Just some thoughts about liberty messaging. It’s widely available and usually free. You can find pro-liberty commenters across the whole spectrum, from hardcore anarchists to relatively soft and cuddly pro-freedom voices.
Yet less than one person in a hundred actually is convinced.
Why?
It continues, on a reasonable time scale!
Welcome to the second part of my tutorial/study guide on Murray Rothbard’s seminal book, America’s Great Depression.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the concept of consent from a political perspective. It’s easy to simply call every bit of the state evil and coercive, but it doesn’t seem to convince a lot of people.
So, the thing I’m trying to understand is, what does the average person–not a hardcore anarchist–think of when they envision political consent? Where is the line between a voluntary government and a coercive state? Where is the line between dissidence and withdrawal of consent?
In the video above, I consider a few examples that I’ve seen in popular culture as well as a few of my own devising and try to reach some conclusions.
See my notes for this video here.
I’ve been having a lot of fun lately thinking about the boundaries between a coercive state and a voluntary government. A recent article by Wanjiru Njoya over at the Mises Institute threw me into a bit of a rabbit hole and I thought I’d set down some of my thoughts in a video.
Check out my latest article over at the Tenth Amendment Center, examining the fundamental idea by Locke that “it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases.”
This simple idea, and our failure to keep our government accountable to it, is the root of many of the problems we’re dealing with today.
Technology is a lot like policy: the good analyst looks at the short and long term issues and the primary and secondary and less obvious effects.
I recently heard someone blurt out that hydrogen is the solution to our energy problems on a libertarian-tangent show, and it was bugging me, so a bit of a rant.
I saw this post today and I feel like I had a bit of an epiphany.
As silly as it might sound, I’ve been trying to put up reasonably original stuff, without repeating myself too much. Kind of a “dissertation” attitude toward posts.
Honestly, it’s caused me more often than not, to tell myself it’s not worth saying something that’s been said before.
Section 4 of Chapter 15 of Mises’s Human Action is called “The Sovereignty of the Consumers.” Mises talks about the unhampered market economy and how that democracy, in which “every penny gives a right to cast a ballot,” might be more democratic than any government could ever hope to be. This passage got me thinking about these concepts, and how the state impedes them.
For God’s sake, cite your sources and watch out for people who don’t cite theirs!
There’s a short clip of Klaus Schwab running around the libertarian social media sphere where he’s talking about the danger of libertarianism.
It’s being touted as this great proof that the totalitarians are running scared, so I tried to find the original video.
I did, and it is not what they’re telling you, as much as I hate to say it.
Link to the original video.
Link to the same speaker, same topic, one year later.
Check the video above, also available on BitChute.
I’ve just started reading Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind and I found a lovely example of how fuzzy language obscures what the state is and how it differs from “society.”