Next was a young fellow from the Advocate. He too was a perky blonde, but rather more stylish. "Could we talk about gay rights?" "Could we not talk about rights at all?" "Could you explain?" "It seems any time people talk about rights, we get into a complicated discussion. Is this a right? Is that… Continue reading Interview With The Advocate
Gary had been on his last nickel for a long time, ever since the war. He carried his few belongings in a grimy duffel bag. His shoes were held together with duct tape. He sat on a sheet of cardboard, cup in hand, only half awake. He heard the plink of a coin, looked up,… Continue reading Wallenberg Society of Vagrants
A popular meme is captioned "The People Don't Know Their True Power." A politician speaks from a lectern, which sits upon a large plank, which juts over a cliff. An audience watches. One person leaves, stepping off the plank. If the others knew, they could do likewise, and the political "leader" would lose his support;… Continue reading Your Chains To Keep, Yours To Lose
Some people, claiming to be "anarchists," virulently oppose voluntary exchanges because, well, hierarchy and stuff. They conceive a world where every anarchist lives in his mother's basement, or perhaps on a bit of turf appropriated from the landlordz, and food and water magically appear whenever the "anarchist" wannabes stretch forth their hands, Garden of Eden… Continue reading Pro-social Exchange
Medieval scholars debated the number of angels who could fit on a pin. Today's thinkers debate such abstruse questions as "how would Ancapistan defend itself against a foreign invasion?" There is no simple answer; it's like asking "who would build a pencil?" Many people would, each adding their bit of expertise, skills, labor, and materials.… Continue reading Who Would Defend?
Critics of voluntaryism often claim that free-market provision of protection would be bad; perhaps they envision a resultant Hobbesian nightmare. But replacing police with people who do not have sovereign immunity, who are held accountable for excess force and murder and manslaughter, who have economic incentives to prefer peace to mayhem, would be bad because… Continue reading “Markets Can’t Provide Policing” – Why, Exactly?
It is commonly believed, even among economists, that orderly resolution of disputes is possible only among groups of people with similar values, who agree to work together, but not among disparate social groups. This motivates the belief that there must be some Supreme Ruler who will watch over other watchers. As to who might watch… Continue reading Can Enemies Agree To A Decentralized Framework of Law?
What if we abandon the word "anarchy" to the communists and socialists? It's not like the word hasn't got a lot of baggage, between the communists on one side, and the belief that it would lead to "chaos" on the other. Why not just let the communists and socialists duke it out among themselves, if… Continue reading In Defense of Using “Autarchy” instead of “AnCap” and other Tainted Variations
Hoppe makes the case for non-open borders, even in an anarcho-capitalist society, here and in other places. He begins with the classical argument for free trade and open borders, which I paraphrase: wages and capital utilization tend to equalize, other things being equal. An influx of migrants tends to lower nominal wage rates, but will… Continue reading Refuting the Hoppean Closed-Border Argument
From time to time, some pundit heaves a sigh and delivers what he believes to be a devastating argument against the idea of a stateless society: "Without rulers, there would be no order. Therefore, people would do whatever they wanted. There would be chaos." This is the fallacy of "Assuming The Conclusion." When you are… Continue reading “Order Requires Rulers” Arguments Fail