I did not know the part about IOC. That is pretty interesting actually. I wonder if we'd ever see video games at the Olympic games. Maybe not anytime soon, but who knows, it may still happen.

Can't wait for Russians to get banned from Super Smash Brothers for juicing.

No political movement is a monolith. Political movements have their own sub-sects and factions within them. Libertarianism has been no exception to this rule. One variety of libertarianism that stands out is paleolibertarianism.

The paleolibertarian strand of libertarianism fuses traditional cultural values and philosophical values with the standard libertarian antipathy of government intervention into private affairs.

The Etymology of Paleolibertarianism

Paleolibertarian thought emerged out of a well-established classical liberal tradition that put private property and market activity on a pedestal. The “paleo” qualifier is used due to how the paleo libertarian ideology has its origins in classical right-wing thought.

19th century classical liberalism and the Old Right largely influenced paleos. British historian Lord Acton is among the most prominent intellectual role models for paleos due to his opposition to centralized state power. This tradition of pro-small government views would be maintained by the Old Right in the first half of the 20th century. It became known for its opposition to the centralized managerial state and the missionary foreign policy the U.S. adopted since World War I.

Several politicians such as Howard Buffett and Senator Robert Taft  and writers such as Garet Garret and Albert Jay Nock espoused these principles. Paleos would later champion the aforementioned figures’ ideas.

Many proto-libertarian pundits and theorists started to gain notoriety during the New Deal. Although she was no libertarian, the Objectivist author Ayn Rand would also be a major source of inspiration for many paleos. Her free market beliefs made her popular across the majority of libertarian sects.

The Rothbard/Rockwell Duo

Figures such as the historian Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, were instrumental in developing this segment of libertarianism. Both men were influenced by the Austrian school of economics and were actively involved in the advocacy  of anarcho-capitalism.

Their compilation of essays in the Rothbard-Rockwell report became the main guide for spreading Rothbard’s message of free markets, private property, and traditional western culture in the 1990s. Although the paleo movement is not exclusively anarcho-capitalist, its undeniable that pro-capitalist strains of anarchism have largely shaped its overall ideology.

The Schisms Within Libertarianism

The libertarian movement experienced a significant rise in the 1970s and quickly witnessed the Libertarian Party emerge as America’s leading third party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, helped form the Cato Institute along with Murray Rothbard in 1977 –– signaling a promising new age for libertarians. However, it was not able to keep itself together for very long. Infighting due to disagreements on strategy and philosophical differences caused the movement to fissure. One of the most infamous splits was the Koch-Rothbard split in the 1980s.

In large part due to differences regarding libertarian strategy, Rothbard began to clash with his fellow Cato board members and eventually criticized the 1980s Libertarian Party presidential ticket of Ed Clark and David Koch for not taking radical stances on the issue of taxation. This led to Rothbard’s expulsion from the Cato Institute in 1981

From there, Rothbard teamed up with Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul’s former Chief of Staff, to form the Mises Institute. Even after Rothbard’s death in 1995, the paleo sect continued to remain a force within libertarianism. Rockwell’s website, which was founded in 1999, has been the hub of paleolibertarian discourse. It features notable writers such as Karen de Coster, Thomas DiLorenzo, and Tom Woods, among others.

The Paleo’s Break From Conservatism

The Cold War temporarily united libertarianism with conservatism through the “fusionist” movement, which coalesced around the issue of preserving a market-based economy and resisting a totalitarian state. However, once the Soviet Union collapsed, this alliance started to gradually collapse.

Many libertarians became skeptical of the Right’s interventionist streak that came about with the rise of the neoconservatives. Additionally, conservative’s inability to roll back the administrative state made libertarians realize that this movement was not following through with its rhetoric. In light of this, a number of  libertarians became convinced that aligning themselves with the acceptable Right and neocon adjacent groups was no longer a fruitful strategy.

Continue reading Paleolibertarian: Understand the Basics of the Paleolibertarian Strand of Libertarianism on Libertas Bella

Statism is nothing more than gang rule. A statist dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country.”
– Ayn Rand, War and Peace, The Objectivist Newsletter, Oct 1962

What is statism? Merriam-Webster defines it as the “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.”

In essence, statism is the belief that the state or government, regardless of its size or the amount of control it exerts over its subjects, is legitimate to at least some extent. In practice, a government becomes more statist as it exercises increasing control over the economy.

While libertarians often use the word “statism” to brand any state control they deem authoritarian and antithetical to the free market, a statist doesn’t necessarily endorse despotism, fascism, socialism, conservatism, or any other “ism.”

A statist may merely believe that some form of minimal government is necessary to provide society with a safety net, protections against theft and breach of contract, a court system, or other functions with which the free market doesn’t naturally concern itself. Even the most laissez-faire economist is unlikely to condemn the concept of a town fire department as a threat to civil society.

In contrast, anti-statism is the essence of pure anarchism. An anti-statist would assert that all state power and political power are illegitimate as well as an affront to liberty. They would argue that everything which people need to thrive and coexist peaceably could be provided by the private sector.

Who and What Is a Statist

Statists commonly believe that the government must play a central role in the means of production. They may reason that the private sector is unable to function within a vacuum of government influence; perhaps it will violate the rights of the citizenry, or pose a threat to the hegemony of the state itself.

Economic planning, a common facet of socialism in which the government actively decides how resources will be allocated among its citizenry, is a common feature of statism. Subsidies, which are sums of money granted by the state to help an industry or certain businesses, are also common in statism.

As explained above, a statist might technically only want a government which offers a police department and a guy with a shovel who is paid to fill in potholes. The title of “statist” is more frequently reserved for someone (typically a politician) who believes the government should have more legal power over its citizens and influence in business.

The individual is no longer their own master under statism – at least not entirely. Rather, they are subject to a system that purports to serve a higher goal. Whether that goal is the advancement of a race, religion, ideal, or even the expansion of the state’s borders is ultimately up to the whims of the ruling elites (typically politicians).

Examples of Statism

The rather loose definition of statism means it applies to several forms of government. Socialism, communism, national socialism, feudalism, fascism, tribalism, apartheid, theocracy, and even democracy are all examples of statism.

At face value, these systems share little in common, but they all seek to direct how their citizens’ collective efforts are spent. The goal of communism is common ownership of all things; thus the product of a citizen’s labor goes in part or in whole toward the good of all (or in practice the good of the political elite).

The goal of feudalism is ultimately to benefit the king; thus the serf tilling the field pays rent to their vassal who in turn provides military aid to the crown. The goal of theocracy is to benefit God; because God has little use for gold, which He can make as easily as snapping His fingers, the church benevolently accumulates it on His behalf.

Technically speaking, every American politician is a statist. Although he is very much in favor of limiting government interference in private life to the greatest extent possible, Ron Paul’s political view that the “proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else” includes several state-run services.

As American politics become more left-leaning, so too do they frequently become more statist. Hilary Clinton’s 2016 platform included imposing a tax on high-frequency trading and direct government intervention in the free market.

Bernie Sanders’ pledge to transform America’s energy system into 100 percent renewable energy, although environmentalist in tone, would needless to say have required massive bureaucratic intervention. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s promise to illegalize capitalism while forcing all white, cis males to wear bomb collars is arguably just a tiny bit statist as well.

Final Thoughts

In her essay War and Peace, Ayn Rand wrote “The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.”

Statism exists wherever government exists – it is the degree to which statism is exercised which makes it reprehensible or not. But if one accepts that a person is a free and rational creature, whose sole obligation is unto themself, then any agency which forces them to behave a certain way or spend the product of their labor toward the advancement of any goal which they have not voluntarily accepted as their own is necessarily unjust.

What is statism? In essence, it is whenever any authority exerts control over your life. But doing away with statism entirely would quite possibly require the elimination of the entire world population minus one.

Statist: The Definition of How Government Rules Through Economy originally appeared on Libertas Bella

Are libertarianism and socialism diametrically opposed? The libertarian socialist would say no.

The political philosophy of libertarian socialism categorically rejects state interference in social affairs and instead proposes the abolition of authoritarian institutions that inhibit freedom and justice.

The rejection of state socialism and the current mixed economy define libertarian socialism. Instead, the libertarian socialism project calls for decentralized institutions that use direct democracy or voluntary associations to break up centralized institutions and institutions captured by rent-seeking capitalists.

What is a Libertarian Socialist?

The libertarian socialist believes in a free society, where individuals do not have to worry about being coerced by corporations or oppressive states. The political philosophy is focused on freedom and the individual’s quest to break free from institutions that shackle human thought and creativity.

Unlike their state socialist counterparts, libertarian socialists do not push central planning, state-owned enterprises, or outright nationalization. However, they do not reject the idea of collective ownership of property. The ability for free individuals to determine their own property-holding arrangements is crucial for socialist libertarians.

If people band together and collectivize the ownership of private property ona voluntary basis, this is perfectly in line with these precepts. There are numerous cases where private property is acquired through dubious means and is used by elites to cement their economic status and lord over the working classes.

A social libertarian stresses the importance of defending civil liberties, which made them staunch opponents of totalitarian socialist regimes throughout the 20th century. Since Vladimir Lenin successfully led the Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, Communism and its socialist cousins have been directly associated with totalitarianism.

What Is a Libertarian Socialist Approach to Governance?

Libertarians of all stripes never approved of one-party states. Communist regimes and totalitarian socialist adjacent political movements were marked by such arrangements. Ironically, these regimes banned many dissident socialist parties, which validated the initial libertarian socialist skepticism towards these kinds of regimes.

Instead, libertarians with socialist inclinations favored voluntary associations, economic democracy, and local governance. One of the contradictions they spotted with regards to 20th century communist experiments was how wealth inequality still persisted thanks to the concentration of power in the state.

This was a sign of how centralized political structures can allow for massive wealth and power consolidation. Which is why political decentralization is key for ensuring equality of political and economic opportunities. In sum, states have a tendency of centralizing and creating benefits for parasitic individuals, thus requiring a new way forward.

Unlike conventional free-marketers, libertarian socialists are concerned about economic inequality. A society marked by wealth inequality is oppressive and socially unstable. By phasing out the state, individuals would be free to live up to their economic potential now that they’re no longer shackled by the state’s laws and regulations.

Similarly, being free from excessive corporate power allows for people to chart their own economic paths free from sub-optimal employment arrangements. Additionally, individuals and communities would then be afforded the opportunity to set up economic institutions that provide real value to consumers while providing dignified work.

Although market interactions would be respected, many socialist libertarians called into question a number of economic assumptions and offered alternatives at the local level to address certain inequalities and worrisome social problems that corporate capitalism generally brought about.

Origin of Libertarian Socialism

It’s often forgotten that the word ”libertarian” had a different meaning in the 19th century. Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and other forms of left-leaning anarchist movements of that century were often described as libertarians. These movements thoroughly opposed the state, as well as dominant business entities.

This stands in contrast to modern libertarianism, which focused more on economic freedoms and private property. This 20th century philosophy of liberty drew more from classical liberalism and generally held market activity in a much higher regard. There was much stronger emphasis on individualism and respect for private property.

In the 19th century, advocates of private property and free markets would generally be categorized as liberals. Broadly speaking, libertarian describes a pro-liberty outlook on politics, while socialism describes an economic system where wealth is distributed on a more equal basis.

Libertarian socialists try to fuse these concepts together to form a unique philosophy. Liberalism would be critiqued from a socialist perspective, while state socialism would be critiqued from a libertarian perspective. The goal was to create a new way of dealing with the problems of industrialization while protecting individual freedoms.

This unique philosophy tried to make political discussion more nuanced by recognizing the merits of both socialist and liberal thought. Political discourse tends to get stale at times, and often what’s needed is to recognize that certain competing political schools have valid points that can be combined to form news ways of thinking.

The rapid industrialization of the 19th century caught many people by surprise and required novel strategies to address its many unforeseen consequences. Socialist libertarians firmly believed they had the right answers to the many problems present during the industrial era.

Continue reading Libertarian Socialism: Does It Make Sense and How Does It Work? on Libertas Bella

Anarcho Capitalism refers to the philosophy that calls for the abolition of centralized states. In its stead, the state will be replaced by a system of private property which will be maintained by private institutions and civil society.

Anarcho-capitalism is truly radical in the sense that it strikes at the root of societal problems and attempts to offer solutions to these problems through market forces. Given the philosophy’s relatively young age, anarcho-capitalist thought merits a proper analysis in order for novices to fully comprehend it.

Understanding the Philosophy of Anarcho Capitalism

The concepts of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle largely define anarcho capitalism. Individuals have full control of their lives and can pursue their own goals as long as they do not transgress on other people’s rights. The non-aggression principle makes it clear that individuals cannot encroach on the person or property of any other individual.

The initiation of force against others is categorically rejected under this philosophy’s precepts. This does not only apply between regular individuals but also between the relationship of the individual and state.

The state itself is viewed as a coercive institution that is centered on said aggression through its practice of taxation and monopoly on violence. In addition, state activities such as economic and social regulation, prohibitions, and other forms of government intervention in people’s private affairs are categorically rejected by proponents of this philosophy.

The History of Anarcho Capitalist Thought

For starters, the word anarchy has a stereotypical perception of being associated with radical leftist political movements in most Western nations. However, the perception of anarchy as a leftist movement is warranted given its history.

Most strands of anarchism, above all, the European variants, tend to have origins on the Left. There is still a broad consensus among anarchists sects on issues of state authority, which they generally eschew.

Luminaries such as Peter Kropotkin, Joseph-Pierre Proudhon, and Mikhail Bakunin led the way in giving anarchism a coherent vision for people to follow during the nineteenth century.

The anarchism of 19th century European radicals viewed private property in a negative light and were skeptical of capitalism. In many respects, these groups were adjacent to the ascendant Marxist movement that grew concurrently with classical anarchist thought.

Some movements within the anarchist sphere had a revolutionary bent and were willing to engage in acts of political violence. Numerous statesmen such as Russian Tsar Alexander II and American president William McKinnley were assassinated by anarchists.

The impact of these assassinations firmly ingrained in Westerners’ minds the idea that anarchism was associated with violence, thus requiring states to put tabs on these movements.

However, the entry of anarcho-capitalism in the 1900s gave anarchism a new twist by not dismissing capitalism outright. In fact, the average anarcho-capitalist embraced the market and saw it as a tool to fight against the state. By taking a look at the roots of this subsect of anarchism, we can get an idea of how free-market anarchism came about.

Early European Figures of Anarchist Thought

Across the pond, existed some precursors to American-style anarcho-capitalism. Etienne de la Boétie (1530-1563), a French judge, was an early proponent of anarchist thought.

In his work, the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, he advocated for civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. Mr. libertarian himself, Murray N. Rothbard praised de la Boétie’s work for its emphasis on civil disobedience against unjust state actions.

The French intellectual Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) played an unheralded role during his career making the case for capitalism.

His political theory of liberty was spelled out in his magnum opus, The Law, in which he made the case for a laissez-faire economy and viewed the use of state power in economic affairs as an immoral act.

Although he was a minarchist, Bastiat was one of the 19th century’s strongest proponents of individual rights and an inspiration for Austrian economists such Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek in the subsequent century. Bastiat’s The Law remains an influential introductory text for pro-capitalist adherents.

Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), a Belgian political theorist, was another European figure who gave a unique spin to the anarchist movement. De Molinari was one of the most notable pre-Rothbardian anarchist figures who blended anarchism with capitalist thought.

In his work, the Production of Security, de Molinari made the case for private defense and property rights and railed against state monopolies. Modern anarchist figures such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe have lauded de Molinari’s work for being ahead of its time in pushing for anarchism with capitalistic features.

The German philosopher Max Stirner also contributed to developing anarchist thought in Europe. Stirner was renowned for his emphasis on individualism and is seen as the father of modern individualist anarchism. His magnum opus, The Ego and Its Own is filled with anti-authoritarian and individualist themes that have been passed on to succeeding generations of anarchists.

Although not an anarchist per se, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer was known for his firm advocacy of capitalist principles in the latter half of the 1800s. Murray Rothbard described Spencer’s Social Statics as “the greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written.”

Continue reading Anarcho Capitalism: A Definition and Guide on Why It Matters on Libertas Bella

Almost half its all-time high, but it'll get back up there again some day.

What are “Positive Rights”?

There is much talk regarding “rights” and how they relate to freedom and liberty. If you’re wondering, “what are positive rights,” and why should I care? We’ll explain what they are and some of the fundamental issues that many people have with this ideology.

Positive Rights Definition

A positive right is one that requires others (namely the government) to provide you with either a good or service. They do so by taking away another individuals’ rights.

Positive right issues start to arise when these infringe on the fundamental human rights of others by requiring them to put forth something in exchange for others to receive that right.

We’ll get into some concrete examples of this in the following section and how this contrasts from Libertarian beliefs.

When you try to define positive rights, it essentially means the “freedom” to have something that you didn’t necessarily have to work for or do anything to achieve it. At its core, it is a “right,” and it’s something that neither the federal or state government can take away from you.

But, there’s also confusion because these rights are granted to you by the government, and they almost always involve stepping on the toes of someone else’s civil rights in the process.

French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau said it better than anyone we could think of; he stated that a strong government makes you free, and submitting to that government is better for the greater good. When you think about it, it sounds as if this ideology “forces you to be free.”

If we have to be forced into freedom, are we really free at all? The constitution and bill of rights give us our entitlements and political rights but does this create a free society or more reliance on the federal government?

Our constitutional rights as human beings are to have the freedom to do as we please as long as it doesn’t compromise others inalienable rights. This is where non-interference laws and the legal system come into play.

So when we look at our “positive rights,” are they even rights or are they simply ways for the government to control us in the name of the “greater good”?

We believe that it’s important to realize how incompatible this thought process is. You cannot have both the right to freedom and limitations as to how free you can be. There are no in-betweens, but yet the government wants you to believe that you’re free while still requiring you to:

• Attend specific schools
• Pay money for goods and services that don’t benefit you (taxes)
• Take immunizations against your will
• Follow regulations that infringe on your liberty

We could go on and on about all the positive rights that actually take freedom away from you, but these may not be positive rights at all. Our current society is built on negative rights because any positive right you have, has a limitation, a requirement, and a way that the government can come in and take it from you.

Examples of Positive Rights

Where issues arise is when we start to talk about how positive rights contradict negative rights, and the two are incompatible because one always steps on the toes of the other.

For example, social welfare is a positive right. We, as American citizens of the United States, have the positive right to receive state and federal welfare benefits if we’re unable to care for ourselves and our family.

What is often forgotten is the fact that people all over the country are required to pay taxes to pay for these programs even though they’re not benefiting from them. So, in turn, the positive right of social welfare impacts the negative right of not requiring us to hand our money over to the government.

If we break it down to the most basic level, where do our positive rights end, and our negative rights begin? Under what conditions does a positive action about something we “should” do become a negative action about something we “shouldn’t” do?

Political Philosopher Isaiah Berlin discussed this in a popular lecture titled “Two Concepts of Liberty.” He said:

If negative liberty is concerned with the freedom to pursue one’s interests according to one’s own free will and without “interference from external bodies,” then positive liberty takes up the “degree to which individuals or groups” are able to “act autonomously” in the first place.

So, let’s break this down.

Continue reading Positive Rights: The Definition of Them and Why They Matter on Thought Grenades, the blog on Libertas Bella