Classical-Liberal

thefreelioness:

Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty

Like other anarchists, market anarchists are radical advocates of individual liberty and mutual consent in every aspect of social life — thus rejecting all forms of domination and government as invasions against liberty and violations of human dignity.

The market anarchists’ distinct contribution to anarchist thought is their analysis of the market form as a core component of a thoroughly free and equal society — their understanding of the revolutionary possibilities inherent in market relationships freed from government and capitalistic privilege, and their insights into the structures of political privilege and control that deform actually-existing markets and uphold exploitation in spite of the naturally equilibrating tendencies of market processes.

Since they insist on so sharp a distinction between the market form as such and the economic features of actually-existing capitalism, it is important to carefully distinguish the key features of markets as market anarchists understand them. The social relationships that market anarchists explicitly defend, and hope to free from all forms of government control, are relationships based on:

  1. ownership of property, especially decentralized individual ownership, not only of personal possessions but also of land, homes, natural resources, tools, and capital goods;

  2. contract and voluntary exchange of goods and services, by individuals or groups, on the expectation of mutual benefit;

  3. free competition among all buyers and sellers — in price, quality, and all other aspects of exchange — without ex ante restraints or burdensome barriers to entry;

  4. entrepreneurial discovery, undertaken not only to compete in existing markets but also in order to discover and develop new opportunities for economic or social benefit; and

  5. spontaneous order, recognized as a significant and positive coordinating force — in which decentralized negotiations, exchanges, and entrepreneurship converge to produce large-scale coordination without, or beyond the capacity of, any deliberate plans or explicit common blueprints for social or economic development.

Market anarchists do not limit ownership to possession, or to common or collective ownership, although they do not exclude these kinds of ownership either; they insist on the importance of contract and market exchange, and on profit-motivated free competition and entrepreneurship; and they not only tolerate but celebrate the unplanned, spontaneous coordation that Marxists deride as the “social anarchy of production.”

But left-wing market anarchists are also radically anti-capitalist, and they absolutely reject the belief — common to both the anti-market Left and the pro-capitalist Right — that these five features of the market form must entail a social order of bosses, landlords, centralized corporations, class exploitation, cut-throat business dealings, immiserated workers, structural poverty, or large-scale economic inequality. They insist, instead, on five distinctive claims about markets, freedom, and privilege:

  • The centrifugal tendency of markets: market anarchists see freed markets, under conditions of free competition, as tending to diffuse wealth and dissolve fortunes — with a centrifugal effect on incomes, property-titles, land, and access to capital — rather than concentrating it in the hands of a socioeconomic elite. Market anarchists recognize no de jure limits on the extent or kind of wealth that any one person might amass; but they believe that market and social realities will impose much more rigorous de facto pressures against massive inequalities of wealth than any de jure constraint could achieve.

  • The radical possibilities of market social activism: market anarchists also see freed markets as a space not only for profit-driven commerce, but also as spaces for social experimentation and hard-driving grassroots activism. They envision “market forces” as including not only the pursuit of narrowly financial gain or maximizing returns to investors, but also the appeal of solidarity, mutuality and sustainability. “Market processes” can — and ought to — include conscious, coordinated efforts to raise consciousness, change economic behavior, and address issues of economic equality and social justice through nonviolent direct action.

  • The rejection of statist-quo economic relations: market anarchists sharply distinguish between the defense of the market form and apologetics actually-existing distributions of wealth and class divisions, since these distributions and divisions hardly emerged as the result of unfettered markets, but rather from the governed, regimented, and privilege-ridden markets that exist today; they see actually-existing distributions of wealth and class divisions as serious and genuine social problems, but not as problems with the market form itself; these are not market problems but ownership problems and coordination problems.

  • The regressiveness of regulation: market anarchists see coordination problems — problems with an unnatural, destructive, politically-imposed interruption of the free operation of exchange and competition — as the result of continuous, ongoing legal privilege for incumbent capitalists and other well-entrenched economic interests, imposed at the expense of small-scale competitors and the working class.

  • Dispossession and rectification: market anarchists see economic privilege as partly the result of serious ownership problems — problems with an unnatural, destructive, politically-imposed maldistribution of property titles — produced by the history of political dispossession and expropriation inflicted worldwide by means of war, colonialism, segregation, nationalization and kleptocracy. Markets are not viewed as being maximally free so long as they are darkened by the shadow of mass robbery or the denial of ownership; and they emphasize the importance of reasonable rectification of past injustices — including grassroots, anti-corporate, anti-neoliberal approaches to the “privatization” of state-controlled resources; processes for restitution to identifiable victims of injustice; and revolutionary expropriation of property fraudulently claimed by the state and state-entitled monopolists.

classical-liberal:

image

A father’s attempt to teach his son a lesson for taking his truck without permission ended in tragedy Monday after a local police officer shot the teenager dead. James Comstock told the Des Moines Register he called the police on his son Tyler after the latter took the former’s truck in retaliation for refusing to buy him cigarettes. Ames Police Officer Adam McPherson reportedly spotted the lawn care company vehicle and pursued it onto the Iowa State University campus, where a brief standoff ensued after Tyler allegedly refused orders to turn off the engine. McPherson eventually fired six shots into the truck, two of which struck Tyler who was later pronounced dead. The official report claims the action was necessary in order “to stop the ongoing threat to the public and the officers.” Tyler’s dad says he was unarmed at the time. “So he didn’t shut the damn truck off, so let’s fire six rounds at him?” exclaimed Gary Shepley, Tyler’s step-grandfather. “We’re confused, and we don’t understand.” James said his son had his fair share of minor troubles with the law, and was distraught over a recent breakup with his girlfriend, but was in the process of turning his life around, and was working on obtaining his GED at Des Moines Area Community College. “He was a smart kid. He made his own computers. He was interested in IT,” James told the Register. The family’s demands for answers got even louder following the revelation that a member of the Ames police department suggested twice that officers call off the chase. “He took off with my truck. I call the police, and they kill him,” James said. “”It was over a damn pack of cigarettes.” McPherson is currently on paid leave pending the results of his department’s investigation.

But I guess:

There’s a little more to the story than an unarmed boy was shot:

"McPherson reportedly followed the vehicle initially before activating his emergency lights. … Comstock, at one point, is accused of stopping the vehicle and reversing, pushing the trailer into the police car and partially onto its hood, according to police.

Comstock then sped away again, police reported, running a red light and becoming unhitched from the trailer … and eventually north on Morrill Road – against one-way traffic in the bike and pedestrian lanes, according to police.

Witnesses told police that people were jumping out of the way of the truck, which then jumped the curb onto a grassy area north of the university’s Campanile. McPherson unsuccessfully tried to ram the vehicle to get it to stop, police reported.”

Being Anti-War

classical-liberal:

The most anti-war ideology is libertarianism. Liberals will claim to be anti-war and still advocate for massive amounts of violence. Every non-voluntary action’s conclusion if carried out with resistance would be the imprisonment or death of the victim. This is why libertarians love the phrase “gun to my head.” It gives a representation of what the states violence actually is.  Unless you’re a pacifist, you probably think that self-defense is legitimate and a retaliatory action is justified. If you think retaliation against the initiation of force is legitimate then you should believe that it’s justified to collectivize to prevent collectivized aggression and therefor the initiation of force is wrong. Liberals claim to not like the initiation of force to an extremely large degree (war) but the states violence against it’s own subordinates is just that. The difference is that the states subordinates aren’t coerced or bribed into fighting against the state’s aggression. They remain subordinated because they can’t retaliate. When you break war down into hundreds of thousands of men fighting hundreds of thousands of other men for purposes that are completely related to the coercive states actions then the injustice is apparent. This is how we should view war not through the liberal view of it’s bad because it emotionally upsets me to less of a degree as the purpose of the war does.

Consider, for example, the classic example where liberals generally concede that a person’s “right of freedom of speech” must be curbed in the name of the “public interest”: Justice Holmes’ famous dictum that no one has the right to cry “fire” falsely in a crowded theater. Holmes and his followers have used this illustration again and again to prove the supposed necessity for all rights to be relative and tentative rather than precise and absolute. But the problem here is not that rights cannot be pushed too far but that the whole case is discussed in terms of a vague and wooly “freedom of speech” rather than in terms of the rights of private property. Suppose we analyze the problem under the aspect of property rights. The fellow who brings on a riot by falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is, necessarily, either the owner of the theater (or the owner’s agent) or a paying patron. If he is the owner, then he has committed fraud on his customers. He has taken their money in exchange for a promise to put on a movie or play, and now, instead, he disrupts the show by falsely shouting “fire” and breaking up the performance. He has thus welshed on his contractual obligation, and has thereby stolen the property—the money— of his patrons and has violated their property rights. Suppose, on the other hand, that the shouter is a patron and not the owner. In that case, he is violating the property right of the owner—as well as of the other guests to their paid-for performance. As a guest, he has gained access to the property on certain terms, including an obligation not to violate the owner’s property or to disrupt the performance the owner is putting on. His malicious act, therefore, violates the property rights of the theater owner and of all the other patrons. There is no need, therefore, for individual rights to be restricted in the case of the false shouter of “fire.” The rights of the individual are still absolute; but they are property rights. The fellow who maliciously cried “fire” in a crowded theater is indeed a criminal, but not because his so- called “right of free speech” must be pragmatically restricted on behalf of the “public good”; he is a criminal because he has clearly and obviously violated the property rights of another person.
Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty (Page 43)
Further, if one were not allowed to appropriate other resources through homesteading action, i.e., by putting them to use before anybody else does, or if the range of objects to be homesteaded were somehow limited, this would only be possible if ownership could be acquired by mere decree instead of by action. However, this does not qualify as a solution to the problem of ethics, i.e., of conflict-avoidance, even on purely technical grounds, for it would not allow one to decide what to do if such declarative claims happened to be incompatible. More decisive still, it would be incompatible with the already justified self-ownership, for if one could appropriate resources by decree, this would imply that one could also declare another person’s body to be one’s own. Thus, anyone denying the validity of the homesteading principle—whose recognition is already implicit in arguing two persons’ mutual respect for each other’s exclusive control over his own body—would contradict the content of his proposition through his very act of proposition making

Hans Hermann Hoppe

(via classical-liberal)

Liberals will generally concede the right of every individual to his “personal liberty,” to his freedom to think, speak, write, and engage in such personal “exchanges” as sexual activity between “consenting adults.” In short, the liberal attempts to uphold the individual’s right to the ownership of his own body, but then denies his right to “property,” i.e., to the ownership of material objects. Hence, the typical liberal dichotomy between “human rights,” which he upholds, and “property rights,” which he rejects. Yet the two, according to the libertarian, are inextricably intertwined; they stand or fall together.
Take, for example, the liberal socialist who advocates government ownership of all the “means of production” while upholding the “human” right of freedom of speech or press. How is this “human” right to be exercised if the individuals constituting the public are denied their right to ownership of property? If, for example, the government owns all the newsprint and all the printing shops, how is the right to a free press to be exercised? If the government owns all the newsprint, it then necessarily has the right and the power to allocate that newsprint, and someone’s “right to a free press” becomes a mockery if the government decides not to allocate newsprint in his direction. And since the government must allocate scarce newsprint in some way, the right to a free press of, say, minorities or “subversive” antisocialists will get short shrift indeed. The same is true for the “right to free speech” if the government owns all the assembly halls, and therefore allocates those halls as it sees fit. Or, for example, if the government of Soviet Russia, being atheistic, decides not to allocate many scarce resources to the production of matzohs, for Orthodox Jews the “freedom of religion” becomes a mockery; but again, the Soviet government can always rebut that Orthodox Jews are a small minority and that capital equipment should not be diverted to matzoh production.
The basic flaw in the liberal separation of “human rights” and “property rights” is that people are treated as ethereal abstractions. If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the control of his life, then in the real world he must also have the right to sustain his life by grappling with and transforming resources; he must be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he must use. In short, to sustain his “human right”—or his property rights in his own person—he must also have the property right in the material world, in the objects which he produces. Property rights are human rights, and are essential to the human rights which liberals attempt to maintain. The human right of a free press depends upon the human right of private property in newsprint.
In fact, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself; the human right of a free press is the property right to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and to sell them to those who are willing to buy. There is no extra “right of free speech” or free press beyo nd the property rights we can enumerate in any given case. And furthermore, discovering and identifying the property rights involved will resolve any apparent conflicts of rights that may crop up.
Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty (via classical-liberal)

classical-liberal:

Please watch this video if you ever consider circumcising your child!

No medical organization in the world suggest circumcision for your baby boy. It’s important to understand how it can traumatize babies and harm sexual experience for men.  It leads to complications in thousands of cases and the death of about 117 children per year. After the child is circumcised they well feel intense pain whenever they urinate because they get urine in their wound. The trauma from circumcision without anesthetic or with a topical anesthetic can rewire the way the babies brain understands pain. Circumcision is terrible. Please don’t do it to your child.

This video didn’t get any reblogs but I think it’s very important. Please watch!!

classical-liberal:

Knock Knock Poem by Russell Simmons at Def Poetry Jam

classical-liberal:

Knock Knock Poem by Russell Simmons at Def Poetry Jam

What is a libertarian?

lib·er·tar·i·an:  One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition


There are many ways of saying the same thing, and libertarians often have unique ways of answering the question “What is libertarianism?” We’ve asked many libertarians that question, and below are some of our favorite definitions.


"Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don’t hit your sister." – Kenneth Bisson, Board Member, Advocates for Self-Government

"Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it." – definition written by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (!), during the process of granting the Advocates for Self-Government status as a nonprofit educational organization

"Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same." — Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government

The core of libertarianism is respect for the life, liberty, and property rights of each individual. This means that no one may initiate force against another, as that violates those natural rights. While many claim adherence to this principle, only libertarians apply the non-aggression axiom to the state.” – Ron Paul, medical doctor, U.S. Congressman, and 2008 Republican Primary candidate for president.

“We want government to largely leave us alone, protect our personal security, but then to butt-out, leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don’t hurt anybody else.” – John Stossel,Host of “Stossel” on Fox Financial News Network, and author of Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity

“Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government – on all issues at all times… A libertarian is someone who thinks you should be free to live your life as youwant to live it, not as [the President of the United States] thinks you should – who believes you should raise your children by your values, not those of some far-off bureaucrat who’s using your child as a pawn to create some brave new world – who thinks that, because you’re the one who gets up every day and goes to work, you should be free to keep every dollar you earn, to spend it, save it, give it away asyou think best.”– Harry Browne (1933-2006),1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and author of Liberty A-Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now! 

:”As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”– from the Preamble to the Libertarian Party Platform

"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to his life in any way he chooses so long as he or she respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the Libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves uses force-actions like murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping and fraud."  – Charles Murray, political scientist and author of What It Means To Be a Libertarian

"In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence — legal or illegal — to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today."– Dean Russell, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), 1955

"Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government’s only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. Libertarians value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity." – Carole Ann Rand, former president, Advocates for Self-Government 

"Libertarianism is what you probably already believe… Libertarian values are American values. Libertarianism is America’s heritage of liberty, patriotism and honest work to build a future for your family. It’s the idea that being free and independent is a great way to live. That each of us is a unique individual, with great potential. That you own yourself, and that you have the right to decide what’s best for you. Americans of all races and creeds built a great and prosperous country with these libertarian ideals. Let’s use them to build America’s future." – David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and author of Libertarianism in One Lesson

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." – author L. Neil Smith

"Libertarianism is self-government. It combines the best of both worlds: The left leg of self-government is tolerance of others; the right leg is responsible economic behavior. The combination of both legs leads to social harmony and material abundance." — Marshall Fritz (1943-2008), Founder of the Advocates for Self-Government and of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, inventor of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz

"Free minds and free markets."  – slogan of Reason magazine

“Individual liberty, free markets, and peace.” – slogan of Cato Institute

“Anything that’s peaceful. Libertarians condemn all invasive acts and the initiation of violence, but voluntaryists reject ALL forms of government for two primary reasons. First, even limited governments ‘presume to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) over some geographical area.’ (Individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so.) Secondly, every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically called ‘taxation.’” – Carl Watner, The Voluntaryists

“Central to libertarianism is its non-aggression principle. Each of us has the obligation under justice not to aggress against anyone else for any reason — personal, social, or political.” – Doris Gordon,Libertarians for Life

“Small government: one that stays out of people’s wallets and out of their bedrooms.” – Jeffrey Miron, Harvard Professor and author of Libertarianism from A to Z

A political philosophy that has as its core mission, the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization of government power. – Bob Barr, former U.S. Congressman and 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate

"True and impartial liberty is therefore the right of every man to pursue the natural, reasonable, and religious dictates of his own mind; to think what he will, and act as he thinks, provided he acts not to the prejudice of another; to spend his own money himself, and lay out the produce of his labour his own way; and to labour for his own pleasure and profit, and not for others who are idle, and would live and riot by pillaging and oppressing him, and those that are like him."– Thomas Gordon, 1722 — submitted by David Nalle, Republican Liberty Caucus

“The political and legal philosophy rooted in natural law of individual liberty and personal responsibility under a rule of law.” – David J. Theroux, Founder and President, Independent Institute

“Individual freedom, under a system of universally understood and accepted rules, such as appear in the U.S. Constitution, or the Ten Commandments. The system assumes the principle of Undesigned Order, under which people—sovereign individuals—interact and thereby produce and live as best they can. No other system could ever be as productive — by magnitudes of generated real income. Nor could any other system be as satisfying to the individual. The proof of this pudding is the USA — what it was, not what it is becoming.” – Richard Timberlake, economist and retired University of Georgia professor

“Non agression axiom plus homesteading to establish property rights.”– Walter Block, Loyola University professor and author of Defending the Undefendable 

“Libertarianism is the simple morality we learned as children: don’t strike first, don’t steal or cheat, keep your promises. If you inadvertently fail to live up to these standards, make it up to the person you’ve harmed. If someone harms you, you may defend yourself as needed to stop the aggressor and obtain reparations. This simple morality works group-to-group just as it works one-to-one to bring about a peaceful and prosperous world.” – Mary Ruwart, author of Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression 

“A political system guided by the basic principles of natural individual human rights (to one’s life, liberty, property, etc.).” – Tibor Machan, philosopher, Chapman University professor, and author of The Promise of Liberty

“The political philosophy in which individual and economic liberty constitute the highest societal value.” – Bob Poole, Founder , Reason Foundation

“The freedom to live your life as you see fit as long as you do not harm or infringe upon the rights of others.” – Jeff Frazee, Executive Director, Young Americans for Liberty

"Libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their own lives. You could say that you learn the essence of libertarianism — which is also the essence of civilization — in kindergarten: don’t hit other people, don’t take their stuff, keep your promises"– David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

“Other people are not your property.” – Roderick Long, philosopher, Auburn University professor, and author of Reason and Value: Aristotle Vs. Rand

"Libertarians want the smallest, least-intrusive government consistent with maximum freedom for each individual to follow his own ways, his own values, as long as he doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s doing the same."– Milton Friedman (1912-2006),Noble Prize-winning economist

“Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates little or no initiation of force in society. That view is derived from the philosophy’s core premise, namely, that each and every person is born into this world as a distinct and precious individual, possessing the right to do anything that is peaceful.” –Lawrence Reed, President, Foundation for Economic Education