Donor Matching Funds Announced!

A generous donor has offered to match all contributions dollar-for-dollar for the next $10,000 raised, doubling the impact of your donation and helping us reach our fundraising goal faster.

$18,235 of $60,000 raised

Blog

Stand with Humanity

Stand with Humanity

 

Stand with the Libertarian Institute

The Empire has us on the brink of nuclear Armageddon. The central bank has us flirting with economic-social collapse. Americans are increasingly paranoid of one another and simultaneously invested in wielding the state against one another.

The voices of the establishment are legion. The voices of dissent are few. Among the voices of dissent is your Libertarian Institute. You can amplify our message. Please donate to the Libertarian Institute today!

We’ve been doing the work to bring you news, journalism, education and activism from a libertarian perspective. And we intend to keep doing the work. We will continue speaking out for peace, prosperity and sanity. We will not be silenced.

Institute Director Scott Horton has been leading the way. His podcast, “The Scott Horton Show,” is closing in on 6,000 episodes. This summer the Institute published his latest book, Hotter Than the Sun: Time To Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Next year it will publish his book Provoked: America’s Role In The Russia-Ukraine War, co-authored by Darryl Cooper.

Scott has assembled a great team of scholars, writers and podcasters. Executive Editor Sheldon Richman, who along with Scott and the late Will Grigg founded the Institute, brings his gravitas and insight to operations and articles. Managing Editor Keith Knight just published The Voluntarist Handbook through the Institute and hosts the “Don’t Tread on Anyone” podcast.

News Editor Kyle Anzalone, Research Fellow Will Porter and Assistant Editor Connor Freeman co-host the “Conflicts of Interest” podcast. Editor Hunter DeRensis corrals the Institute’s stable of writers to keep them typing up the best articles possible. The Institute’s resident Bad-ass, Semi-haulin’ podcaster Tommy Salmons hosts “Year Zero.”

Senior Fellow Laurie Calhoun has been blazing a path of unparalleled scholarly inquiry. The Institute will soon be publishing a book of her great articles on the Covid regime, titled, Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times.

New “Junior Fellow,” the notorious Public Policy Hooligan Jim Bovard, recently joined the Institute, and of course is already proving why his hard-hitting investigative opinion journalism has long reigned in the pages of America’s biggest newspapers.

The Institute’s Justin Raimondo Fellow, Patrick Macfarlane, has brought his legal expertise to bear on exposing establishment narratives on his great podcast Vital Dissent.

And there are many great regular writers who have been speaking truth in a wasteland of War State talking points. Among them are Kym Robinson, Bas Spliet, William Van Wagenen, Peter Van Buren and Col. Douglas MacGregor.

You can amplify our message. Please donate to the Libertarian Institute today!

Message to Jacobin Magazine: Economic Suppression is Far Worse Than Voter Suppression

Message to Jacobin Magazine: Economic Suppression is Far Worse Than Voter Suppression

 

Imagine two criminals:

Criminal 1: Forcibly stopped a woman from having a 1 in 10 million vote to determine the governor of New York

Criminal 2: Forcibly stopped a woman from getting the job of her dreams via occupational licensing regulations even though a willing employer wanted to hire her

You are the judge in both trials, which criminal should get a longer sentence?

Criminal 1’s actions may be offensive, but have no effect on the outcome of the woman’s life since a one in 10 million vote will make no difference. Even if by some miracle she happened to be the deciding vote, politicians are liars and whoever she elected would likely keep all of their bad promises and follow through with none of the good ones.

Criminal 2 however, has forcibly stopped her from directly experiencing the life she wants to live. Eight hours a day, five days a week, she is worse off because a Democratic Imperialist is criminalizing a capitalist act between consenting adults. She now is also deprived of getting on the job experience, and getting her foot in the door to an industry she is passionate about.

The Democratic Imperialist cheers for four years of college where people works for four years and thousands of hours for $0.00 an hour, but the second they want to be productive and learn real skills, the Democratic Imperialist vilifies you and threatens to separate you from your family by putting you in jail for not obeying arbitrary commands of “economic regulation”.

Economic regulations forcibly kept people like Elvis Summers and Jay Austin from giving homeless people houses.

Economic regulations forcibly kept people from feeding the homeless in Phoenix. Some people who bought food and wanted to give hungry people food to eat, but believers in economic regulation forcibly stopped such an exchange from being made.

This is Democratic Imperialism. It doesn’t matter if your neighbor forcibly stops you from doing something peaceful, if a vote is first take, or if someone 12,000 miles away forcibly stops you. It’s imperialism nonetheless.

Democratic Imperialists not only deprive millions of poor people of job opportunities, but also advocate their purchasing power be severely limited with regulations. You want to buy a product or service with the money you earned? Too bad, Democratic Imperialists haven’t given it their stamp of approval.

Needing a drivers license to vote in a scam election? PURE EVIL AND HURTS THE POOR AND IS RACIST AND SEXIST AND XENOPHOBIC AND CLASSIST.

Needing 30 licenses and 16 years of indoctrination to make a voluntary exchange? Very good and helps everyone!

Democratic Socialists cannot consistently claim to support the poor while also supporting they be jailed for participating in capitalist acts between consenting adults. 

The “Greedy Private Property” Deception

The “Greedy Private Property” Deception

 

A “property right” entitles one party to exclude another from interacting with a scarce part of the universe – i.e. to have a property right in my car entitles me to exclude others from driving it to Dallas when I wish to drive it to Phoenix. There is no principled difference between excluding someone from a car, a computer, a house, or if you start selling things out of the house and it’s now a “business” involving a web of voluntary contracts.

The (democratic) socialist sees this and assumes:

  1. Exclusion exists
  2. Excluding X from Y means X will have less “liberty”
  3. Private property is thus greedy
  4. This is a unique aspect of the free market system

 

Remember January 6th, 2021?

We explicitly saw the government forcibly excluding people from the Capitol building, an officer even murdered an unarmed woman, Ashli Babbitt. I’m sure that trial will begin any day now.

Try walking into a government school and taking computers, printers, textbooks, projectors, and the wallet of the professor.

Imagine walking into a government police station and taking the property including the bullets, cars, guns, documents, badges, etc. Would you be met with exclusion or a kind round of applause?

The government excludes us from massive amounts of “state property” all the time and yet the socialist claims exclusion is unique to the voluntary sector. They print or steal trillions every single year and the socialist still claims ‘if only they taxed MORE everyone would have yada yada yada’.

In a nutshell: Socialist institutions forcibly exclude people from property yet the socialist pretends only capitalists do this to tarnish them as greedy people who value property over human life. 

Imagine Scottsdale, AZ in the year 22 AD v. Scottsdale, AZ in the year 2022. There is much more private property in 2022, so this must mean we all are worse off with fewer choices according to socialist logic.

To the contrary, more private property has increased the productive capacity of the people and the land making virtually everyone better off with more choices and opportunities in 2022 than they would have had in 22 AD.

I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.

– Thomas Sowell

Capitalism invokes more cooperation than competition—think of the number of mutually beneficial transactions you’ve had today compared to the number of competitions you’ve been in today.

Chris Freiman

Jacobin Magazine once asked “How did private property start?” – the answer is when the first person resisted enslavement.

 

Want to support the Libertarian Institute? Make a tax deductible donation today.

Freedom = Social Cooperation = Prosperity

Freedom = Social Cooperation = Prosperity

…Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, became one of the wealthiest men in the world by figuring out how to cut the price of just about everything to the benefit of everyone, but especially of lower-income consumers. That’s one of the other virtues of the free market: it rewards people who can figure out how to supply products and services that might have originally only been affordable to the wealthy so cheaply that just about anyone can afford and enjoy them. Henry Ford became wealthy by producing cheaper and cheaper (and better and better quality) automobiles; John D. Rockefeller became wealthy by selling refined kerosene and other oil industry products cheaper and cheaper for decades; Cornelius Vanderbilt got his start in business by managing a steamship business on the Hudson River in which the ride was free (!), making money by selling food and drinks on board; and on and on.

 

For their efforts such men have been denigrated by the enemies of economic freedom (including various politicians, government bureaucrats, socialist ideologues in academe, journalism, and elsewhere) as “robber barons.” Of course, they did not “rob” anyone.

 

Unlike government, they could not force anyone to buy their products; they had to persuade people to buy them by making them cheaper and better. Only government can rob you of your hard-earned money by threatening imprisonment for refusal to pay what it demands of you for services or products that you may have no need for whatsoever, and whose existence you may even deeply resent. It’s called tax evasion, a crime that is punished under federal and state law by fines, imprisonment, or both…

 

That is why the most menial local government tax-collecting bureaucrat can have more power over your life than the wealthiest businessperson in the world. Businesspeople must persuade people to purchase more of their products or services; unelected government bureaucrats can order you to shut down your business, take your kids out of school, or quit your job, and get the police to enforce the orders (as all Americans learned during the pandemic of 2020–2022).

 

– Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Economics

Scott Adams Tweeted Something So Imbecilic It Ruined My Thanksgiving

Scott Adams Tweeted Something So Imbecilic It Ruined My Thanksgiving

I wasn’t expecting to see a compelling argument for letting the state raise kids instead of parents, but here it is.

Scott Adams

The situation is as follows:

  1. Person X committed murder
  2. Person X was raised by a Parent Y who is an explicit bigot and advocate of violence
  3. Therefore, Adams says, we have a compelling argument for “letting” the state raise kids

 

The question is: Can the shortcomings of Person X and Parent Y also be applied to the state?

 

1. Have members of governments ever committed murder? Let’s not be bigoted and only stick to the US government, let us get a global and historical account of this institution to better understand its nature. There was a wold war, twice, between governments which murdered tens of millions of people and thrived of bigoted propaganda. There was a Cold war where proxy wars were fought in Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan which left millions dead and dismembered. The Holodomor was a government program which murdered millions. Mao and the Communist Chinese Party murdered millions. The Japanese government from 1933-1945 murdered millions of people in China. There were civil wars in America and England which killed hundreds of thousands. Pol Pot’s government murdered as many as 2 million people. The current U.S. government has murdered innocent people with drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Libya. Ukraine murdered civilians in Donbas and Russia is murdering civilians in Ukraine. It’s clear that on point 1, Scott has no leg to stand on. His main criteria, namely that murder is bad, applies many times over to the state, the very organization he thinks can solve this issue.

 

2. Adams also ignores that this situation occurred in America where the state has a legal monopoly on compulsory schooling. Not all education of course, but only the state can legally force you to fund and attend their schools. So after most people have spent 12 (wasted) years of their lives in these places we get a stupid population* which is bigoted. Adams apparently looks at this situation and believes more state involvement is necessary, even though they are the source of the problem today. Politicians, college professors, and teachers are the primary bigots in society using their institutional power to divide people by accidents of birth. Black v. White, men v. women, rich v. poor, Russia v. America, etc. Of course the corporate press is a major player in bigotry as well, but for the sake of argument, every short coming Adams applies to the citizens applies many times over to the state therefore the state raising kids is the worst possible solution.

 

3. The contradiction almost everyone holds: Monopolies are bad because they give few people too much power and with no competition we all get higher prices and lower quality of goods and services. Also, the state should monopolize compulsory schooling, taxation, law and order, regulation, welfare, the money supply, and tons of other things. No matter how bad things are, giving some people a monopoly is far worse than doing nothing. I put “letting” in quotes because that is often code for “some people supporting government coercing people by law with the threat of jailing them”.

 

Consider the argument with different variables:

Humans are often imperfect, ignorant, bigoted, and dishonest. Therefore, everyone should be forced to fund and attend Catholic Church schools.

Is it possible that Adams seeing one example of a person being evil was enough to make him justify this position? Such evil has always existed and will likely exist in any society with more than a few thousand people. The ignorant are always one example away from justifying tyranny. COVID! Terrorism! Poverty! Ignorance! Violence! Stock market decline! This is mind control. They hear about a problem, and without thinking at all they justify state intervention. Adams knows all the historical events I mentioned above and still can’t think clearly on the issue.

I wonder if such stupidity has anything to do with the state controlling how the vast majority of people are raised from ages 5-18?

I invite Mr. Adams to withdraw and retract his double standard for the state and embrace the peaceful and consistent philosophy of libertarianism.

 

*Its not that people are stupid per se, it’s that they don’t have the humility to only speak on topics which they have carefully researched and pondered. The vast majority of intellectual achievements that occur do so in spite of state schooling not because of it. 

An Economics Lesson for Idiot Robert Reich

An Economics Lesson for Idiot Robert Reich

…Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, became one of the wealthiest men in the world by figuring out how to cut the price of just about everything to the benefit of everyone, but especially of lower-income consumers. That’s one of the other virtues of the free market: it rewards people who can figure out how to supply products and services that might have originally only been affordable to the wealthy so cheaply that just about anyone can afford and enjoy them. Henry Ford became wealthy by producing cheaper and cheaper (and better and better quality) automobiles; John D. Rockefeller became wealthy by selling refined kerosene and other oil industry products cheaper and cheaper for decades; Cornelius Vanderbilt got his start in business by managing a steamship business on the Hudson River in which the ride was free (!), making money by selling food and drinks on board; and on and on.

For their efforts such men have been denigrated by the enemies of economic freedom (including various politicians, government bureaucrats, socialist ideologues in academe, journalism, and elsewhere) as “robber barons.” Of course, they did not “rob” anyone.

Unlike government, they could not force anyone to buy their products; they had to persuade people to buy them by making them cheaper and better. Only government can rob you of your hard-earned money by threatening imprisonment for refusal to pay what it demands of you for services or products that you may have no need for whatsoever, and whose existence you may even deeply resent. It’s called tax evasion, a crime that is punished under federal and state law by fines, imprisonment, or both…

That is why the most menial local government tax-collecting bureaucrat can have more power over your life than the wealthiest businessperson in the world. Businesspeople must persuade people to purchase more of their products or services; unelected government bureaucrats can order you to shut down your business, take your kids out of school, or quit your job, and get the police to enforce the orders (as all Americans learned during the pandemic of 2020–2022).

– Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Economics

Addendum: Jeff Bezos has also become wealthy by lowering the price of almost everything – including books! – making the poorest among us better off. This completely contradicts the statist claim that private goods only benefit the rich. Google search, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Odysee, Tinder, are free and the socialist has yet to appreciate such a gift. Steve Jobs with Apple products and companies like Uber fall into the same category.

More freedom = More voluntary social cooperation = Higher standards of living.

Why the Cops Murdered Duncan Lemp

Why the Cops Murdered Duncan Lemp

As widespread as the standard view regarding the necessity of the institution of a state as the provider of law and order is, it stands in clear contradiction to elementary economic and moral laws and principles.

First of all, among economists and philosophers two near-universally accepted propositions exist:

1. Every “monopoly” is “bad” from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is here understood in its classic meaning as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of “free entry” into a particular line of production. Only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such a monopoly is “bad” for consumers, because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than otherwise, under free competition.

2. The production of law and order, i.e., of security, is the primary function of the state (as just defined). Security is here understood in the wide sense adopted in the American Declaration of Independence: as the protection of life, property, and the pursuit of happiness from domestic violence (crime) as well as external (foreign) aggression (war).

– Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ph.D., The Great Fiction (2021, Mises Institute), p. 190.

 

I really enjoyed reading the book discussed in todays podcast, short and to the point: A Crash in the Night: The Assassination of Duncan Lemp

Podcasts

scotthortonshow logosq

coi banner sq2@0.5x

liberty weekly thumbnail

Don't Tread on Anyone Logo

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

Pin It on Pinterest