Monthly Archives: July 2016

Interesting Articles #1

My interesting articles article will be a weekly post in which I share several articles from various places on the internet, and offer a short commentary on them. I will usually post these every Sunday. Let us begin:

Ron Paul: Don’t Reform the Fed, Fed-Exit! and The Path to Fed-Exit

These articles by Ron Paul describe the damaging effects of central banking and lay out the case for “seceding” from the Federal Reserve while outlining a method of accomplishing this.

While Americans Focused on the RNC, the US was Provoking War with China

This important article from exposes the unnecessary increasing hostility and the very real possibility of war between the US and China. A US ex-admiral just made the recommendation to a Senate panel to “defend” the Philipines against the Chinese, and a source close to the PLA in China has said that the Chinese military is possibly going to set up an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea due to US provocations. These malicious interventions made by and for the military-industrial complex are going to impoverish clueless Americans while getting a lot of people killed. This is something that the establishment doesn’t want you to read.

Calling Things by Their True Names

This is an excellent and amusing article that tells it like it really is. My favorite is the one that says we should replace “because its the law” with “because violent people say so”.

The Criminalization of Everything

I was going to write an article about why it’s immoral to be a cop, but instead I’m just going to ask my readers to take a look at this article and then remind yourself that its the police that are enforcing these immoral, unjust, and wrong pieces of legislation. There are, of course, many other laws that stand as reason for the police being immoral. It would be impossible to list all the victimless crimes and regulations that are simply acts of aggression perpetrated by the police.

Can Bombs Win the War on ISIS?


Verizon-Yahoo Deal Shows Once Again the Need to Remove Intellectual Property Rights

It is a very little-held view that so-called “intellectual property rights”, or, as I like to call them, intellectual monopoly rights, don’t exist, so it is very refreshing to hear this view espoused.

It’s Our “Freedom” They Hate — US Coalition Air Strikes Kill 77 Civilians, Including Children

This fantastic and much needed article sheds light on some of the horrific crimes of the US military while showing the true source of terrorism.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrentless Forced Blood Draws For DUI Unconstitutional

Finally! Some great news.

Wikileaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC

Exposed! Corrupt Clinton manipulates media!

The Saudi 9/11 Coverup

Once again, someone (this time Roger Stone) beat me to it: I was going to write an artcle called The 28 Pages, the Saudis, and Hillary Clinton. No one mainstream (for obvious reasons) is talking about this and connecting the dots.

Police Retaliate, Arrest Man Who Posted Video of Cops Killing Alton Sterling — the Next Day

Shows how corrupt police are, silencing anyone who dare to oppose and speak out against their crimes.

French Officer Claims Interior Ministry Made Her Alter Nice Attack Report

Very suspicious. No police were there, but made attack report say they were. Were the police just trying to make themselves look better, or is it a coverup — maybe a false flag?

More Blowback in France

Jacob Hornberger calls the Nice attacks what they are: blowback, and makes the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy. We need more people writing and reading articles like these.

US-Backed Rebels: US Must End Syrian Airstrikes Because They are Helping ISIS

Shows that US massacre of people in the Middle East is causing many in the region to support ISIS, and draws an accurate comparison between the reactions in the Middle East to US bombings and the terrorist attacks in the West.

In Dallas, Drone Wars Just Came Home

Explains the dangerous precedent set by the killing of the Dallas shooter by drone, and warns of the increasingly totalitarian police state we’re living in, a police state in which there is no due process, only execution.

That’s all for today, folks!



The Missing 28 Pages of the 9/11 Report – Revealed

The 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 report have been declassified. They have confirmed the reports of Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Some, possibly essential, information remains redacted, although most of it has been revealed. Here is what it confirms:

1: The 9/11 hijackers received assistance from Saudi intelligence officers in the form of providing and paying for their housing, co-signing the hijacker’s loans, helped them get driver’s licenses, and most importantly, assisted them in locating flight schools.

2: The US government knew this and did nothing,


3: That #2 occurred because Saudi Arabia is an US ally.

This leaves us with an unanswered question: why was Saudi Arabia involved? We can’t be certain, but I believe the reason is that the heightened military presence in the Middle East and escalated conflicts that would result from a terrorist attack that apparently emanates from Iraq/Afghanistan would cause the US government to 1) need the Saudis to provide a location from which to operate, 2) call on the Saudis to assist in the fighting, and 3) most importantly, provide the Saudis with massive amounts of weapons and cash. Why would the US government tolerate this? The reason is obvious: the US military-industrial complex got rich off those wars, so it is only natural that they will attempt to protect those responsible for their prosperity.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media, insofar as it actually mentions the release of the 28 pages, is frantically trying to assure the public that the 28 pages has nothing to reveal. Don’t listen. Refuse to be ripped off by these terrible wars which have nothing to do with defense, that only result in poverty, destruction, and mass murder.

Further Reading

The Missing 28 Pages

The ’28 Pages’ Explained


How Courts and Police Could Exist and Function Under Anarcho-Capitalism

A powerful objection to anarcho-capitalism is that judges, acting in their self-interest, will simply rule in favor of the highest bidder. This is the objection I will attempt to address, and in so doing, come up with a theory of how and why justice will be served and property protected in an anarcho-capitalist country.

In order to discover the functioning of judges in anarcho-capitalism, one must start from the beginning. Some, if not most, people desire their property to be protected. These people will be willing to exchange their goods or services for this protection, leading to the formation of private defense agencies, which would act as a private police force. We already have a situation where government police have gotten so bad that people are turning to various forms of private policing: bodyguards, security systems, and security guards. These private defense agencies (from here on referenced as PDAs) will tend to provide the most security at the least cost (the exact opposite of government police), and their reputation will be of the utmost importance; if they got a reputation for either protecting criminals or poorly defending their customers, the customers would patronize a different agency. It is also in their interest not to protect criminals from prosecution because doing so would lead to more crime — something that would drive up their costs and lose them customers to agencies that actually protect people. A PDA will not only be wanted to defend people while an act of aggression is occurring, but will also be desired to exact restitution, which means that an equal amount of force that the aggressor used against his victim can be justified by the victim against the aggressor. Take, for example, the case of a theft. A takes $5 from B. According to libertarian theory, B can defend his property by taking his $5 back from A and he is justified in taking an additional $5 of A’s money, along with the cost of the time it took to get this money and the expense it took to get it. In order for a PDA to maintain an excellent reputation and to ensure that it will not get into any battles with other defense agencies (which would be very costly), the PDA would make sure that a person accused of a crime actually committed that crime, and that the amount of restitution to be exacted is just. This is the role of judges — the difficult job of proving to everyone that either a person accused of a crime is guilty or innocent, and what a just compensation to the victim (if there is one) is. Judges would compete with each other in terms of their reputation for producing thorough and convincing judgements, and would lose customers for providing poor or corrupt judgements (which, if obvious that the judge was corrupt, or had judged wrong, would be considered invalid and ignored). The purpose of judges is not to provide justification for the use of force, but only to demonstrate that a use of force is, in fact, justified (or not). Whether a judge worked for a PDA or had a private practice or belonged to a judging company (private court) would be immaterial. In order to demonstrate fairness, a process of appeals could exist and may work like this: A accuses B of committing a crime, then the judge of A’s choosing either rules B innocent, in which case the process ends, or the judge rules B guilty, in which case B could appeal to a second judge. If the second judge rules B guilty, the process ends, but if the second judge rules B innocent, A could appeal to a third and final judge that is agreed upon by both the first and second judge, or both A and B. The cost of the judging service would go to the loser of the court case, which would mean that if someone is obviously guilty or innocent, the person who is going to lose the case would not want to increase his or her costs by appealing a judge’s (clearly correct) decision. Of course, if someone was undisputedly guilty and the restitution owed was undeniable, a judge would not be necessary. I have thus sketched a rough outline of how anarcho-captialistic police and courts could work, and will go on to address a few objections.

A common objection to anarcho-capitalisim made by minarchists (small-state libertarians) is that “justice” is some kind of a public good and no one has a desire to produce it while everyone wants it, so it must be provided by a government. This assumes that public goods exist, and that they should be provided by a legitimized institution with a monopoly on the use of force, or, in other words, a state. The theory of public goods have been demonstrated false in this article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, this article by Walter Block, and this article by Randall G. Holcombe. Furthermore, as I demonstrated above, it is in everyone’s self-interest to both enforce and obey the non-aggression principle, and both police and courts could be provided on the free market.

Another objection goes like this: all this is well and good for customers of PDAs, but what about the provision of justice between individuals not belonging to PDAs? Wouldn’t conflicts between non-customers of PDAs simply devolve into fights to the death? I can answer this in two different ways; first, I could say that if you don’t pay for justice, why would you expect to receive it — it’s like any other service! Second, I don’t think that this would be the case because 1) anyone who wanted to could arm themselves with weapons, discouraging anyone from committing acts of aggression against each other, and would allow for individuals to enforce justice even without a PDA, and 2) people who were criminals or were thought to be criminals would be ostracized; in the interest of keeping themselves and their friends/family/customers safe, people would forbid those whom they thought were criminals from entering their property. As a side note, there would probably be very expensive and very secure stores and housing that would be specifically for blacklisted criminals. Therefore, if you don’t belong to a PDA and someone aggresses against you, you still would charge the aggressor in a court instead of just showing up at his house with guns, taking back your property and taking some of his money, because you wouldn’t want the public to believe that when you were enforcing justice you were acting as an aggressor. So yes, in an anarcho-capitalist country, you could provide your own protection, but would still usually make use of courts. Also, I think that the wide availability of weapons, ostracism, and the relative absence of poverty under anacho-capitalism would be very effective at discouraging crime from occurring.

A further objection is that a PDA would simply take over and become the government. Even if this were the case, and I think that this would be very unlikely to happen, then we would be in the exact same situation that we’re in now, so we have nothing to lose! The thing to keep in mind here is that under anarcho-captialism, there is no legitimized institution with a monopoly on force, and that any prospective government would inevitably have to convince the populace that it is in their interest to have a government. The reason for this is not readily apparent, but is the case; if the government is not legitimate in the eyes of most of the people, then people will tend to defend themselves from that government because it is in their interest to do so. The government can only use the resources that come from the populace, but if the source of those resources, the productive citizenry, are mobilizing those resources to defend against that state, then that government will not be able to continue in its existence. It can either kill everyone, and lose all its funding, or it can battle everyone and eventually lose, expending all of its remaining resources to survive. The reason for this is as follows: the state expends resources on suppressing a revolt, but can’t get those resources back because the very resources they want to take are being utilized to resist them. This leads to the state having decreasing funds which are consumed in its bureaucracy and in the course of fighting a war on its people, while the productive populace keeps on producing funds and resources with which to defeat the state. Note that this only works if the vast majority reject the state in favor of anarcho-capitalism. This is the reason that it would be unlikely but not impossible for a state to arise out of anarcho-capitalism; only if someone were to come along and convince the bulk of the people that they would benefit from a government, which, under anarcho-capitalism, would be almost impossible to do for the obvious reason that a state is not beneficial, and the people would be experiencing that fact first-hand.

In conclusion, the state is not necessary for the provision of justice, and, being the monopoly that it is, has no reason to  provide the best service at the lowest cost like the private courts and PDAs in anarcho-captialism, but to provide the least service at the highest cost. Furthermore, the state is inherently immoral, and therefore should not exist. Any question as to how a society would function without one is a purely technical question and is not relevent to the question of whether or not the state should exist. However, as I have written above, society would (surprise surprise) be much better off (and have a better provision of justice) without a state and with a purely voluntary method of protection.

Further Reading

The Market for Liberty

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto


Are Human Shields a Problem for Libertarians?

A common problem libertarians are faced with is the application of the non-aggression principle in the case of human shields. Walter Block attempted to come up with a solution through his “negative homesteading” theory, with which I respectfully disagree. The problem is this: if A is aggressing against C while using B to shield himself from all defensive force from C, can C use force against B to stop A, and can B use force against C in order to stop C from using force against him? I posit that the libertarian approach is this: It is legitimate for C to use force against aggressor A, and if A aggresses against B to put B in a position to receive the force against him from C, than the one responsible for the harm done to B is A, that the one initiating force against B is A, not C, and that therefore B cannot legitimately use force against C because that would be aggression, as C is not initiating force against B, but simply having his defensive force blocked by A with an innocent person. As an example situation, imagine that someone attacks you by punching you, and you punch back, but as you are throwing your punch, he grabs a person next to him and places that person in front of him, causing this innocent person to receive the blow. Obviously (because your force was directed at the aggressor) you did not aggress against the innocent person, and, therefore should not be stopped from punching by the innocent, as that would be an initiation of force against you. The analysis is the same in a hostage situation in which the hostage is taken not at the last moment but well before, and one in which fatal force is used instead of a punch.

“Collateral damage” is still aggression because it is not a case of an aggressor using an innocent or innocents as a shield against defensive force, but aggression by a person in the course of using or attempting to use defensive force against an aggressor. For example, a store owner who has been robbed would be an aggressor, in fact a worse aggressor than the robber, if the robber ran into a crowd of people and the store owner sprayed machine gun fire into the crowd. This theory is not a justification for aggression against third parties when using force against an aggressor.

In conclusion, I hope this answer to a common objection will help people put an end to one of their doubts regarding libertarianism.