have started a website,, and am writing to change people’s hearts and minds in favor of liberty, which is what I believe will create a free society.

Bitcoin: My Evolution

Bitcoin Goldcoin

     When I first heard about BitCoin, I thought it was an interesting experiment that would never pan out. I pretty much ignored it for a couple of years, until I came across an article explaining why BitCoin couldn’t possibly be money. The article stated that because BitCoin doesn’t have value outside of being money, it cannot be money according to the Austrian Regression Theorem. It made sense to me, so I became anti-BitCoin, because I believed that BitCoin would eventually collapse, leaving those who were bullish on it devastated.

     However, BitCoin didn’t go away, but grew, and more and more voluntaryists were coming out in favor of it. This astonished me, leading me to think that there was some kind of “BitCoin Bubble” going on. I eventually decided that I had to look more into the arguments in favor of BitCoin. Jeffrey Tucker is/was my go-to man on the subject. The more I learned, the more I found that BitCoin can be considered money (even in the eyes of the Regression Theorem), and offers a wonderful alternative to Federal Reserve Notes, and when that money system fails, may possibly become the most accepted medium of exchange.

     I will now attempt to address the Austrian Economic critique of BitCoin and put forward my theory as to why BitCoin may become in the (perhaps distant) future the most commonly used money.

     The criticism of BitCoin goes something like this: BitCoin has no value prior to being money. In order for something to become a true money, it must have a commodity value previous to becoming a medium of exchange. BitCoin is used only as a money, and has always been used purely as a money. Therefore, BitCoin cannot be considered a real money, and when faced with the competition of a true money like gold and/or silver, will be discarded as worthless.

     This is a powerful argument. However, this argument is wrong because BitCoin does have value prior to being money — just not as a commodity. The value of BitCoin independent of being money is derived from the fact that it is information (code) that is infinitely divisible, decentralized, anonymous, scarce, and instantly and directly transferable. The code, by itself, is worthless. It is the qualities that this code possesses that has value. These code qualities give the BitCoin value, but only for use as a money — prior to being used as money! Thus, there is nothing wrong with BitCoin, and there is nothing wrong with the Regression Theorem — the only thing that is wrong is some people’s application of the Theorem, and their incomplete knowledge of BitCoin.

     Now, you may be thinking, so what? Even if BitCoin could become a money, what makes you think that it actually will? Gold has already been proven to be the most prevalent money in history, so why won’t it be the same way in the future, after the collapse? The answer is that gold was money when most commerce was physical, taking place in person, as opposed to the mostly digital commerce that takes place today, and will take place to a greater extent in the future. The exact features that make BitCoin money are the precise features that characterize the perfect form of money — that’s the whole reason BitCoin is a money in the first place! This, and the fact that money gets value from its being used as money means that BitCoin will have affn advantage over other forms of money because it is already being used as such. Gold, on the other hand, is not the perfect form of money, it has just been the most perfect form of money in history — until now. Gold also does not have the advantage of currently being used as money. BitCoin already being used as money will add value to it as such.

     This is not to say that gold will not be used as money, although there is a tendency for there to be only one money in existence (although I wonder if that would only come to be in an evenly rotating economy), but rather that BitCoin is the preferable money. I believe that gold will be used as money, because it does have many favorable qualities, along with having a “tried and true” status. After the collapse of fiat currency, I believe that their will be many different monies, all competing with each other, with a small handful winning out. My bet is on gold, silver, and BitCoin. I think that it is unlikely, but there is a possibility that a new crypto-currency will come about that will outdo or match BitCoin, but as of right now, the only one that I can think of as even plausible is a crypto-currency called Steemit, which is something like pieces of ownership of popular content (like articles).

     In any case, be sure to get your cash out of Federal Reserve Notes and into a real money before it’s too late and your Notes become worthless!