Libertarian Reaction

Insula Qui
Table of Contents

Part I: Reaction 5
1. Savages 6
2. Borders and Liberty 20
3. The Prerequisites of Liberty 28
4. Voluntary Ethnic Separation 37
5. The Antistatist Case for Monarchial Government 44
6. The Libertarian Solution to the Age of Consent 68
7. Dysgenics and Market Nobility 75
8. Civilization and Natural Law 85

Part II: Liberty 93

9. The Freedom of Government 94
10. The Curse of Citizenship 100
11. The Role of Co-Operation in Competition 107
12. Reverse Claims to Property 117
13. Who Watches the Watchmen 123
14. National Defence Without Coercion 132

Part III: Examining Cultural Destruction 154

Information 211
Introduction

First things first, if you have bought this collection, I’m really
thankful for it. It always helps to have such monetary support
and I, like any other human, need to gain from my labour.
However, since I do not believe in intellectual property and I
don’t have the fundamentally greedy nature to put thousands of
locks and keys on my works, it’s extremely likely that you
found this from an ebook sharing website where I put this work
up or even got it from me by simply asking. From the people
who obtained my (non-scarce) work for free, from my personal
kindness, I would simply ask that you send me feedback about
this collection after you have completed it. You can reach me in
the ways specified on www.insulaqui.com and you can read all
the essays in this collection on that same site.
This brings us to the second point, this is a collection of
essays, all of which are available for free separately. But this
does not mean I have not added any value that would make it
more worthwhile. It’s obviously a book, and it’s much more
convenient than reading things online, where I don't have
dedicated software to make it as easy as possible. But more
than that these editions of my essays have new content to
explain the basics behind the theory they espouse. My usual
mentality is to write for people who already have a good
overview of the topic at hand. I don’t find it useful to go over
the basics of a theory when it’s unlikely that people who don’t
know the theory at all would read what I write. However, as
this is intended to appeal to more people, it goes more into
depth about the basic theory.
And here I would also like to apologize for any and all
errors in the way this work is formatted. If you are familiar
with how professional formatting looks like, or if you are
accustomed to reading more academic and dedicated work,
some of the design and word choices may seem jarring. And
you would be right, I simply cannot afford the expense of
having an editor at this moment, and I believe, maybe foolishly,
that having edited every chapter in this book multiple times
would suffice to have the overall experience be good enough.
And finally, the purpose of this book is to introduce
libertarians to more reactionary ideas and reactionaries to more
libertarian ideas. The agenda is to put an end to many of the
leftist-fantastical ideas of the libertarian movement and to
provide knowledge on how the more touchy subjects for
reactionaries within libertarianism can be solved. I hope the
collection serves these purposes. I also aim to provide a general
overview of a unified theory.
 A little disclaimer before the reader may find himself
frightened by the radical ideas presented herein. It may seem
that some of this book is evil due to being fascist, racist
heartless or any other word describing everything outside the
accepted opinion, but I would advise the reader to not alienate
themselves from the new information. When I talk about
groups of people, I don’t talk about race as skin colour, but
different genetic groups due to different climates. And when I
talk about capitalism and the free market I don’t talk about
worker oppression and class structures, but property rights and
trade.
Reaction
 1. Savages

The problem with taking a principle of nonviolence as a basic

value is extending it to people who go against it or ignore it
completely. Not extending it to these people, however, would
create another contradiction as non-violence has become a
guiding aspect of our theory. Because of this, I would have to
classify a group of people who I label savages and explain the
theory and history behind not extending any conception of
rights to whomever these are.
It is important to note that savages are not people who we
personally disagree with, but rather a specific ethical
phenomenon. This concept is required to eliminate many moral
paradoxes within the system of non-aggression and as such, it
is important to define. This is not to say that I’m perfectly
accurate in the assessment of who these savages are, but the
concept itself must be examined.
Who is a savage? To begin looking at this we must start
with the Lockean conception of natural law, as that is the basis
of modern systems of natural law, however much it has been
refined. And from the system of natural law stems most other
strands of libertarian ethical theory. If I am to introduce a new
concept within this system it must be according to the
preceding principles to the system itself.
Natural law on its own is a system of categorizing actions
into the ethical and unethical on the basis of how they relate to
human nature. If something is such that it can be inferred as
right from human nature, the position compatible with natural
law is to take that as an ethical action. If some action
contradicts human nature, it is then unethical. Natural law is
fundamentally based on aggregating basic moral judgements
into a comprehensive system, however, this requires additional
proof for any proposition. If you dislike something morally, yet
cannot rationally explain the contradiction with natural law,
that immorality may be ethical.
The basic lockean system supposes that given by God,
there is one objective system of ethics that you can deduce
from nature. This objective system of ethics will not be adopted
unless there it can be found and then utilized, for this there
needs to be significant human rationality. The people who
accept this system of ethics are able to live in civilization,
while the people who do not do so stay in the basic state of
nature without any objective law.
There is an exception to these ethics, which are atheists,
as these people do not submit to a higher power that could
rationally create this system. Because of this, they cannot ever
be expected to hold themselves accountable and exist in
society, as they have no such backing that would make their
system objective. Of course with modern libertarianism and
new developments in ethics we can see how this is misguided,
randian objectivism is very atheistic, yet provides a solid proof
for a system that is functionally very similar. There have been
many other secular systems that provide the same sort of
ethics, objective morality is no longer limited to the religious.
However this does not erase the main point of this
exception, Locke correctly diagnosed that if there were people
who would not be properly held accountable, they could not
function within a system of morality. Since Locke, this notion
has been mainly forgotten, with people providing proofs for
why the actions of these people make it ethically justified to
use violence, and not why they fundamentally cannot function
within a system of law. These people I call savages. They are
those who reject civilization and keep themselves in a lawless
state of nature.
Firstly it is apparent that if a person does not have the
potential rationality to be able to comprehend a system of
ethics and function according to it, the system of ethics cannot
apply to that person. This means that people who are mentally
unable to conduct themselves in a principled, non-criminal
fashion must be classified as savages. With these people there
is a way to have them be civilized, this is to put the rational
system of ethics within a religious place. So we can’t pretend
as if these people must forever be savages, but rather we should
introduce for them our system of ethics based on faith and
intuition rather than reason. This being said, they are first
within this classification.
The second group that must be classified as savages are
those who intentionally ignore reason and ignore whatever
principles that may be presented to them. These are the
immoralists, people who at their base function contrary to any
morality, these are the psychopaths and malicious criminals.
They for the most part cannot be saved and cannot be extended
the courtesy of our system of rights, if we do so they will reject
it unless it’s imposed upon them, which would even further go
contrary to our belief in personal liberty and give way to the
formation of a functional police state. So as to avoid the
potential of leaving ourselves open again to dictatorship we
must exclude immoralists from our system.
Alongside the immoralists and the irrationals are the
cultists, for them what is moral and what is rational is so
warped that they cannot further perceive anything beyond that.
For them no matter how many systems of ethics we introduce
they are not able to see anything other than their own mistaken
system and they are not willing to discuss anything beyond it.
There is an important distinction between people who do not
agree with us and people who enforce their disagreement by
avoidance. A person willing to listen and willing to debate is
not a cultist, falling to the former category is the person who
will obstruct any sort of discussion we may have with them as
they perceive us by nature as immoral and irrational even when
we would happily discuss their system.
This trifecta of personalities forms what I would consider
savages and it is hard to disagree with the notion that they will
not be reasoned with. But even so, do they not have rights
intrinsic to their being? To this, I would counter that their being
is so dissimilar to ours that we cannot ever without any
additional force or exploitation make them believe what we do.
These sorts of people, while a minority in most white and asian
countries1 are often irredeemable.
Since the savage rejects property in one’s person and
belongings they cannot be expected to respect this property. As

1 This is not to say that whiteness makes a person necessarily rational and
moral, but rather that islam, socialism and other savagery has not spread as
much here as it has in arab and black countries and when there has been
savagery it has ultimately often been defeated.
they do not believe in property there can be no objection on
their part if we ignore their supposed right to property. They
cannot say that we violate their intrinsic right to their labour or
body if they do not give that same right to us, extending this
right to them must lead to them having the power to dominate
us, this is only solved by us excluding them beforehand. This
lack of reciprocity is only completely solved by excluding
them entirely from our system, this is not a mere disagreement
with some form of belonging, but a complete rejection of it.
But to claim that they will be so moral as to not try to
launch a claim against a moral person, as they do not believe in
a moral system, is completely misguided. These people will use
whatever avenues we provide, against us in any way possible.
They will not function according to their own rejection of
moral systems, but rather use our moral systems to their gain
while going against our rejection of their rights. These people
are parasites and opportunists, there is no reason to expect
them to be consistently averse to moral systems as they do not
have a moral system which would lead them to act in a moral
fashion in the case that they themselves are violated, they will
embrace our morality while rejecting their own.
They will also defend themselves in any possible way if
we were to launch action against them that would make them
unable to commit their crimes and act as a criminal would.
They will use our morality to be able to continue their
immorality in whatever way they can, they will appeal to our
ethics and exploit our system even if they directly and
repeatedly go against everything we deem right and proper.
And if we do not reject their humanity in the fullest and if we
do not accept that they are indeed savages and not compatible
with civilization, there will be a great increase in injustice and
a decrease in human prosperity.
This is even exacerbated by the fact that our sympathy
towards the weak has made us give special privileges to
whomever that cannot comprehend our system and as such
cannot function within it. There is often relative legal immunity
and special economic privileges to people who are
dysfunctional. If we would try to remove these privileges, they
would certainly express their need for these privileges and
cause even more harm. They become dependent on whatever
we extend to them, as they are fundamentally incapable of
civilization and these privileges make them unable to civilize
themselves. Not every person who receives this sort of aid is a
savage, however giving this aid to savages results in great
harm. By doing this we subsidize behaviour that goes against
morality, allowing these people to continue and inviting more
people to join the ranks of immoralists.
Of course, when it comes to law we cannot presuppose
that some person is a savage and as such make into rights
things that could be decided by the whim of some person. We
must always have to first assume that a person is not a savage
and when that person goes against that assumption, reject their
place in our order. They themselves reject the order we build
on reason, so they again have no basis to rationally dispute this
rejection.
We must also not write off the potential for such a person
to ever reform their behaviour and be able to function within
such a society. This is not our personal responsibility and it is
in no way an excuse to exploit any population and make them
fund attempts at these sorts of reformations. This also means
that such a savage must be rejected from any institution of
society, if we wish to keep such a society founded on reason, of
course, there cannot be compulsion for this, but rather a
unilateral agreement that savagery is not to be tolerated.
Every person who commits crime is not by nature a
savage, petty theft due to hunger, molestation because of
drunkenness or an assault due to rage, make no person a
savage. Rather these are the people who conducted themselves
as a savage would, without in the process becoming one
themselves. Obviously, these crimes must be penalized, but
there is no reason to reject any notion of rights to these people
or to reject them from all society. A designation of savagery is
no light matter and must be handled knowing full well what the
consequences and personality traits come along with being a
savage.
But what about when the world was populated by
savages and savages were exploited in that population by those
functioning somewhat according to reason. If savages have no
rights, must we also conclude that colonialism was morally
justifiable? The answer to this must be yes.
This is not to excuse colonialism as a social order, as that
was a giant waste of resources, but rather the colonization of
spaces which are previously unused. While colonialism is the
imposition of law and morality on people who themselves have
no rational conception of it, colonization is a parallel
development of law and morality while not imposing ourselves
on these people. Colonization and colonialism more often than
not go hand in hand, but the distinction is an important one. If
these people under colonialism are truly savages without the
capacity to conform to a rational system of ethics, there can be
no argument against directly violating the rights which they
reject, but moreso if they demand any sort of justice and
develop this notion of rights, they cannot ethically order us to
stop colonization even if it now becomes wrong to engage in
colonialism.
This means that institutions such as the United States and
Israel are not necessarily immoral, even when they are built
upon what used to be the territory of other peoples. Those
peoples did not have the ethical systems and they were still
savages when they were usurped. We must stop colonialism (as
we mostly did) once they demanded their own sovereignty, but
it does not invalidate the colonization of land they previously
held.
This does not apply to the conquest of peoples who are
able to rationally reject it as immoral. It is not so that one may
keep the gains of this oppression once they leave the people be,
and they then must reparate these ills to their capacity. But
there is no rational objection to keeping the gains exploited
from savage peoples. It would be extremely misguided to label
every nonwhite (or nonasian) as a savage due to a higher
disposition to crime and a lower average intelligence. To
dehumanize those peoples in such a fashion would be a grave
moral affront to any person with a rational conception of ethics.
Calling for genocides because of averages in IQ tests does not
make much sense nor is it a moral position to take under any
circumstance. A person who is an utter moron would still not
be a savage if he can comprehend that other people’s property
is rightfully theirs.
However, it is important to note that among populations
that have these higher dispositions to crime and a lower
tendency towards intelligence are present more people who we
would consider to be savage. Even with this fact it is not
appropriate to generalize savagery based on common genetic
traits, as genetic traits most often only become apparent after
there has been some event to trigger those pre-existing
tendencies. And the vast majority of people from those
continents enjoy such a higher quality of life under western
societies that they tend to be far more civilized.
But here we should delve into who is and who is not a
savage in the present day, it’s undeniable that some are present,
but exactly who are they? I would propose that the following
groups must be considered savages. There are exceptions to
rules, but these exceptions are so rare that they are barely worth
considering.
Who may be considered savage in every place they are in
are orthodox and devout muslims. The politically correct
terminology of the moderate right is to specify that these are
not just ordinary muslims, but rather some hazy islamists, but
that is just a verbal slight of hand. These people are just devout
muslims and fundamentalists in their theological positions.
Obviously there are muslims that are only so because of their
upbringing and culture, but significant proportions of the
muslim population support measures that are the height of
savagery, because of this we must be sceptical if any muslim is
even compatible with civilization.
But why is this? It’s not at all certain that having faith
would necessarily make a person a savage, even if that faith
condones the use of violence for ideological gain. Could we
not try to teach muslims the non-aggression principle and have
them be familiar with how wrong the things they do are? This
would have been a fine argument to make a few years ago, but
with the plethora of attacks and the immense failure of all
deradicalization, we must admit that we cannot transform
muslims.
There are still small amounts of communists left in the
world, and these communists are most often than not in the
peak of savagery. They reject debate, they reject morality and
they are unable to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. It
is possible to be a communist and not advocate for “direct
action” or violent revolution, and it is possible to put forth a
front of property rights based on use, but the vast majority of
communists are still completely and utterly savage. Because of
this we cannot give these communists any semblance of being
covered under our system of rights. This is not to say that we
should reject all debate and discussion with communists, as
there are communists who simply think that the current mode
of production creates unnecessary waste and suffering and
there are communists to whom communism is acquired by
cultural osmosis, but those are the minority and should not
guide our entire process of decision making.
And finally, there are the people who commit truly
atrocious crimes, the paedophiles, intentional rapists, torturers
and such. These people are fully and completely savage, they
have no humanity within them and extending our society to
them is a mortal mistake. They must be rejected from our
systems of rights and they cannot be considered of equal
standing to moral people in any regard.
 2. Borders and Liberty

There has been plenty of debate whether open or restrictive

borders are more libertarian. The question is vital to surviving
in a statist environment and to have a cohesive philosophy.
Different libertarians have different interpretations of border-
policy but I aim to demonstrate how strong borders can and
might even have to be the libertarian solution.
Mind you that strong borders do not mean a complete
absence of immigration and passing through. And it most
certainly doesn’t mean that trade has to be restricted. Strong
borders simply mean that there is no free immigration and there
is no free movement through the country.
State-borders are illibertarian. This is not up for debate
and not something anyone is trying to debate. A person has no
right to decide who and how can move on another person’s
property. There is no libertarian justification for taking control
over immigration and movement into a land area. The only
libertarian borders can be those upheld by rightful property
owners with mutual agreement. In that case, borders only
encompass the property of those who consent to the
arrangement. No one’s rights are being violated in this situation
as no one has a right to trespass on property where he is
unwanted. In this fashion groups of people can keep out
undesirables from their area.
This is not evil or a moral affront to freedom, but rather
the nature of how property and humans work. We do not want
to associate with any stranger and prefer to associate with those
we deem valuable or not problematic. So to do this properly we
should aim to discriminate in our communities, this would
result in an overall increase in the quality of our communities.
These borders arranged by private individuals can be as
open or as closed as the owners want. They can discriminate on
any factor in any amount. Everyone crossing these borders can
be subjected to any measure as they consented to have that
done to them by knowingly entering the justly owned property
of another while being aware of the terms of life within. There
is no free movement in a libertarian order. To enter any sort of
property you must be invited. So if this is the case does it also
apply to borders operated by the state?
It obviously does not, as borders operated by the state are
operated without regard for the owners of the property within
the state. The state has no right to establish borders and as such
many libertarians believe that the state has no right to secure
borders. But this second line of reasoning is false. If the state
establishes borders it prevents borders from being established
by people who want to protect their property.
Allow me to make an analogy for the situation of open
borders. Having open borders is akin to firstly violently taking
over another persons’ house and then destroying all security
measures he has used to prevent other people from entering the
house. It violates the rights of the owner of the house to have
someone breaking in, but for the other person to get rid of all
the measures of protection while doing so makes for an even
greater crime. However, having closed borders does not mean
that a person can retain all their security measures, it only
means that the intruder gets to decide what measures and to
what extent he is able to take or if anyone can enter at all, this
is an even worse situation as it leaves your security basically
destroyed and the parts that are not destroyed are only helping
your assailant.
In every situation there is a solution that violates rights
the least. In this case for the intruder to commit the smallest
crime, he must leave intact the measures you used to protect
yourself. But how can we approximate this situation with the
state?
The problem with open borders is in large part solved if
people retain their right to discriminate as they wish on their
own property. But there is still a glaring problem even if that
were the case. Roads are still owned by the state and they reach
every part of the territory. There fundamentally is no ability to
discriminate as even if you can do so on your own property,
there is nothing stopping those you find undesirable from
entering your community. Even if unanimously no one in an
area wants them, they can enter the streets and lounge around
to their liking. Now, of course, private violence may be used
against those, but then the violence still does violate rights as
the people who are using property usurped by the state had no
awareness that they could be subjecting themselves to these
conditions.
It seems that there are two solutions. The first is to
completely privatize the roads, which is unlikely to happen in
any scenario where the state wishes to retain control. The
second is to reduce those immigrants people would find
undesirable as much as possible. This means that if the state
bans people who are likely to be criminal, homeless or
otherwise not pleasant, they reduce right-violations.
Now there can be an objection about the people of the
state who want these sorts of people on their property. We must
concede that if these people take complete responsibility for
the immigrants and keep the immigrants out of the
communities where they are not desired and station the
immigrants on their property and pay all expenses they might
incur from the state, we can have no objection. But if these
people do not take this responsibility, they have no right to
subject other people to the immigrants that they could find
distasteful.
But there is also an economic debate to be had over this
whole issue. A lot of libertarians claim that immigration should
be openly allowed as immigrants are an economic benefit. This
may be true in a lot of cases, but these people who advocate for
this are missing many key elements. We must acknowledge that
any immigrant that is beneficial to the economy must be
allowed into the territory to keep the state from infringing on
the people as much as possible, but there is a deeper problem.
All value is psychic. If the immigrant is not materially parasitic
and does not add to taxation or debt, he might still deteriorate
the overall quality of life for the people living in the area, if his
behaviour is otherwise unpleasant. So it must also be assured
that the immigrant does not cause distaste within so many
people that he causes overall quality of life to fall.
The giant problem with immigrants in a statist world is
that they consume resources provided by the state. We want to
reduce taxation to the smallest possible extent, but by moving
into an area where you exploit the people within and add to
state-robbery is obviously a violation of rights. The immigrant
who consumes more taxes than he pays is parasitic to the
people originally in the territory, as he must either cause taxes
to rise or debt to rise (which is just delayed taxation).
Thirdly the immigrant can provide negative value by
being criminal. If the immigrant does so and has been let in by
the state, he blatantly reduces the quality of life of those living
within the state. Here, the immigrant causes a clearly visible
economic negative, not hidden by anything else without any
pretence of economic gain. No matter what logical device you
may concoct the immigrant who is criminal must be avoided to
the fullest possibility, and the state assisting the criminal as
they allow him in are also culprit to the crime, violating the
rights of the people within.
And finally, the immigrant can also impose a cost on the
native population by voting for policies that increase violence
and thus reduce economic gains. When this happens the
immigrant begs the state to increase violence on others on his
behalf2. So it can be said within a libertarian framework that
immigration is not an economic benefit in every case. If there

2 As libertarians, we must be opposed to voting that increases violence of

any sort, but voting which reduces violence (at least comparatively to the
other possibilities) must be encouraged.
are immigrants who would cause an economic negative, the
state could reduce violence taken against its people by banning
these sorts of immigrants and thus the state be more in
accordance with libertarianism.
Even in the case where my reasoning for the economic
threat of immigrants and the reasoning in the cases
discrimination and security is not correct it would be justified
for libertarians to advocate strong borders. We are subjected to
state violence and if open border policy in any shape or form
decreases the possibility of reducing state violence we are
ethically able to condemn it. If the immigrants shift
demographics in such a way that the state will enlarge through
the democratic process, it is better to not have that group of
immigrants, even if we cannot be certain about the individuals
to expand the state.
This is demonstrated almost everywhere in the world that
experiences non-white immigration. No person is as likely to
support a reduction of the state as white people are, other
demographics are almost always drastically inclined to increase
the state. It might make you feel good to accept everyone, but it
ends in a massive amount of state violence.
To conclude, it’s of the utmost importance to have the
state never directly or indirectly import any immigrants. This
means that the state must not invite anyone to permanently
reside in it nor lay out social programs that would make it
attractive to do so. State incentives and invites to immigrants
must in every case be under intense scrutiny as we know that
the state will do whatever it can to benefit itself and with doing
that oppose liberty.
We, as libertarians, must admit that upholding borders, if
not simply having very strong borders is justified. Immigrants
that present a danger of violating rights or immigrants that, as a
consequence of their presence, violate rights must be shunned.
We cannot accept detriments to liberty based on our distaste for
borders. Having state-borders be illibertarian does not mean
that enforcing the existing borders is.
 3. The Prerequisites of Liberty

Often the myth is perpetuated that the only requirement for

achieving a libertarian social order is an overarching laissez-
faire attitude and simple non-intervention. But this ignores the
fundamental fact that this attitude is not one present in all
persons and all types of persons, if we directed a laissez-faire
attitude to a person who has a high probability of committing
murder, then that person would be free to initiate that murder,
even if we would attempt to stop him. Because of these sorts of
situations, we must admit, however begrudgingly, that this
attitude of being left alone can only exist once we have
removed the people who will not leave us alone.
This is largely related to the concept of savages discussed
in the previous chapter, but presents a different approach, one
of equal importance. It does not exclude people from ethical
systems, but rather simply excludes them from the libertarian
society while allowing them to live as they please. Savages
should also be allowed to live away from us, but there is no
ethical objection for disturbing them, however there are people
incompatible with libertarianism who are not incompatible
with reason, this chapter focuses on them.
 It is no grand shock that different peoples have different
degrees of intelligence. However, what is harder to accept is
that this intelligence is heritable and not just a manifestation of
the social and material condition in which the person finds
himself. Because of this fundamental fact of heritability, we see
differences in measures of intelligence between the European,
african, asian, arab and jewish races. This is because there are
generalizable genetic differences between these geographical
areas that apply further than just the tone of one’s skin.
However this is not to say that the regime under which
people are or the conditions have no effect on their intelligence,
one can drastically change and cultivate their own intelligence,
or the conditions in which one lives may actively suppress and
destroy that. But in those situations, there is still a lower and
upper bound which this sort of conditioning would find hard to
cross. We could theoretically stupefy the European peoples
while raising up those in Africa and we could eventually end
up in societies of similar intelligence, but this would require a
totalitarian social engineering that overall would only result in
a loss of the potential and the uniqueness of the races.
This has an important consequence, to comprehend the
benefit of non-violence and property rights, one must be able to
reason in an abstract sense and understand ethics. We can
expect to find more supporters of these measures in the more
intelligent parts of society or in the more intelligent races, at
least initially. There can never be an expectation of reasoning
with people who cannot comprehend reason as well as we do, it
may be possible, but it is much harder.
Due to this simple fact, there is a baseline requirement of
intelligence to serve as a catalyst for a libertarian social order,
it can be transported to less reasonable peoples, but only if it
gets the possibility to firmly establish itself in authority (as to
replace the former authority, not to form a new authority) first.
This means that we can not expect to create our pure
rothbardian society or even a minarchist social order if the
people within the society do not have this necessary degree of
intelligence.
We may take notes from colonialism and impose these
ethics and rules on people who do not understand the purpose
of those. But by doing that we do not create a social order of
liberty, but rather simply mask the underlying social order by
our own planned society. We would just waste resources and
time on nothing other than creating a fiction of freedom within
an unfree society. Still, one may construe the tribalistic
spontaneous social order of the Somalis as a libertarian order,
but to do so would only serve to damage the notion of any sort
of rational libertarian society. It is true that there is no central
government, but the social order itself is not exactly founded
on complete marketization and property rights.
We must conclude if we wish to be realistic, that it’s not
efficient to try to actively advocate liberty among the less
intelligent peoples, until they develop the same sort of
intelligence on their own. This comes with an additional
benefit, it could allow libertarians to use the forces of racial
nationalism, which is necessary to secure the populations with
enough capability for reason, to advance our own cause. This is
largely what Rothbard prescribed in his infamous guide for
right-wing populism, although in terms far softer than what a
position this radical plainly states. He supposed that we would
reach out to the people who suffer the most from taxes and gain
the least from government, in the past few decades these have
only been whites.
This approach does not facilitate an ideology of
extermination or violence upon these races in which we are not
able to advance liberty. Rather these people still have their
rights as they are mostly not the people to infringe upon us
(how could they, without our help they can’t survive for any
significant period in our lands and don’t try to come in massive
amounts), however this is simply a matter of strategy. And if
we wish to strategically accomplish a libertarian social order,
we should consider doing it in locations where it could possibly
happen.
But still, it is not enough to simply possess this reason to
comprehend just law and the reasoning behind it, the less
intellectual class of people must possess enough of a sense of
morality to care about the rights of others. If we were to pass
our rationally proven ethos of law onto these people, they must
be able to find the compassion and values within themselves to
accept it. Until we have a society developed far beyond what
we could see in the instant future there can be no expectation
that reason can be the driving force of a culture or a nation. No
matter how much we might respect or admire reason, most
people are not capable of fully applying it without a moral
reason to do so.
And even the people who have the moral reason and who
do adopt these law systems may still have other virtues in
strength or devotion, and still not be able to rationalize the
entire system of law, and we can’t assume that they are able to.
If we did then we would be stuck preaching principles to a
person who already accepts them without much of a reason to
do so. These sorts of people can only be guided by morality
and pseudo-religious law systems which assume the position
formerly occupied by the state. In essence, to approach well
meaning people with good intentions, we must ridicule,
delegitimize and replace the state with our system of just
morality. It is not very useful to have rational discussions when
we can accomplish the same goal in a different manner3.
But this also means that the people who aren’t well-
meaning and the people who are fundamentally parasitic can
not be converted to our frame of mind. These sorts of people
are largely found among the ranks of leftist intellectuals and
revolutionaries, to them their behaviour is a survival strategy,
to be able to appropriate funds from others to themselves. They
have genetic and environmental detriments, which leave them
with poor skills when it comes to work and money. These
people are incapable of productive activity and as such can
only advocate for parasitism, this is necessary for them if they
wish to comfortably live in the world.
But those are not all, we also find similar patterns in the
midst of secular jews. Although extremely intelligent, a history
of having to adapt to a constantly changing world without
stable roots and having to look for any opportunity to survive
has made these people extremely opportunistic. Of course there

3 This does not make these people savages, they are willing to reason and
they are willing to accept rational positions, their power of reason is just not
far enough developed.
are exceptions, who more often than not come to the ranks of
libertarians, but the moral background of secular jews is often
not sufficient to maintain a libertarian order. It’s important to
note here that a jew is not only defined by judaism, but also the
aforementioned generalizable genetic patterns. They are not
simply white people with funny noses and their specific faith,
their heritage stems from ancient israelites, who are more
comparable to arabs.
It is inane to call for a complete extermination of the
jewish people if we wish to achieve a libertarian social order,
but it is important to keep in mind the necessity of securing the
moral character of the people within this order. Without basic
values and respect for others, there can be no situation in which
a libertarian society lasts. We must be careful of people who
have a suspicious moral background and are thus unable to
function peacefully and without exploitation.
If a libertarian society falls to complete debauchery ripe
with drug use and promiscuity, then the economic efficiency
that otherwise would be present would not be found anywhere.
A system is only as good as the people within it and if the
people within a system (or a lack thereof) revel in basic vices,
the system is no better than that basic vice itself. This does not
mean that we must oppose any vice violently or that we must
never experience any enjoyment in our lives, but rather simply
that to be able to keep our desired world together it must not be
an overblown frat party.
To achieve the former qualifications we must physically
remove every incompatible person from our properties. We
cannot have immoralists and/or those with lesser mental
faculties predominant if we are to ever reach our vision. The
counter-argument is that we need those people to gain enough
mass, but that is nonsensical. If we have to sacrifice the
potential of achieving our world to achieve our world, we have
sacrificed our world in its entirety.
There can be alliances with the people who are not
conducive to a libertarian social order, but they must be and
remain exactly that. There can be no illusion that a pure market
order can exist based on moral degeneracy and stupidity.
Excluded from the former are the people who keep their
degeneracy as a completely private affair, as to not disturb the
general population with whatever perversions they might enjoy,
and not create the strife that would exist otherwise. And
allowable are also those with enough of a moral standing to be
able to go past their deficits in intellectualism and become
useful parts of our society. The important aspect is not the
nature of the person themselves, but the balance that the person
has with the goal of advancing liberty. The same applies to the
people with lesser mental prowess, if they can make it up by
having a great moral standing and being productive members
of society, there is no objection to having them be in our
society.
Ultimately, any person (with the exception of savages,
which can barely be considered persons) may change their
nature if prompted by some rationality or some serious
incentive, however, that incentive might no be anything short
of excluding them from our society or physically removing
them. We can not preach unity and love, but rather the most
aristocratic and discriminatory social order based on a common
respect for the fellow man. Any person who cannot function
with this degree of reciprocity and ethical understanding is not
fit to be included within a society of moral law. They may still
come around, and they may still be useful eventually, we
cannot have them be always present.
 4. Voluntary Ethnic Separation

The left-libertarian egalitarian agenda is directly against the

real notion of rights in your own property and person, one must
be able to exclude whomever they wish from their property.
This is most clearly expressed in the hoppean concept of
covenants of exclusion. Those would form small societies
where each person agrees to achieve a common goal and thus
restricts impediments from their property. From this we may
infer that even if it is not a direct good, there will be ethnic
separation to a large degree within a libertarian society. My
position here is that this is both desirable and likely, provided
that each person has the fullest right in their property and an
interest in associating with people similar to themselves.
When this viewpoint is presented to a person he will
recoil at the evil racism that is so obviously the motivation
between this sort of viewpoint. How else can you ever desire a
separation of ethnic groups if not because of a fundamental fear
or hate of any and all difference? And not only that, is this not
some sort of massive collectivism? Some purist libertarians
often argue that seeing people as a part of group entities goes
against individualist principles, I aim to dismantle both of these
viewpoints.
 First onto the objection of racism, let’s first admit that
this is racist, no matter how much we debate over if racism is
based on hate or not, it will just be a word at the end of the day.
But now the issue becomes, what is wrong with this sort of
racism? It’s not like this racism is a malicious hateful
viewpoint, but rather that this racism is a preference towards
your own group, people who share similar genetic and cultural
traits. And if you appreciate this similarity to your own people
and you wish every other person would also be able to do so,
this can hardly be considered malicious.
Here I would also bring in that the most hateful and
demeaning position you can take is that ethnic separatism is
racist because it would leave blacks and other such groups at a
loss. This is implying that these groups are wholly dependent
on whites and that whites are a sort of superman carrying
minority groups who cannot be possibly responsible for
themselves. This is not only extremely racist but also reduces
minorities to slaves dependent on the whims and desires of the
supreme whites, this is an absolutely reprehensible position. All
ethnic groups have managed to survive and build societies fit to
themselves when separated in the past, and there’s no reason
why black society would collapse without the benevolence of
whites.
 The other objection is that this is collectivist. I have two
qualms with this position. First is that a human can only
account for so many individuals and if individuals sharing
similar characteristics exhibit similar trends, there is no other
rational decision other than to judge them on the basis of their
traits. Of course, when these people prove themselves
otherwise by some intellectual achievement or other such
effort, there is no need to generalize them as a group, they have
sufficiently distinguished themselves and as such, there is no
need to ease your burden of recognition. And there are chances
that some groups fundamentally cannot do certain things,
birthing children is exclusively reserved to women and so you
can judge all women on the basis of that ability unless there is
evidence to the contrary.
And to finish this off, the delight in your group identity is
simply an extension of your appreciation for yourself, the
ethnic group in which you are a part of has fundamentally the
characteristics of yourself within them. This is both genetic and
cultural and if you appreciate your own values and character
traits, you should also appreciate the group which shares them
and contributes to them. In this manner, the collective is only
meaningfully defined by the individual and calling this
approach collectivist erases the individual perspective
responsible for creating this grouping.
Other than the aforementioned self-respect and the
resulting respect for your people, why is this desirable? First,
there is an increased social cohesion in homogenous societies,
people bound by similar values and traits will be better
connected to each other socially. If these people take pride in
these qualities, these bonds will be unbreakable and lead to an
extremely high trust society. Without coercion trust becomes
the most necessary aspect of a society. If something is not fixed
and violently imposed, there must be a high degree of trust to
make co-existence and economic activity possible.
In a more high trust society people meet their own social
obligations or perceived social obligations with much more
reliability than there otherwise would be. Currently the better
the trust and cohesion within a community, the less aggression
there will be initiated and the more taxes will be paid. Taxation
is still robbery and not necessarily indicative of societal health,
but if we wish for there to be any semblance of society, there
must be some degree of non-excludability4 in goods and people
who are more connected are more likely to contribute.
The second important benefit is the reduced conflict
between different ethnic interests. No matter how much you
may want to deny it, all ethnic groups have their distinct
interests due to their varying natures and cultures. This does
not mean that you must discriminate ruthlessly or not let others
live in peace, but rather that there will be much more conflict
of ends between the people within a society. This may be
pleasant for a dedicated neo-liberal, as competition is simply a
conflict of ends, but competition over society leads to conflict
within society. Here, the optimal solution would be to have a
competition of societies, where each person would be free to
pursue their own ends in a society that values the same sort of
things.
And finally, there is also the aforementioned pragmatic
strategy that comes with racial exclusion. It is not a secret that
non-whites do not tend to follow the same degree of respect for
individualism and liberal values that white Europeans do. This
means that if we wish to achieve a social order based on

4 Every good can be excluded to some amount. In a chapter below I discuss

how even the military can only provide service for certain people. There are
still positive externalities with every beneficial economic action, and to
maximize happiness these externalities should be not viewed as bad and
cultivated.
individuals acting in a voluntary manner, we should organize
ourselves along the lines of white European culture. We may
perform as much outreach as we want to other ethnic groups,
but we will always find the most support within the group that
values these principles the most.
Furthermore, the desire for an ethnic separation coincides
with the libertarian need for secession. This means that ethnic
separatism will advance libertarianism with further
decentralization if it is done by seceding from a larger,
multiethnic state. This would split up the behemoth empires of
modern states along more manageable lines. It would also
serve as to legitimize secession, as that is the most important
prerequisite to achieving a libertarian social order.
But provided we already were in such an order, how
could you keep an ethnic purity in certain land areas? There are
of course the hoppean covenant communities, simply a contract
that is required for moving into a land area and living within a
society guaranteeing that there is to be no permanent residents
of other ethnicities. Then there is simply the natural tendencies
to keep to our own kind, without even explicit contracts we
would see different ethnic groups living concentrated in some
areas as it is today. And there are just discriminatory social
pressures that favour one ethnicity over another and drive the
other ethnicity out of the concrete land area.
None of these solutions are in any way coercive, but they
result in the goal of ethnic communities completely voluntarily.
This does not mean that there should be no trade or positive
feelings between these communities, as they no longer have to
live within the same social framework, it would be even better
to trade and economically co-operate peacefully. And even if
that’s not the case, all value isn’t material and the increased
social cohesion is worth a great deal.
 5. The Antistatist Case for Monarchial
Government5

Government

For there to be a state there has to be a governmental decree of

declaring a territory as permanently controlled and granting the
state in that territory the right to use violence and tax. The state
must also claim the right of forbidding others to employ the
same methods to be able to get for themselves the greatest
spoils.
But the government itself needs not to issue such a
decree, it is perfectly consistent to have such an entity which
only has authority over the territories of people who have
invited it onto their properties. This government does not retain
a monopoly on force and receives its funds purely
contractually, as would any other market entity. You often hear
statements about running the government as a business, but

5 Even though I decided to include this essay, as it is interesting and

essential to libertarian theory, the points raised here are not represented in
other chapters. This is because I have moved away from such a position,
believing it to be too niche and started figuring out better pure market
positions. Still, this is useful for anyone who agrees with libertarianism
ethically but not practically.
without the state using the efficient methods of market
organization is actually possible.
Now we have to demonstrate how this is the case, if we
really are against the state, how could we be for such an entity
that manages land. I will be demonstrating how it could be
useful and how it could be beneficial. And furthermore how it
avoids the troubles inherent with the modern state.
The first disagreement that a libertarian has with the
statist conception is that a government can set taxes as they
please. Why should anyone voluntarily agree to this order? It’s
simply the case that this would most not be the case in a
voluntary market situation and this does not need to be. Very
few, if any, people would consensually give away the right to
an unspecified amount of their property. So the contractual
governments will need to have fixed fees per member (Most
likely not differentiating between income in the amount they
ask, resulting in the optimal head tax). They would have to
behave like everything else on the market.
But why would you have governments at all? This
question has a simple answer: you want to ensure that a land
area is habitable and pleasant for yourself. To accomplish this it
is advantageous to organize under an entity. This method of
organization cannot lay claim on an entire land area without the
consent of those who own the property. It is simply formed out
of providing a valuable service to the people who want to
employ that service.
But if the government is voluntary in the first place, why
does it have advantages above other market institutions? I will
expound on the concepts of various situations in which the
profit motive of the free market is able to work against the free
market below. But here I will mention that the government can
provide three things that the market can only provide in a
different fashion: central co-ordination, non-responsive force,
and redistributive policy. To the libertarian, this will smell
eerily like the values of socialism, and the libertarian will be
right, but there are a few areas in which feasibly a voluntary
approach embracing some of the values of socialism can
provide a better quality of life for everyone.
I do not in any way endorse a collectivist view that uses
coercion to achieve its means. But it is somewhat worthy of
consideration that the dogmatic reaction against anything
socialist might not be in every case grounded. The main issues
with such policy are the moral and the coercive implications,
even when in a voluntary situation the end result could end up
in a larger amount of prosperity. More than that there are issues
with management incentives and the troubles inherent in
democratic systems, but still there could be some positions held
by socialists that can have merit.
It is most important to remember that unlike the state,
this sort of government becoming a disutility to a member
means that the member can exit the government at will. This
would not happen easily when the government provides utility
above the marginal, so the criticism of a chaotic condition with
constant exiting the organization over minor disagreements is
ungrounded. People do not stop using a service because of a
very minor qualm in most cases.
The other important libertarian criticism of government
are with the provision of law. Firstly if there is no competition
within law, it will not be provided with quality and
competence. This is again a statist notion that does not carry
over to this sort of government, even provided that the
government sets their concrete standards of law, they still have
competition. Firstly they are up against natural law, which is
present in the state of pure anarchy. There are also competing
private law institutions with more specific notions of justice.
And finally, there would be other governmental agencies that
voluntarily manage land with their own concepts of law.
The final important libertarian criticism of government is
about it being unable to judge questions related to itself. We
find again a notion that only applies to the statist order and is
fixed with the principles of a market. The member with qualms
about the government can revoke their place in the organization
and remove the authority of the government. This means that if
the government wanted to raise “tax” or subscription rates or
introduce bad law, it would lose the business of the people who
find it now disagreeable.
There are still cases in which there is a specific dispute
between the government and a member of it. It’s completely
possible that a customer of the government does not find a
governmentally provided law institution sufficient to judge the
case. If this is the current situation, they can easily defer to
other law institutions and thus simply avoid the problem of
judging yourself.
We should now move on to the advantages of having a
government. It is true that in all areas that do not by necessity
involve any sort of force the profit motive is always the best
way to organize and produce. It ensures that each person gets
the best condition that they can provide for themselves and that
the economy is constantly advancing. And if there are failures
in production there will not be any negatives imposed on any
persons other than the producers. I would introduce the notion
that in cases of force the free profit motive is not always by
itself sufficient to preserve the rights of every party in all
situations.
Before I enter actual discussion I would mention the
communist notion of the workers seizing the means of
production. With a free profit motive, it is very much possible
that the collected resources of communist organization will be
able to overthrow property rights, having a governmental
organization greatly alleviates this possibility due to there
being a possibility for exclusion and a land area devoid of
people with such values.
The most important example of the profit motive being
able to lead to bad outcomes would be law-courts. Of course in
the vast majority of situations, private law-courts are
advantageous over other types of law systems. But it is highly
possible that the profit motive could have them violate their
own rules for personal gains. Firstly it is possible that one party
could provide a sum of money that has more utility than the
potential customers lost, the action of contract breaking, and
the psychic disutility of breaking a contract combined. This is
still the case in a statist order, so that’s not enough to justify
making courts public.
The judges could be bought even if this violates
contractual agreements or natural law principles. It could be
possible that courts will not provide adequate justice with
enough of a bribe. A government is able to lessen this problem
by simply introducing a threat of violence to the briber, who
did not commit a violence-worthy aggression, as his only
violation of law would be whatever the other party lost due to
the process with additional compensation over having violated
their rights being provided by the court. Having a central
agreement to use such force against bribers could ensure more
certainty in justice. This might be in itself unjust to a degree,
but even so it could reduce the overall injustice.
It is also possible that the potential of customers lost
outweighs the disutility of the potential action taken against
them for dispensing false justice and breaking the contract the
court had with its customer. Situations of activism within law
might take place. Such cases where public opinion does not
overlap with the system of law embraced by courts could cause
the courts to rather break existing contracts than to lose future
ones. Yes, it is true that in a free market the courts must be used
consensually (even with a reluctant party who refuses to agree
to any court a process could theoretically go on, most likely
ignoring specific customs and focusing on natural law, however
he would still then have a chance to appeal), but this does not
mean that the public is unable to feel outrage. The
governmental system solves it simply by having the land area
first be full of people who consent to such a process and that
law system and thus avoid the possibility of that outrage.
This check might seem contradictory to the notion of
competition within law. But this is simply not true. There being
competition within the law does not mean that people with
similar conceptions of law do not find it advantageous to use a
similar system and that courts who can congregate without the
fear of outrage could suddenly provide the law with less
efficiency as they still must compete with other similar law
systems.
Another perk is that the government is able to secure a
similar system of justice. All property in the governmental area
could have a system of law (such as sharia law or anglo
common law) be decided beforehand. Because this is
voluntarily agreed upon it could be a great increase in
convenience6.
However, it is absurd to suggest that there could be a
system of law enforcement with absolutely no profit motive
(the people within the system still want to get the most out of it
they can), and a more central system would ensure that even
greater perverse incentives are introduced. These problems of
6 The system could also be applied to a foreign party on the justly owned
and clearly marked property of the area under this system of law.
bribery and outrage are present in every system of law. They
are just much alleviated when there is a value-productive
government which is able to take action against these
problems.
For the next argument we must tackle the problem of
land use. Most commodities are consumed in direct use or
creating other goods, aside from two: land and labour. This is
because all goods originate from a combination of those two
factors. It is in each person’s highest interest to use their own
labour with the most efficiency, and transporting labour is
extremely simple. With the vast majority of capital goods, it is
also possible to move them to a location in which they are
better used or to reutilize them for other purposes if such a
need arises and it is discovered that they were allocated
erroneously.
With land factors, both of those concepts change. It is
true that market forces would eventually use land for it’s
greatest efficiency, but in here arises a problem. Improvements
built on land cannot be moved, the location itself is always
stationary and the resources inside the land can be exhausted.
If left to its own devices and with no change in the
amount of resources, the market would use the exact right
amount of resources, but the problem is that this will happen
only eventually, and at that point it can be realized that too
much had been exhausted or wrong locations were used for
certain things, in such cases the waste is many times greater
than the waste of capital goods or labour as it cannot be
properly repurposed.
A central planner is no better in this regard, setting
rations or allocating land use will certainly turn out to be even
more faulty, since the central planner does not hold the
information that each party holds. The central planner also does
not have a profit motive in allocating land for its most value-
productive use.
This clearly seems to be a situation in which the central
agency can provide no use, but this immediate reaction is
faulty. The one thing that a central agency can do is enforcing a
system of co-ordination and providing additional information
to all parties. For example keeping a database of roads, tunnels,
future plans for such construction and to publicly release
estimates of different resources. This in itself does not make
business less efficient and only provides better information for
all parties. The only possible loss would be that of speculative
gain on land value, as information would be less exclusive.
Other than simple coordination there is an issue of
environmental factors. Going by pure natural law,
environmental protection seems to be impossible7, since no one
can own property where it has not been improved and an actual
situation that can truly be called a “tragedy of the commons”
can take place8. It is certainly useful to most parties to have in
the future access to different animal species and to not get rid
of natural air production, but in the short term, those actions
cannot be addressed since they do not visibly violate the rights
of any.
To have central co-ordination in this case only means that
no person in the area will use a given piece of land for
industrial purposes or disturb it in any other fashion. As this is
judged to be less valuable than the land itself. To enforce it the
simple solution is to have the property owners around the area
agree to a co-ordinated system that uses legislation to prohibit
such use of the land.
Central co-ordination is also useful for people to be
aware of their rights. Having a consistent law system and to be
aware what it’s enforcement entails is of great benefit to the

7 Since writing this essay I have come up with a system that can provide
environmental protection without violating any principles of natural law.
This is discussed in chapter 12.
8 This concept in most cases is gravely misled and leads to fallacious
thought. However this particular situation may be appropriately judged by
the metric due to a high amount of hidden factors.
people in that area. Being aware of your rights and being aware
of how to defend them prevents a lot of pointless disturbance.
A thing that is much easier to do if centrally co-ordinated
is having clear and convenient information on products.
Having nutritional and other information standardized is only a
convenience, but a very significant one. This would most likely
get done in a completely decentralized system, but it could lead
to errors.
Another useful role of a centralized management
structure is the ability for a community to easily determine
what kind of person is allowed to enter. There is also an
additional protection of being near people who are acceptable
to them and who also want to prevent the entry of undesirables.
This, of course, can not mandate that someone else use their
property in a way that they do not want to use it, but rather
mutually ensure a pleasant society.
For example, if a community wanted to retain their black
identity and did not want white people, asians or people of
mixed decent to be in their community, it is of great use for
them to form a border around their properties and voluntarily
pay for the service of keeping out everyone who is not black.
Doing so ensures that their properties and societies are
protected from people that are unwanted.
 The one objection that is instantly faced when presenting
such a scenario would be such: via not letting labour move
freely the community is only inanely harming themselves.
They do not participate in a more advanced division of labour
and as such are unable to advance economically. I talked about
this in the above chapter on borders and liberty, the same
arguments apply here.
Here we must confront the issue that every service the
government provides by its nature redistributes some resources.
This would mean that it takes from the productive and ges to
the unproductive. Although there is one case in which this
redistribution can be actually useful to the market.
Redistribution takes wealth away from the people who
use it more efficiently and uses it less efficiently. It seems like
this would be a situation that is an all around negative, aside
from one specific case. If the money taken from more efficient
users and given to less efficient users prevents an even less
efficient form of use. This in absolute terms would increase
economic efficiency. The only case where this is applicable is
the situation of aggression.
The private market is in most cases better at preventing
aggression, which is why the governmental body should not
provide defence services but rather subsidize rudimentary
defence services in its land area. This ensures that when theft
takes place there is a higher possibility of the money being
retrieved and an even greater redistribution being prevented.
The thief would naturally have to cover the cost of catching
him, but before doing so it’s of great utility to have a mutual
aid fund or other such construction so people have access to
defence services. This can be done without any government,
but having the government involved here is still useful.
Another related situation is implicit theft via fraudulence.
If the government can prevent fraudulent abuses of the market
with improved access to information, then those policies would
in absolute terms also be economically useful. These include
the above examples of information about law and products, but
also a provision of easily accessible libraries to be able to have
such an understanding.
A lot of libertarians will at this point be thinking that
even though this all could be technically correct why couldn’t
non-governmental agencies provide all these services. And they
are correct, everything I mentioned up to this point could be
organized via no central management institutions, but they are
all cases in which the service being provided is not enough
when left alone, you could have regulatory and meta-regulatory
agencies for courts. You could have private firms advising co-
ordination and land areas deciding to protect themselves and
their environment, but this all lacks the unique certainty of the
government and if all these services do not develop a complex
network of addition to themselves there are risks present
On its face value there is no reason that the market could
not develop such risk alleviating features, but this is especially
dangerous when people and the market have not been able to
properly adjust, the existence of these governments could at
least be a transitory path to ensure that violence and fraud does
not again arise in the world. The special feature of government
is that it’s word is absolute and it naturally is much more stable
for the people who want to patronize its services, even if it is
voluntary due to the nature of the multitude of what it provides,
it is able to survive when there are short term trends that could
turn out to be destructive. This is a dangerous double-edged
sword, and coupled with a state its certain to only ever harm,
but it is absolute and it is stable, it can provide some certain
benefits that a free market will take more time to figure out and
will provide on less certain terms.
The complaint could easily be that if all terms of the
government are not instantly pleasant, then why should a
person be a part of such an organization and why would anyone
ever organize as such. The answer is the same as it is with any
other solution on the market, the voluntary co-ordination of
people can lead to unideal situations for each person (such as
not being able to rob another or sandwiches not being prepared
in accordance with your unique taste) but it does synchronize
the actions in a way where every person’s utility is maximized
out of the possible solutions.
It is wholly possible that no competent government arises
in a free system and every person stays in a state of pure
rothbardian anarchy. But the possibility and benefits of this sort
of government are not to be ignored.
Monarchy

Before I go into the deeper reasons for which monarchy is

preferable to maintain the non-statist form of government in
the most optimal form, I will need to outline the most basic and
maybe the most drastic function that a monarchial system has.
In a democratic state, the leadership of the government is under
constant dispute. In every election cycle there could be a new
leader, who can drastically change things. This creates and
amplifies a phenomenon called regime uncertainty. Regime
uncertainty makes the social time preference shorter, people
will prefer present goods over future goods at increasing
extents, since the future can constantly change. If we are to
value long term economic growth, then we must reduce the
phenomenon of regime uncertainty. After all, investment drives
growth9.
The other important part of the increased time preference
is in the government. A monarch rules for life and passes his
estate and position to his children, compared to a democratic
leader who only serves for a set, limited amount of time. It is
clear that the monarchial organization will have policy directed

9 Present goods being exchanged for future goods creates more future
goods than there could be created in the present and as such grows the
economy.
at the long term while a democracy will have policy focusing
on the short term, since the monarch will not be rid of
responsibility after a set time, and even then he has to ensure
the prosperity of his heirs.
In addition, it is personally beneficial to a monarch to
ensure long term economic growth, the democratic leader will
be paid a certain rate (with any additional benefits from the
prestige or the power), but the estate of the monarch directly
correlates to the well-being of the economy. Even under a
voluntary order, the monarch will see the area under his
management expand and his abilities grow.
The monarch also has to aim to have a balanced budget,
he will have to deal with debt himself or he will leave it to his
children if he does not do so. The monarch cannot borrow
insane amounts of money or spend beyond his means without
himself facing the consequences. As such the government can
never feed into central banking and unsustainable development
as a constant state of being.
The greatest sleight of hand in a democratic government
is that the negative consequences of government actions are
assumed to be the fault of the constituents who voted for the
current government, not the government officials who enacted
such policies. The fault of this approach should be obviously
incompatible with any libertarian system. Having a person be
responsible for actions supposedly taken on his behalf no
matter who he voted for or if he even voted is absurd. But this
phenomenon will always exist as long as the state wants to
pretend to have a moral decree and the people under the
government retain a naive hope in it.
With a monarchy, the distinction between people and
government is very clear. The monarch is responsible for the
actions of his government and all blame for bad decisions will
obviously go to the institution that committed those decisions.
In this case there is no subterfuge possible causing the
government to not bear full responsibility for each and every
one of its acts.
Even more importantly, with all officials being unelected,
the people ruled by them have to apply scrutiny at more times
than just the election. It becomes each individual’s
responsibility to continuously maintain that the government is
not performing wrongful acts. With a voluntary government,
this also ensures that party politics cannot hide any economic
disutility.
This all might seem irrelevant since no matter the level of
scrutiny, the members of government will retain their position
since they do not have to be elected, but this view is incorrect.
If the monarch wishes to ensure the continued existence of the
governmental organization and prevent secession (or in a more
traditional case prevent revolutions) he has to make sure that
the public is pleased with the government and that the
government does not commit actions that the foundational
contract prohibits.
The purpose of the monarch as an absolute entity is in
large part symbolic but in a multitude of ways, this is very
important. I’m not talking about the monarchy having absolute
powers, but the monarch himself being an absolute feature
instead of a temporary caretaker of a government. The monarch
does not have to put on phony political shows and the monarch
does not have to hide his nature, as long as it does not
contradict the principles of his organization.
The monarch can be a more accurately representative
than any politician can. He will be raised in a manner
conducive to cultured behaviour, but even more importantly the
monarch has to have faith in the principles and values of his
people. With such a faith embedded in the monarch, if present
for nothing spiritual, it will exist due to the fact that the
monarch’s resources are so tied with the people. The monarch
will also have a large amount of the cultural values present in
his subjects that he is heavily incentivized to believe in.
 It is very important, of course, that the monarch is not
outside the law, but such a system would have the monarch
represent the law itself. The monarch as an absolute is the best
way to embody natural law in any form of governance.
Democratic systems will be prone to creating relativism in the
realms of ethical values because such systems can change with
different cultural trends and the opinions of majorities. This
would inevitably cause the spread of the notion that the
government is the causation of all rights 10 and lead to the
formation of a state.
And if all rights are given to people by the government
then the spirit of resistance that is a necessity for maintaining
liberty becomes replaced with a complacency towards the
actions of the government, because the government’s ethical
stances are flexible, and has a mandate from “the people”.
However, very few people would assume that the actions of the
monarch are ethically right due to the nature of his station. He
is in danger of losing his power and thus has to not commit
violent actions or encroach on the rights of others, remaining

10 If government is indeed what causes rights, where did it get the right to
do so? If through democracy, then what qualifications do collections of
people have to have to be democratic? And what gives the majority the right
to decide for the minority? If this does actually only have to do with the
wielding of force then democratic governments are as good as criminal
organizations, with the exception that governments manage to hide their
nature.
an exemplary representation of ethical behaviour.I promoted a
situation above where redistribution in a certain scenario could
increase the absolute wealth of a society, but under a
democratic system in which the majority can perform
governmental decisions, the majority will gravitate towards
government policies that take from the minority. At some point
voting for principles becomes outweighed for voting for your
own interests. In that case, there will certainly be redistributive
functions in government that do not increase economic
efficiency.
This is contrasted by the case of a monarch. A monarch
barely has a reason to engage in such policies. His personal
wealth is tied to the well-being of the economy, and not votes.
And if he has seen the economic prosperity11 that arises in a
capitalist society he will have no incentive to change that, nor
can he as people can give up their position in the union.
If a monarch pursues such policies it is obvious who is
doing what. The people from whom resources are taken from,
in order to redistribute will know that this is done by the king,
thus the conflict will be directed rightly at the culprit. There

11 If I am wrong, and libertarianism is not a good solution to economic

organization, then the monarch will have an incentive not to retain it.
However there is no reason to believe that free market capitalism is not
optimal and as such it’s reasonable to expect it being the order that is
voluntarily embraced.
will not be a reason to blame the general population for the
actions of the government.
In a system of democratic politics, people are elected
based on their ability to appeal to people, this is not substantive
and this will lead to the modern image of a politician. The
system itself has an inbuilt incentive for the politician to lie in
any way he can to garner more votes. It is not certain if a
monarch will be a power hungry monster or a capable person,
but it is certain that the vast majority of people in government
are attracted to controlling the lives of others12. They achieve
power through demagoguery and will in large part be in
government to control the lives of others.
They might do it out of a lust for power or they might do
it because they feel like they genuinely improve the lives of
others by making their decisions for them. Both cases have
been present through history, and to a libertarian, both cases are
exactly as dystopian. With the expansion of politics, the cost of
campaigning will also expand. Politicians will have to, for the
most part, accept more and more corporate interests into their
personal politics, just so they have funds to spread their
message. A monarch has the advantage of not having to accept
any resources from these kinds of interests since by the nature
12 There will still be a small amount of people who aim to reduce the
power of those who aim to gain it.
of his station he will have enough wealth. And he also has no
reason to campaign as politicians do, as he is not in the danger
of losing his position until he becomes a disutility.
There are even more benefits, very few people would
ever go through the trouble of removing themselves from the
government due to some comments that the monarch makes
that offend their sensibilities. However, most politicians live
under the fear of doing something wrong or saying something
unpopular because voting is extremely easy and people can
constantly change their minds. In this way, the monarch is
more likely to be judged based on his merit and his words and
can be more truthful and direct.
There is a multitude of advantages for maintaining a
libertarian society with a seemingly illibertarian political
system, I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated the advantages
of a monarchial government in a stateless society and what
functions it can serve to aid in creating a more prosperous
social order.
 6. The Libertarian Solution to the Age of Consent

This is a topic that is sensitive and highly controversial, but this

makes this topic one of utmost importance and one that must
be seriously discussed in the libertarian community. Often we
see claims that an arbitrary age is not a prerequisite of decision
making and that social interactions have to be voluntary, and
consent cannot be stopped even if it is from someone underage.
I will be approaching this question from both a sexual and a
non-sexual point of view. I will do what is in my power to
demonstrate how this view is wrong, even assuming that there
are no moral qualms with the claim itself.
To clear up my personal moral position on the issue I
would state beforehand that I find pedophilia reprehensible in
it’s every form and I have absolutely no personal compassion
for any pedophile, no matter what they have done or not. But
also I do find it important for young people to have
opportunities to work and advance themselves in the market.
This raises multiple issues with the distinctions between
allowable forms of consent and allowable uses for children.
In the first place, it is obvious that an arbitrary number as
the age at which children are able to form contracts is not a
libertarian solution. Setting arbitrary numbers like that is the
role of the blunt force of the state and the lack of nuance is
present in any given scenario with this solution. However, this
sort of luxury of naming universal numbers out of guesses or
moral zeal is only left to politics and is not suitable for a non-
political view on this subject.
Secondly, we also must concede that the state as it is
right now taking measures that invade the privacy of people to
counter pedophilia when there is no violent crime is also
fundamentally illibertarian, due to the nature of the state and
how any power given to the state will be used for more than it
was expressly delegated for. So, no matter how morally wrong
pedophilia is we cannot trust the state to efficiently deal with
the issue and to not abuse the abilities it has.
Finally, we must be open to the position that the state is
not the only thing between pedophiles and children, and that
this issue is not one for which the state is expressly needed for,
but can like every other issue be handled with private means.
This is a harder concept, but not one that should immediately
alienate anyone. There is nothing magic about the state and
there are private means that can perform just as well.
In some less intelligent libertarian circles, it’s often
assumed that consent must be given to any relation at any
point. This includes also the child and the family. The fact of
this matter is that at the point where the child is born, he is
without the faculty of reason and thus he can be homesteaded
of sorts by his parents. This does not mean that the parents
have absolute control over the child as the child is its own
autonomous being after the moment of being born13. So upon
the parents would be a right to control the child, but not a right
to infringe on the child’s physical body other than as a
preventative measure. The child after acquiring the faculty of
reason and the potential to survive on his own can at any point
renounce the parent’s control over himself and become a free
human.
But children at young ages lack the faculty of reason and
lack the ability to survive on their own. This means that young
children are controlled by their parents whether they consent to
or not. When they are in such a situation the children cannot
consent to any act on their own. Even if they are not in a
situation where they are under the direct control of their
parents, they still are unable to consent to activities due to
lacking the faculty of reason and thus any infringement on the
child’s physical body would still not be possibly consented to.

13 This does not necessarily mean that parents have a right to their
childrens bodies before they are born, this just makes certain that they don’t
after the fact.
 There is a period of time in which the child has the
faculty of reason but is not yet self sufficient and has not let go
of the control of his parents. The child must also be unable to
consent in this situation on his own as the parents still retain a
right upon not letting the child make certain decisions as that
right has not been renounced. I will not touch on the further
relations on the relationship between parents and children as
doing such is not needed for the scope of this essay.
This all does not rule out the situation in which the
parents consent to some activity of the child, but the child does
not. We have established that due to the child being an
autonomous individual the parents cannot infringe upon his
body, which also means that the parents cannot invite anyone
else to infringe upon the child’s body. However, if the child has
parents that infringe upon his body or allow others to do so, the
child as an adult or upon realizing this should possess the right
to be compensated for the damage that this sort of behaviour
caused. This is no different from any other sort of crime and
should be treated by the same rules. If the child does not find
himself victimized after growing up, then we also must assume
that no crime took place.
We have here demonstrated how all but one situation is
clearly unacceptable. What of a situation where the parents and
the child consent, at a point where the child has themselves the
faculty of reason and the ability to make such decisions? This
situation will occur in many areas, but what of situations such
as sex where this behaviour can be damaging to the child? One
can argue that if there was damage in this case the child must
not have completely possessed the faculty of reason, because if
he had then he would have avoided this situation, so in this
case both the parents and the one who committed the negative
act are liable. One as inviting that sort of behaviour onto their
child against the interests of the child and the other as taking
advantage of someone who did not yet have the faculty of
reason.
To counter this you could propose that this situation
could apply in any case and not just with children, but this is
false. The child demonstrably at that point was not self-
sufficient, the only way to be sure that one actually does have
the faculty of reason is when they have previously used that
faculty to rid themselves of their previous guardians in one way
or another and established their own independence. This does
not also necessarily apply to a person whose parents are
sending him money to, as that money is a gift to an
independent individual. (However one of the conditions for the
sending of money could have been the prevention of one or
other types of behaviour.).
This means that it is in each contractor’s best interest to
see to it, that if they ever do business with a non-independent
person that they ensure that that person is aware of each of the
conditions. Since if the minor party is aware of every potential
and every situation that could come of this they cannot claim
that they were unaware of the consequences because of the lack
of reason. This logic could easily apply to consequences related
to work and other such innocent services, where the duties of
the child are simple and where the child can get his experience.
These also don’t possess many physical or mental issues if the
environment is safe.
However in situations such as sex and drugs, telling the
child of the possibilities and raising their awareness does not
work, as the child cannot possibly know what those acts could
involve. However, this applies only to the first person who
would make such a situation happen with a minor and not
nearly to the same extent with the subsequent ones.
There is still the case of a sexual relation that takes place
between two non-independent parties who both have not yet
demonstrably obtained the faculty of reason, neither party
could be blamed for the situation, if the situation involves
things such as drugs, even if either party has not completely
formed the necessary faculty, the person who invited him to
propagate those substances and whose substances ended up in
the hands of children, could be held accountable for his acts.
Every bit of this considered it should seem more and
more clear that it is basically impossible to foster a situation in
a libertarian order where it becomes possible to legitimately
abuse a child in a fashion that does not technically violate
rights. And it should also seem apparent that there are
safeguards against other potentially detrimental things such as
child labour in unsafe conditions and drug use among young
people. We do not need arbitrary rules to reduce real world
trauma.
 7. Dysgenics and Market Nobility

The notion that all men are created equal has been perverted
beyond recognition with changing language and we must
recognize our loss of this sentiment. When originally the
phrase was to express the notion that there are no people with
special rights because of their birth, it has now become to mean
that each person has the same chance to succeed if offered the
same opportunities. This notion is erroneous and utterly
destructive.
It is true that there is no objective divine mandate that
rises some people above others, but there is also no equality of
any kind to be found (other than the equality in non-violence, if
you really want to stretch definitions). Sadly many sects of
modern libertarian thought apply modern language to classical
concepts and as such create erroneous constructions.
I will here explain how the fundamental hierarchy from
birth is a beneficial phenomenon and something to be
protected. I will also explain how there is a process of
worsening the genetic makeup of our populations. Certain
people naturally have great skills to change the world, they can
be powerful orators, brilliant scientists, tacticians or
businessmen. These are the people who will achieve success
just due to their natural talents, and while doing so they will
greatly improve the lives of many people 14. These natural elite
are the reason why singular people have accomplished so many
great achievements and how groups of people often take a
secondary role.
No matter what movement or shift in society exists, it is
most often spearheaded by a small group of these natural elite.
From the scientific revolution to industrialization to the liberal
movement to the communist revolutions you see a select few
brilliant individuals leading the charge, even if they are
accomplishing things contrary to their own nature.
From this, we can simply infer that if we want a
functioning society we must nurture and secure the natural elite
as a foundation. These are the people fit to lead us and fit to
generate great advances in human society, and in a condition of
voluntary interaction they will be the leaders, as people seeking
out the best leadership will find the natural elite. However, in a
political society, the natural elite must inevitably be relegated
to a secondary role, replaced by the power-elite. The power-
elite, contrary to the natural elite does not, for the most part,
have these genius characteristics.

14 Provided that they are in a market society where negative externalities

must be internalized.
 To get power a person must have it be granted. No self-
respecting rational person would grant anyone power over
themselves, so the power-elite must always use coercion,
infiltration, demagoguery and breakdown of society to assume
their role. To them the spread of mental and social issues is a
blessing, it allows them a complacent population to leech off
of.
The power elite will only be comprised of people who
have no productive qualities. To want power a person must not
accomplish anything actually meaningful for themselves, the
person seeking to join the power-elite has no qualities to make
putting their skills to actual beneficial use possible. But this
creates another conundrum when the elite are one of power and
the people have experienced a reduction in their own good
qualities, then more people will seek to join the power elite.
This accelerates the desire for democracy and eventually fully
applied democracy in the form of communism.
There are situations where the natural elite use power
avenues to rise up to the power-elite. These are the times where
there can, in a political system, be prosperity. As the natural
elite for some reason (perhaps growing resentment of the
power-elite) gain control over the structures of rule these
structures can actually be functional. However this is rare as
the general tendency for the natural elite is to avoid these
structures as they can do better without any need for power,
due to their plain capability.
Any person cannot become a part of the natural elite, to
be a part of that group one must be extremely gifted. If the
natural elite reproduces with another capable person, their
children will bear great genetic advantages. But this is only
half the story. These natural elites will be at least moderately
wealthy, due to how great of a utility they provide. Their
wealth will be generated from market transactions as they do
not need involuntary gains due to their own prowess, and the
appreciation of which in a voluntary environment. When these
natural elites have offspring they will be able to raise the
offspring and the offspring will also have these genetic
advantages. But their children will be able to also have material
advantages. When this is the case the market nobility can be
born.
The market nobility is the phenomenon where certain
families due to their incredible capability are able to obtain
enormous amounts of wealth and pass it on from generation to
generation without losing it. This elite group of people will
cause great positive change. Most people see this wealth
concentration as a negative, but that is the opposite of the case,
this is a normal market process and it ensures that capable
hands will control resources, instead of people who are far less
capable of doing so. If the founding member of the natural elite
does not produce any viable offspring or births offspring who
cannot handle the wealth, the market nobility will not form or
will be cut off in a generation where wealth management will
be delegated to other, more capable productive agents.
However, the market nobility, while being productive,
might not be completely moral. Even without being parasitic
whenever there is a structure of state-power they could be
enticed to exploit it. In this case, they will not need to get
subsidies or other such state involvement in their production,
but rather they will aim to impose their own order or engage in
close relationships with the state to be able to obtain for
themselves more opportunities. As such the market nobility
will not get wealthy from the state but will use the state for
their own personal gain, leaving other market actors at a
relative disadvantage.
If this happens there is a tremendous problem when the
continuation of the lineage is not a part of the natural elite. The
child of the former natural elite will continue with the perks of
the market rewards of his predecessors and he will continue
with the advantages of state-manipulation. At this point he can
abuse the advantages gotten from the state without actually
being value-productive, transforming into the worst sort of
parasite. As such the order of market nobility cannot peacefully
take place in a statist order. For there to be true market nobility,
families must be allowed to lose their wealth when they stop
producing value.
The main issue facing the development of the natural
elite right now is the imposed regime of stunted development.
Poverty is being subsidized, schooling has been usurped and a
corporatocracy has been implemented by the state. Cultural
infiltrators have made the elite seem like the enemies as the
only existing elite are the ones of power. The moral and
cultural character of benevolent society has been eroded by
centuries of usurpation.
But even more than that there is an active program of
dysgenics taking place. This stems from a plethora of sources
but I will describe some of the main ones. The genetic
development of humans has been severely slowed and we must
engage in a sort of free-market eugenics if there is to ever be
hope for humanity.
Firstly a very important part of the dysgenic process are
both the feminist and sexual liberation movements. Feminism
has been pushing women to assume traditionally masculine
roles and painted traditional feminine roles as oppressive. This
is even worse with the capable women who have a great
genetic make-up that they could pass on. The feminist notion of
progress and gender equality has ensured that capable women
do not have the time to put into properly having families. Less
capable women are much worse at traditionally masculine roles
of earning an income and securing for their household, so they
can take the time off to have children.
But this goes both ways, feminists have also ensured in
the name of equality that men are oppressors whenever they
assume traditionally masculine roles. The less capable men will
fail more at assuming traditionally masculine roles, so they will
often be more likely seen as viable partners and as such will
also more easily find partners. Because men largely have a
lower sexual market value they will adapt the positions they
need to be able to reproduce, by doing so they will forsake
their own masculinity to not be oppressors and to be able to
reproduce.
Sexual liberation ensures that selecting partners is not a
long process of ensuring both social and genetic compatibility
but rather swift and random. This makes it certain that there
will be less improvement in the quality of newer generations.
Older generations will be replaced by more middling and less
capable ones.
Although the plagues of leftist ideology cause dysgenics,
another serious perpetrator is the state. Extensive guaranteed
social aid and other such programs have made it possible for
nonfunctional family units to artificially function. Mandates to
try to secure those non-functional families and prevent children
from exercising their right to leave negative environments is
leading to a prolonged dysfunctional familial environment that
produces less functional adults.
More than that, with the social programs, those people
who are not functional can easily have more children than
those who are more functional, as they do not lose anything by
having children. Cutting all social aid will not stop
impoverished children from immediately being born, but
humans adapt and lower classes will learn from experience
when they must be much more careful to not have children.
The state also created massive hysteria over the
ridiculous concept of overpopulation. Using faulty models and
concepts the culture of less population crept into the more
intellectually aware layers of society, who were also quicker to
reduce child mortality and as such have even less children. This
has created a situation where those lower in society, especially
third-world and other less capable immigrants are populating at
rates much faster than more than more intelligent and capable
demographics.
To have free market eugenics all that needs to be done is
to reverse cultural infiltration and cease guaranteed social aid.
Genetic improvement will be possible once we have a society
of people who respect themselves enough to be both capable
and have children. What needs to be done to achieve eugenics
in a voluntary situation is simply stop preaching false morality
and initiating redistributive policy.
A controversial topic when regarding society and it’s
advancement, especially the notion of dysgenics and eugenics,
is race. Even though modern culture has made it an unsavoury
subject, race is not something that can be avoided. Obviously it
is never pertinent to apply trends of large populations to
individuals, but that doesn’t change the existence of trends.
Firstly it is important to note that race is more than just
skin colour. Skin colour is just another feature developed due
to different groups of people developing in different areas. And
of course there are many different subsections of these groups,
but there are common features inside groups that have
developed in similar environments. So to generalize the notion
of race we look at evolutionary groups from different
continents and their common features.
As we have developed in differing areas, all races have
differing characteristics adapted to be able to thrive in their
environmental condition. As such all peoples excel at different
things and have different types of natural elites. We must admit
that if there were to be indiscriminate large scale race-mixing
the extraordinary qualities of all races would disappear into a
more middling combination, we can empirically observe this
phenomenon in latin america.
This is not to imply that it is always a negative to have
kids with someone of another race, as trends are not applicable
to individuals. This only means that if we wish to retain the
exquisite qualities of all peoples we must be extremely wary
and encourage people to find partners of a similar nature, who
will most likely be of a similar ethnic group. There being
exceptions do not negate the validity of general rules.
 8. Civilization and Natural Law15

In this chapter I will be expounding on the concept of natural

law and how it has been overly expanded. I will be making a
case that censoring speech is perfectly fine and using physical
force against people due to their political beliefs is perfectly in
accordance with the principles of natural law and liberty. I will
also be making the case for realistic libertarianism and the role
of discrimination in a truly voluntary society.
It is extremely important to realize that your liberty is
threatened by people preaching values that are in direct
violation of your rights. If someone advocates for murder of
innocents or other violence, it’s perfectly justified to respond
with violence, as at that point it is only self defence. The only
objection to this notion is the question if an opinion really can
be an aggression.
For this, we have to analyze multiple similar situations.
For example, most of us can agree that when someone is
making a direct threat, it is cause enough to take action, but
why would this not apply to indirect threats? When someone is

15 This chapter is extremely similar to some of the previous ones.

However, it approaches the topics tackled from a different standpoint so I
see it as a worthwhile addition.
advocating for violence in any of it’s form it’s a threat against
you, everyone else and the principles of rights16.
Another objection to this is that even a threat is still not
an act, but this is unrealistic. You don’t have to wait for
someone to shoot you to apprehend them, reaching for a gun is
enough. If you wait, you waste an innocent life for no reason,
the same with threats and opinions that directly encourage
engaging in violence. It is completely ethically valid, and some
might claim your moral duty, to use physical force to stop
people who aim to use violence against others.
Libertarians are inclined to stand up for liberty of all
sorts, to the extent that we often confuse it with freedom. Free
speech does not create a world with more liberty necessarily.
There is speech that aims to destroy liberty and even if it
accomplishes greater freedom to allow it, it would be
advantageous to eradicate if we want to preserve our own
rights, we must choose. Freedoms end where rights begin and
liberty is the proper acknowledgement of those rights. From a
pragmatic standpoint, this may not be useful, as when proper
debate is allowed our better ideas will win, from an ethical
standpoint this is completely justified.

16 One must note that per the definition of violence, self-defence is a non-
violent act, as violence must intend to damage while self-defence intends to
preserve.
 Also, it is important to note that our current conception
of free speech can not possibly exist in a libertarian social
order, even if we make the erroneous assumption that silencing
violence-advocates is unethical, one still only has free speech
on unowned or their own personal property, on any other
location you still have to abide by the rules of the rightful
owner of the property or be physically removed from their
premises.
In all of these cases, the degree of force cannot exceed
the degree of force that is being advocated by the person.
Doing so would be wildly inappropriate and increase the
amount of violations to the principles of natural law. For
example, it is not justified to kill someone who wants to
increase state-extortion a bit, but someone who advocates for
murdering people can be disposed of in any way necessary.
This is why conservatives and progressives can only justifiably
be peacefully removed from your property while communists
and national socialists may be executed.
Often you hear socially left leaning minarchist types,
usually mistakenly calling themselves classical liberals, talk
about how terrible discrimination is and how it’s completely
appropriate for the state to intervene. Obviously, this view is in
itself wildly inappropriate for anyone who wants to create a
voluntary society. Being forced to associate with people who
you do not wish to associate with is the opposite of having a
voluntary society where rights are respected.
The second, very important part, is that these people also
ignore how discrimination is a complete necessity for ensuring
a civilized world. To them, the only thing that is important is
that they feel as if people with incompatible characteristics
should be forced to live together and forced to work with each
other. These leftists with an appreciation for capitalism ignore
every instinct in humanity of maintaining civilization that is
compatible with one’s own self and want to impose their
egalitarian multicultural order based on nothing other than that
they feel like it.
This view stems from the leftist delusion that unity and
diversity are compatible or even complimentary. This is an
extremely orwellian notion. We must realize that people tend to
prefer other people with the same outlooks, moral judgements
and characteristics as they themselves possess. And we need to
understand that this leads to a vibrant world of healthy societies
as opposed to the multicultural dystopia of permanent tension.
Whenever people who do not tolerate each other and who
differ from each other are forced to live in proximity and
interact on a regular basis, there will be a tremendous amount
of conflict. Let’s say for example that there is a progressive
area, where everyone attempts to live an egalitarian, accepting
lifestyle and are united only by the view that this sort of society
makes them themselves the most satisfied. You will regularly
see various types of advocacy for sexual, religious and other
minorities. Suppose now that a deeply traditionalist christian
moved into this area. Suppose that she finds herself in disgust
of most of this minority-advocating and everyone in that
society finds her to be intolerable as she is not a part of their
experimental modernist lifestyle.
It would be advantageous for the christian to leave this
area, but other factors such as the fact that she has grown up in
this area or that this has some specific opportunities might
cause her to prefer this life. Her preferences impose a great
negative externality on everyone else in the area who is
disgusted at her personal views. They would all rather not
interact with her and maintain the social order that they wish to
find themselves in.
There is a simple solution to these negative externalities
that the christian imposes on the progressives. The progressives
should be in their full right to discriminate against the christian
in any way they wish and to leave the christian out of their
lives. No person should be forced to cater to the christian nor
should they be forced to interact with her.
This same logic applies to every other set of groups.
Whether it be white or black nationalist societies, socialist or
capitalist societies, pro-gay on anti-gay societies or whatever
other conflicting interest you can have, discrimination ensures
that conflict is mitigated through exclusion. People who do not
enjoy being together, no matter if you approve of their
personally held convictions, should not be forced to be
together.
Now we should hold a further discussion on natural law.
It is a premise of natural law that it must be universalizable and
that the qualities must be applicable to each person as there are
no objective measures to raise people to standards less or more
deserving certain rights and even if there were those standards
would not be easily observable. But why would one adopt
natural law in any case?
The answer has been clear to writers from Aquinas to
Hoppe. Natural law is adopted to have civilization and a
functioning society, to be able to exit the state of nature where
there is no condition of protection for your life, liberty, and
property and there is no conception of order and virtue. To do
this the classical liberals assumed that you had to go through a
government17, modern libertarian theory has provided many
adequate counters for this notion, but the principle remains the
same. A system of rights is the only way to maintain
civilization and this system is adopted for the explicit purpose
of maintaining civilization.
This being the case brings another drastic implication, if
you adopt a system of rights in order to preserve civilization
and the decivilizing forces are not immediately ended, is it
justifiable to take action against them? Cultural infiltration is
not an entirely statist phenomenon. In this fashion advocates of
degeneracy18 go against the reason why we would consider
rights in the first place, as this sort of social breakdown into
nihilist hedonism they urge will be the end of civilization.
The same logic applies to all preachers of self-
immolation, altruism and other forms of sniveling cultural
domination. You cannot build a society on the assumption that
each individual is worse than each other individual and as such
the good of the others must come first to every person. This is
the fundamental doctrine of altruism and creates a world of

17 I would here also say that the lockean notion of government is not a
state, but rather an antiquated way of putting forth a theory of private
defence, as his notion of government required the voluntary consent of
everyone involved and only dealt with protecting one’s rights.
18 An extremely important aspect of this is that the problem is not with the
practitioners of said degeneracy, a private person in their private domicile is
hardly causing any decivilization by committing degenerate acts.
people who despise the self, the other and life and will not be
able to maintain a civilized society.
This argument in itself is not conclusive. But the case
that the people advocating for principles contrary to the
purpose of adopting natural law can be justifiably persecuted is
enticing if not anything else. The one problem is that it’s near
impossible to objectively measure if something is causing
decivilization and this could legitimize moral feelings in the
case of law. With the principle of discrimination this conflict
can in large part be avoided by mutually segregating ourselves
into covenants.
Liberty
 9. The Freedom of Government

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the libertarian

community, not because of any fundamental error in our theory,
but rather the way in which we have advocated it and the
choice of words that we have presented. We don’t advocate for
lawless self interest or unrestrained capitalism, as both of them
are contradictions to us. But the general population once
confronted with our ideas and the way we describe them will
see it as advocating for that sort of scenario. I would propose
that more accurately the libertarian demand would be worded
as simply the freedom of government.
Here we do not define government as an entity that holds
a violent monopoly on the production of law and use of force,
but rather an entity that manages some area of social
interaction or the use of property. Whether this is done with a
theory of law applied to reality or simply some collective
agreement to establish social norms, it all would be considered
government. This only has the added requirement that it has to
be formal in some way or another and that informal social
relations are not necessarily a part of this government.
So if government is merely a formal agent of governing,
there is no libertarian objection to that, provided that people are
able to voluntarily choose this government. This is the freedom
of government that we advocate for. We can see it in this
manner: statists advocate for coercive government while we
simply wish to have free choice in that manner. This little
specific clears up most of the confusion there is about
libertarian theory, no longer can it be construed as a lawless
chaotic order, but rather one in which people are free to choose
their own government.
Would this not be the logical extension of the sacred
democracy? Would it not be the ultimate form of democratic
choice to be able to create and utilize a new government if
there is popular desire for such? And if you suppose that
human relations should be voluntary and that acts such as rape
and murder are immoral since they do not have the consent of a
participant, how is it not immoral to not let people choose their
own government? Of course, you could argue that you could
choose your government by moving, but this is nonsensical.
When a government deprives you of the freedom of
speech you do not accept it and simply move if you disagree.
In the same way that those basic freedoms are rights, so is the
freedom of government. You do not combat protectionism of
trade by moving to the country which your country is
protecting itself from, you advocate and try to implement free
trade. In the same manner, you do not comply with the
protectionism of government and simply move to a place with
a different government, but rather advocate for your basic right
to choose your own government.
If government is created with the consent of the
governed, there must be a way to withdraw that consent,
withdrawing that consent would simply result in the
establishing of a new government19. If government is not
created by the consent of the governed, what right does it have
to govern the people who do not consent? What entitles the
government for this sort of responsibility? How can a
government be legitimate if it is formed despite the wishes of
the people within it?
Because of this, it is fundamental that any government
that is not explicitly tyrannical provide the people a freedom of
government. Any government that lacks this basic freedom can
not be considered as anything other than a dictatorship of the
highest degree. It does not matter in which way the dictatorship
is organized if it’s a dictatorship of the democratic process or
the dictatorship of a concrete individual. As long as it can
dictate the government, it can dictate anything. The only right

19 One may voluntarily monopolize law and force in one area, in which
case I would define it as not a government alone but also an autostate. It’s
important to distinguish between states created by force and autostates.
that can guarantee liberty is the right to choose your
government and not only your governors.
Isn’t this sort of government not only the logical
extension of democracy, but also the logical extension of
autocracy? If everyone in themselves is the autocrat, the order
imposed is the most autocratic any order can be, but this
autocracy benefits from the fundamental democracy. This is an
autocracy without a dictatorship, one where each autocrat is
only an autocrat as much as he is worth being one.
The greatest implication is that the government which
governs without this right is in violation of fundamental rights,
in the same way that states such as the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea cannot be recognized as truly representing
the people, so cannot governments who do not provide this
simple right. A government that truly has the consent of the
people within it is a government that does not need to deprive
the right to create a new government, provided that the people
within that new government consent to it. And even if national
sovereignty is to be the ultimate goal, why does one nation
need one government?
Let’s suppose that a nation should be one concrete state
with one concrete law and that represents the interests of not
only the individuals but of the nation itself. In this case, why do
these laws and interests need to be advanced by a singular
entity? Why is not a competing entity fit to provide these same
services in a better way, if the people wish to see their nation
succeed why is it inappropriate for them to use different vessels
to accomplish that goal? The only choices without this simple
right are to overthrow the government in a revolution or an
election or to have your national interests represented with less
care and with more corruption.
There is also the fundamental law of the market, a person
wishes to obtain goods of the lowest price and of the highest
quality, which is why the person who produces the highest
quality product in the most efficient manner gets the most
customers. The person providing that product has then an
incentive to provide the best product. Government is more of a
service, but the same logic applies. Fundamentally government
would be forced to get better if it wishes to continue to exist
and prosper. We all would have more accountable and better
governments.
A wholly different debate is on the nature of the state, so
it’s unimportant at first to say if these governments that
administer law need to get their authority from some central
agency. However, I would propose that if there is competition
within governments, the state itself would not need to exist, as
these governments can provide the same services in a more
localized manner. And if they cannot provide unique services,
the efficiency of them is largely lost, however they would still
be greatly superior to the outright inefficiency of the present
system.
 10. The Curse of Citizenship

There are no points in time where you do not hear about

mystical civic virtues or duties. There is never a break from
obligation and responsibility being pushed on an abstract
concept- the citizen. The citizen is nothing other than a
condition imposed upon a person by the state and below I will
deconstruct why this is so.
It is often assumed that liberal democracy and other such
experiments create a true society, a civic one. This is the
complete opposite of the truth, the more civic a society is the
less social it is by nature. Of course in the current condition,
civic involvement and social interaction are tied, but this does
not erase the counterfactual of a non-civic society.
When someone becomes a citizen he becomes nothing
more than a citizen, as citizenship is seen as true personhood.
In this fashion, the state determines who is a person and who is
not. Citizenship is not something internal or designated by your
personal merits. Citizenship is only something that can be
given to you, it makes you a part of a nation and it makes you a
part of humanity.
Because of this, the state has assumed all control for
determining who is a human and who is a part of a nation.
There can be no discussion of national sovereignty or any
rights above the state, as the state becomes the nation and the
state becomes humanity. No one is a national and no one is a
human unless the state decides to make them so, all
constitutions and institutions of the state treat anyone who is
not designated by the state as a human as an unhuman.
Due to this, there are no rights except for those that the
state hands you, at least as long as we have this order of
citizenship. We surrender all of our liberty, our lives and our
property to the grandiose state just by conferring to them this
power to designate the human status of all people. This power
is the essential component to statism, it ensures that no matter
who you are the state will be present in every part of every
person’s life. There becomes a casual totalitarianism as a basic
condition, one that is never explicitly seen or mentioned, but it
is a totalitarianism nevertheless. One can not do anything
without the involvement of the state when one cannot even be
anything without the permission of the state.
The state becomes the true person, there is nothing more
human than the state when the state can decide who is human
and who is not. Everything essential to every individual
becomes the state, no matter where you look in any place you
will see the state behind it. The state does not actively use its
immense power to make people into unhumans, as that would
guarantee its demise. However because the state decides who is
human, the state decides what it means to be human and what it
means to be human is to worship the state.
There becomes no other condition of humanity than
obedience to the state. This is like someone being told that to
be a serf is to be a man, that you cannot be a man unless you
are a serf. But this is even worse, as the state is a complete
abstraction, full of these serfs. But some of these humans in the
state are aware of this and they are able to exploit the reign
they have in any way they wish.
Most people take democracy as a good above itself. They
view democracy as some sort of sacrosanct ritual, one that has
value simply for existing. But this is because democracy
creates the citizen, it creates the human, without democracy,
there can be no citizens as then the citizens become openly
serfs or a united people. Without democracy, there are only two
alternatives, authoritarian subjugation wherein the citizenship
becomes serfdom and totalitarian statehood where citizens and
the state are openly completely intertwined.
Without liberal democracy the state cannot designate
humanity, in every other case humanity or national status is
given and the other conditions are imposed. Only a liberal
democracy can fundamentally dehumanize people in such a
way and still seem as a legitimate institution. And further, it
can impose a moral duty on its citizens to become a part of the
democratic process and use their citizenship in such a manner
as to further validate the state.
Democracy is nothing other than regular regime change
as decided by the number of ballots. There is no will of the
people, but rather the will of the citizens, the abstraction
derived from other abstractions. The only way you can become
a person is by expressing your will as a vote, further
reinforcing the fact that you can only become a person if you
act in such a way. The only way to combat this democracy is to
completely deny any and all virtues of the ballot box in
conferring humanity.
Often you hear complaints about something not being
democratic enough, whether it is directed at corruption or the
DPRK. But that ignores that those things are the height of
democracy, the condition where there is no law and no
humanity other than what the state decides. Corruption within
the state is nothing other than the people who are creating the
illusion themselves being aware of the illusion. The DPRK is
as democratic as any other state, there is no definition of
democracy that wouldn’t incriminate all western states of being
undemocratic. And those definitions, if accepted, would
eventually invalidate democracy itself.
The government will always take place in determining
the outcome of the election, as no matter what the people
choose, it can’t be sovereignty or any other concept that goes
against the government, as that would certainly be outlawed if
there is this democratic state. If democracy needs to be free and
open then you run into the same problem, it would open itself
up to undemocratic choices. If democracy has to ensure that
people choose for themselves, it must localize to the maximum
degree, down to the individual. If democracy must follow the
will of the greatest number of people it must be a global state,
in which case it could be a consistent democracy, but also the
most oppressive regime there could ever be.
Another cry you often hear is that people do not take part
in local politics enough. But why should they? It’s not like
taking a vote or interfering with any local politics could
actually create anything beyond the overarching state.
Localism is, of course, better than any overarching system, but
if there is an overarching system that decides what local
institutions can and cannot do and if your humanity is
determined by the central institution, local politics become
nothing other than a tinkering with numbers.
 When there are no persons without the state deciding that
they are, communities become entangled within statecraft.
There is still as much room as the state lets there be for
interpersonal communities, organizations that are just for the
people inside them. But these organizations cannot ever replace
any function of the state, as the state needs its mandate and
needs to perform its functions to seem legitimate.
A community can never actually decide what’s going to
happen to it, there will always be a state intervention whenever
they go against the state. There can be no community that’s
anything other than a simple diversion for the people within it
as long as the state assumes functions. This is acceptable
because the people within that community are people that are
only people as much as the state lets them be and only to the
degree to which they are allowed to be people. These people
are not people on their own, but rather people by virtue of the
permission of the state.
There is no possibility to conceptualize any notion in
which the citizenship actually creates community, the best the
state can do is to let communities be free from it’s grip to a
degree. The only other thing the state can do is to allow
communities some degree of control to create a stronger
illusion of democracy. This is the wonderful civic nature of
community under citizenship. No matter how much a
community may want to self-determine, it can only do such out
of the mercy of the state. With citizenship, even the most basic
essentials of life become the mercies given by the state to
humans that it creates.
Citizenship also opens up a potential for the governing of
community, no longer can people associate of their free will,
but rather the state that makes them human must be
responsible. Any sufficiently popular voluntary initiative must
be taken over by the state, as the state has taken upon itself to
manage its population. If you have the power to create people
you must take for yourself the social bonds between people.
With this social order, there can be no direct connection of a
large scale, as inevitably that will become melded into the state
in one way or another.
 11. The Role of Co-Operation in Competition

One of the most common misconceptions about free-market

capitalist philosophy is that it’s either explicitly or implicitly
anti-social for encouraging competition. Whether it be
competition between firms or individuals, it is said that a
purely capitalist society in disregards whatever interpersonal
and intercompany ties there could be. These support and
information ties are beneficial, so it adds to the image of
capitalism as a destructive institution.
This view is completely wrong and I aim to demonstrate
why competition encourages co-operation to a certain extent. I
will also present a case why a lack of this competition would
destroy co-operation. Certain ideological sects are against co-
operation, but those are rarely or never libertarians (as the word
is commonly understood).
It has been consistently demonstrated that social ties lead
to better individual health and wealth. The more a person
intermingles with others the higher his quality of life is. The
only time this isn’t the case is when the people who he has this
contact with are people with negative traits and destructive
properties.
 This means that any philosophical or economic position
that deliberately aims to reduce interpersonal connection would
be completely and utterly evil and detestable. Whenever some
person wants to decrease social behaviour and make people
less connected, it must also bring with itself a destruction of
human prosperity. This means that if libertarians really did
want less connected people, it would mean that libertarians
want people to be less happy.
But this is not the case at all, the point debunks itself
immediately. Libertarians want all individuals to do whatever is
best for them and for most individuals the best course of action
is socializing, due to the benefits of social activity. Within a
context of voluntary association, those people who socialize
the most would be the best off, so there would be a giant
incentive for everyone to socialize.
These benefits are also economic. People often get their
jobs through people they know. People get aid from close
associates, which makes it possible to get over difficult
situations. So even if you wanted to pretend that all capitalists
care about is money, you would have to admit that even
monetarily social connectedness is a large benefit. And this is
not even mentioning the tendency for people with social
connections to earn more at their jobs. This means that even for
the coldest, most ruthless materialistic free-market advocate
social connectedness would be an incredibly valuable asset.
And these properties aren’t constrained just to
individuals but also for different companies. Having those
connections and assets provides the same benefits. Whether it
is a possibility of a joint advertising campaign or the increase
of sponsorships and information, these connections are very
important even among market entities that otherwise would be
strictly competing. But if this is the case and competition is not
the antithesis of co-operation, what is competition?
At its core competition is a process of making decisions
in a decentralized manner. People choose which products they
produce and where they allocate money. The essence of
competition isn’t corporate subterfuge or trumped up ad
campaigns aimed at each other, nor is it trying to ruin the other
person’s business. Rather, competition is the process of making
your product the most appealing to the highest number of
people, since if that is the case the voluntary decisions people
make will decide in your favour in a completely decentralized
manner.
Often competition is depicted as some sort of combat,
some sort of direct fight, but that is the wrong way to think
about it. There is nothing aggressive inherent in competition.
There can be aggressive methods used in competition, but
those are not the main ways to do such and most often these
would be illegal under any rational law system. In this way
competition is more like a race, sure it is useful to demoralize
the other party, but at the end of the day, you want to hone your
physical capabilities independently of anyone else. You must
become the best racer, rather than the most aggressive racer. If
you physically debilitate the opposition, in most cases you lose
the race due to being found out as a tamperer. This metaphor
goes even further, the fact that other racers are present makes
you have to constantly improve. Your competition makes you
become a better actor within that context. You can’t grow fat,
lose muscle, etc if it would mean losing your position, but you
rather need to make yourself better20.
As races don’t forbid the creation of groups to practice
(They may even encourage it!), so don’t markets. Different
competing businesses can co-operate without violating any
perceived sanctity of competition. No person who favours this
sort of market competition is against co-operation within
competition. The only thing we oppose is moving the decision

20 This analogy also describes the effects of removing the top competition
for being in a privileged position or aiding the people who cannot on their
own put up good results, it really is a good comparison with very important
implications for the way we approach competition.
making process to one based on the judgement of an external
party instead of the judgement of those involved. It really is
nothing other than making yourself as useful as possible and
spending your resources in the best way possible, if you aim to
gain the most benefit.
But in which cases would it be the most efficient to co-
operate within the competitive market? If the party with whom
you are competing benefits and you don’t benefit equally from
co-operation it obviously could be a horrible scenario for you.
You don’t want to lose your place in the market because of
your own mistakes. However we must look at cases where this
co-operation can increase efficiency, quality or accessibility as
those are the factors that cause profits to increase on a free
market for every party involved.
The easiest case of this is co-operation between
businesses who produce different products. Here, one product
cannot be replaced with another to a significant extent, so if
both get access to each others market, both parties benefit. This
can be a promotion between a company that produces chips
and a company that produces soda. They have an overlap in
potentially interested customers who are not likely to abandon
one product for the other. If they engaged in cross-promotion
or other such methods it provides a good low-cost
advertisement for both parties. This would greatly improve the
presence of both those products as more people are made aware
of them and introduced to them.
For the example of efficiency, we can take the concept of
private roads. It is obviously cumbersome and expensive to set
up toll systems on your own and pay people to maintain them.
In the modern environment, this would include web design,
apps and whatever else expenses to make it an experience that
isn’t horrible. It also needs frameworks with different banks
and systems of depositing money21. The same problem is
present with other road owners. They can use other methods of
income, for example advertising, but that may not be enough or
may be so distracting in excess that the marginal utility starts to
decline. To solve this, roads may set up unified passes, these
may be in the form of stickers or cards, but they would
guarantee access to all the different roads with profits from the
sale being distributed in an efficient pre-determined manner.
The profit could be spread out according to figures of miles
travelled on certain roads. This is much easier to track, with
just cameras that detect the passes or non-human checkpoints

21 An extremely interesting note here is that a similar framework is present

among banks, there are unified bank card systems that combine different
banks into unified debit and credit cards that are easy for businesses to
accept. However this is not a great example due to the cards being
functionally removed from the banks and the corruption within banking.
being more than enough, especially since these are things that
would be there anyway to prevent unqualified drivers or avoid
vandalism.
With quality, a great example would be the owners of
different companies sharing information to make their products
better. We can argue about the validity of IP law, but even
without it, each company could take contractual and other steps
to prevent their methods for being stolen. Let’s say there are
two producers of cars. One has figured out a better internal
combustion engine that uses less fuel, the other may have
invented a greater way to make cars much safer for the
consumers with some intricate safety system. These two
companies are both significantly better off if they share this
information. They are of course even better off if they can
come up with the system their competitor uses themselves and
improve their cars in that form, but that requires much more
resources and it’s often more profitable to just exchange this
information. Because of this both companies can share their
information to profit more22.
But how could a reduction of competition reduce co-
operation? It may seem logically that in an economic system
where there is less pressure to provide a better product for a

22 This is visible in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

greater profit, there is more incentive to share your information
with other parties on the market, rather than keeping it to
yourself. This is a huge argument used against capitalism, as
some “united humanity” would hold much greater productive
capabilities. But this ignores that taking away competition
removes the incentive to co-operate. Without needing to
provide a better product than the rest you don’t need to
improve your product, you may consistently provide the same
product and not have to go through any degree of change.
Because there is no need to improve your own quality there is
no need to co-operate to increase your quality.
In some abstract sense, it may be more co-operative if
there was no pressure of improving, but this co-operation could
not be as constructive in any form. The market incentivizes co-
operation since it rewards personal growth, without this
personal growth aspect to it, the reason to co-operate would not
exist. This sort of organization would be more aesthetically
pleasant to the weaker sort of people who cannot handle
pressure of the more aggressive aspects of competition, but by
nature it must lose the co-operation that was present on the
market.
There would be a new form of co-operation in a non-
competitive environment, but that form would be an idle
intermingling. There would not be any great innovation or
sharing of resources, but rather just a lazy intermingling of
different parties only to make themselves more comfortable.
This is not to say that this sort of low-effort socialization isn’t
beneficial to lift spirits and create camaraderie, but it’s not a
good basis of economic organization.
And even more so, the same people who wish the
economy was less competitive are the people afraid that the big
companies within the economy are too friendly. They worry
that this free “non-competitive” economy would bring about
economic ruin due to artificial price gouging and other
underhanded tactics. Because of this they often insert the
government as the ideal institution to reduce the competition
within the economy.
But this approach is not true, cartels are not a form of
sustainable, long term organization, provided there’s no
government aid. If you cartelize an industry there is a giant
incentive to enter that industry while not being a part of the
cartel for the potential easy profits you can obtain by lowering
prices. Cartels also suffer from the flaw that they unevenly
benefit the worst off within them. Without cartels, the most
efficient firms would be advantaged in the quality and pricing
of products, so they become disadvantaged and it becomes
much preferable to exit the cartel so they could have the market
share of the less beneficial firms.
Because of these factors, cartels are incredibly hard to
sustain on the market. Ironically the largest cartel is the labour
union system, which effectively aims to cartelize the entirety of
the workforce. You rarely see any opposition to labour unions
from the people who are against other cartels.
 12. Reverse Claims to Property

Questions about landmarks and unused property are often

neglected in libertarian theory, this is because there is barely
any good answer other than just privatizing it. However, I
propose that this can be handled with the logical inverse of
traditional property ethics and that this is the only way in
which we can accurately and consistently do this. Due to how
this is so alien to traditional libertarian theory I may be in
complete error over some technicality, however, I think the
claim itself is valid.
The traditional libertarian ethical position on property
can be described as the first improvement theory of acquisition.
This is because the theory holds that to justly own some
property, one must first improve it by their labour and they
must do so without disturbing the improvement someone else
had lain in place before they did. For example, if you were to
build a house, that house would be yours and so would the
immediate ground under the house, as it was made useful by
your labour, or someone else’s labour that they gave to you via
contract.
This is one of the many good explanations for why
libertarianism creates prosperity, to own something you cannot
take it away from someone, but rather have to use your own
skills to claim something, because of this, ideally, destruction
would be excluded from society and effort would perpetually
improve the conditions within that society, provided there is
more than the bare essentials for survival and some of that
effort goes into investing for the future. Fundamentally in a
libertarian society, there is no way to reverse economic growth
at a basic level, there may be natural disasters or unforeseen
circumstances, or a disruption to the market by violence, but
utility is consistently maximized under that concrete economic
condition.
However, here we run into a conundrum. If any person
may use the property that is not claimed by another in any way
they wish, they could also bring actual destruction into a
libertarian social order without interfering the perceived
market. Someone could burn down and use the equivalent of
agent orange on unclaimed forest and render that land unusable
for anything other than realty purposes. This could be fine but
provided that these realty purposes would eventually be
realized, it will be destructive until they are.
The same goes for landmarks such as the Grand Canyon
and Mount Everest. Why should someone not be able to use the
Grand Canyon as a landfill and why should someone not be
able to strip mine Mount Everest? There can be no way of
claiming the entire areas by effort, so there can be no way of
securing the property in those areas and ensuring that such
valuable places do not succumb to immediate profit seeking.
Probably a purist approach would be to just either create a
foundation for paying off anyone who wished to use the
canyon as a landfill or to create a company delegated with
managing the canyon, this may seem sufficient to the purists
who only view preferences as expressed by action, but I don’t
think this is the logical end of libertarian ethics. It also has the
problem of creating a mass of rent-seeking. Every time a big
corporation would want some extra money, it could promise to
fill up the Grand Canyon until they are given that money.
I would posit that since ownership is obtained by
improvement there must be an inverse ownership obtained by
destruction. This is the simple action of looking at the negative
from the basic premise. If the first improvement makes a
person a legitimate owner then the first destruction makes a
person a legitimate un-owner. The inverse of ownership cannot
logically be a state of not owning, as that is simply the absence
of ownership.
You can use things you own for your personal ends in
any way you wish, this means that the reverse of ownership
must provide something that you have to use your personal
means for. In a concise sense, you profit from ownership and
you must thus lose from un-ownership. But there has been no
person who you have victimized with this, so how could this
be? It obviously is not a crime as any person has not been
harmed, but rather an entirely new state of being.
This state of being would lay onto you a duty, which is
the inverse of a right, and the only logical duty there can be is
to renovate the thing you un-own to be in an improved or a
natural condition. This may be as easy as simply planting seeds
or letting a forest grow back on its own, it could be as hard as
having to hire people to clean the Grand Canyon of the filth
you have dumped into it. This is also a clean answer for
pollution, even beyond the infringement of property claims. If
you use a river for the purposes of dumping your toxins, you
have achieved an un-ownership, rather than an ownership of
the river and thus have to ensure that the river is able to be
clean and then figure out a way to neutralize your waste so it
doesn’t create this state. However would this not completely
forbid any disposal of waste that isn’t complete?
If such a theory would hold that there can be no disposal
of waste, it would be absurd. However, this is not the case. You
just have to use an area without any real value beyond the
potential utilization of land. A river on its own provides a
valuable resource, which is clean water, so that is not fit for
using for such purposes.
This could easily be enforced through courts, an
environmentalist organization proposes a case alleging a
polluter of having himself gotten this duty of un-ownership and
thus having to fix the area. Here there can be no objective
measurement of market price of land, as land that is not owned
cannot be bought and sold, this means that the only possible
way to solve it is to utilize the land well or to revert it to its
previous state. With the simple introduction of the logical
reverse of the orthodox theory, we have solved most problems
with environmentalism and desecration of natural beauty.
Another interesting implication is the one on suicide,
when a person threatens to kill himself or does so, he not only
loses ownership of his life but rather enters an un-ownership in
which he is destructive of himself. This is the basic lockean
objection to suicide, but explained without the necessity of
including god or functionally defeating your own point with
the theory of the state of nature and the state of war 23. This also

23 In lockean theory, a man who is in a state of nature and has not himself
embraced natural law has no real ownership of himself. A person who enters
a state of war declares outright aggression and can then be eliminated. A
person who wishes to commit suicide under lockean theory just has to reject
the law of nature or declare himself an aggressor.
is an objection to the friedmanite obligation of letting a person
commit suicide and having interference with that be immoral.
A person who wants to destroy his own life not only declares
that he is not an owner of his life anymore, but that he is the
un-owner and as such can be forced to return his life to the
natural condition of it, as such being again owned by him. This
would legitimize involuntary detention of suicidals, provided
that this is only as far as it helps them revert to the state of not
being suicidal.
 13. Who Watches the Watchmen

The most common objection to the libertarian order of police is

that the police could, with enough effort, take over the land and
act as a substantially more oppressive government. However I
will go through the reasons for why the market minimizes this
risk, the state increases it and why the governments controlled
by the libertarian police would be much less oppressive than
any state. The goal of this chapter is to properly answer the
question: “Who watches the watchmen?”
The state is only ultimately responsible to the state, there
is no higher power, aside from an even larger state
encompassing the smaller state. Even when there is a pretend
popular mandate with democracy, a democratic election cannot
abolish the state. There is absolutely no chance that such an
election won’t result in the candidate who promises to do such
an act being banned or suppressed under any potential charge
the overcomplicated legal system of the state can come up
with.
Even if there is no state action taken against that person,
the other people within the political system and within the
media industrial complex will do so effectively enough. For
these people, it is absolutely vital that there is no drastic change
within the order of the state. This is coupled with the fact that
modern egalitarian democracy is open to everyone who is
eligible to enter a voting booth. This means that people can use
voting as a job, if they vote for a person who gives them
enough money to survive until the next election cycle, they
functionally have a vote that’s completely bought. With voting
being an incredibly easy job, the more people realize this, the
more will be “working” in this fashion and until the system
crashes, the more people there will be to do such a task.
And even if you convinced 51% of people that there
should be no voting and no government, the international
jackboots would be in the country by the first day. The
government by dissolving itself only leads itself to be claimed
and operated by some other party, as the international codes,
which in turn are created by unelected officials, dictate that
each person must live under a government. Because of all of
this, the state is secure.
And when there is the state, the state will act at least as a
watchman. The state will provide the security and it will fund
itself using coercively obtained funds from the population,
there is no scenario under which the state is responsible to
anyone else as demonstrated above. Even the hallowed
international community is more than hesitant to take any
action against such atrocities, they only will ever interfere if
they think that the people should be more firmly under their
thumb, this only means that the watching of the watchman is
done by a malicious despot, who himself is not watched by
another watchman.
There is the chance that a population (if it has not been
disarmed), will rise up and declare itself a new political entity,
but they just replace one government with the other and leave
the state intact. Even if they are secessionist, more often than
not the goal of their secession is to split up the political unit
and not to get rid of it. An armed resistance cannot defeat the
state, international intervention will never defeat the state, and
the state will always ensure it’s survival. Of course this is
provided that there is no highly motivated resistance that
focuses on the immediate and complete abolition of the state,
however, this is not relevant to the present discussion.
Participatory democracy is then an utter sham, there is no
way a person is able to decide anything, they cannot vote to
have a more suitable social order if it goes against the will of
the political elites. And this is completely ignoring that the
lines drawn for democratic votes are arbitrary. For what reason
should the united states be one democratic entity? There are
multiple cultural groups within that state and multiple smaller
administrative units subject to the larger units, the same logic
applies to most other states just as well. And if the democratic
votes would be drawn around people who wish to associate as
one democratic entity, could they not also be drawn along the
lines of the individual? Or if it’s important to do this according
to culture, should they not be reduced to the smallest units of
neighbourhoods or households? As long as this is not the case,
we cannot even pretend as if democracy is a counter-active
force to the state in any manner.
Even further than that, we can assert that a democracy
only serves to benefit the state as if the state can use this facade
as a seemingly operational check to its power, it can get more
power without resistance. There is a completely clinical and
legal way for people to seemingly resist the state, however as
demonstrated above this process can only shift the direction of
the state. The only real threat to a state is the prospect of
secession into anarchy, which is not a likely event at the
present moment.
The libertarian answer is more complex. If all defence
agencies decided one day for some reason to form an
incredible, unprecedented cartel and gain control over all
territory, no person could individually stop them and they
would have an actual state again. If one defence agency got big
enough to utterly dominate, there would be the exact same
issue. But here we run into many problems, first, this situation
is frankly absurd. Defence strategies are easy to emulate
provided that there is no state, there is no distinct advantage
other than maybe agreements with the producers of weaponry
and a service that better caters to the interests of the consumers.
On the market, they will always have competition.
This means that the best way for defence services to
enlarge their profit is to provide the most localized service
possible and as such be fairly decentralized if they did not do
so, someone else would take their market share from a locality
as they can better cater to the interests of that area. This
reduces greatly the risk of defence agencies taking over. The
other thing is that it’s costly to do battle, if there are no
restrictions of gun ownership, there are few people without
guns and as such few people able to defend themselves. At
every corner, the potential conquerors would see armed
resistance. Another problem is that the people within the
company would most likely not go along with such a plan.
Even when a corporate leader is power hungry, a grunt who
only wants to defend people can just invoke the claim that he
will not violate the law (as it would be independent from the
police) and he will not risk his life to secure power for a person
who is only functionally a manager or an owner.
This situation is not a valid criticism of the system, but
there is a more complex one: “what if the local, decentralized
organizations wanted to secure their market share and as such
force people to use their services?”. Here is the greatest
example of why the libertarian system is perfect. The other
watchmen watch the watchmen. A person may simply just hire
another company to defend himself against the invasion of the
thugs who are acting as a mafia. Even if this former defence
agency turned gang manages to collect most of the coerced fee,
even if they do not suffer significant losses and manage to have
a levy multiple times the former cost, soon the other agencies
will drive them out of their position, as there will be much
swifter payment and much more demand for external agencies
to save the people in danger.
This is because a person is willing to give much more to
be defended than the attacker can take if they predict that the
attacker will come to loot again. It’s much easier to pay a set
fee for a period of time if it means that in the future you are not
the target of any organized crime. And you can pay the agency
at least as much as the other agency would have taken from
you from the money you have saved.
 And here again I need to bring out another fundamental
point, the singular watchman also watches the watchmen, if the
employees of such an exploitative firm do not agree with its
practices, they may desert the firm or even put up active
resistance against its activities. There would be nothing that
would make the services provided by the company legitimate
in themselves as it does not start off as a state, this is the most
common and detrimental misconception. It’s not as if the
defence agencies will form the same monolithic police, but
rather a business structure that provides the service formerly
provided by the police.
Even under a dictatorship, the private agencies cannot be
as oppressive as the state is currently. They lack the perceived
legitimacy of the state and as such cannot ever properly obtain
the necessary compliance required for dictatorship to properly
work, this compliance lends itself to the efficiency in exerting
authority, and without this efficiency, authority is much less
profitable. Due to this fact there is a great advantage in not
using plain authority, but rather leaving people to be as free as
possible, and only collecting the tithes necessary to continue
their existence and prosperity.
It is also important that the people will least miss these
tithes and as such that there is the least amount of destruction
and interference in the economy. If there were destruction and
interference, it would destroy the wealth required to raise the
funds coercively and make it less efficient to collect the wealth
of others. The new state also needs to ensure that the people
within it do not find enough cause to actively revolt, as that
also requires a lot of money to suppress, so they would be best
off leaving the people within as alone as possible while
collecting these tithes. Eventually, this state would grow larger,
but if a population managed to topple a modern state, there’s no
reason why it could not topple this one.
The only change within this sort of situation of control by
defence agencies comparatively to a traditional libertarian-
minarchist social order is limited redistribution, only as far as it
would lead to formerly impoverished people starting to work,
thus paying the tithes and the amount of money that goes to the
former defence agency. This is undesirable but nowhere as bad
as any current governments are. Any image of unchecked
security companies is false, as security companies are checked
by the internal pressures to retain their wealth and power, if
nothing else, which they cannot do by brutally exercising it, as
they do not have the legitimization of the state.
Another issue with this approach is that if one admits that
it’s undesirable to have such a state formed by the police, it
must also be undesirable to have a regular state. If a person
does not express this desire of theirs to, in an ideal world, live
without the state, any argument they make against this scenario
is just verbal sleight to confuse the libertarian. They do not
actually believe that statelessness has any merit, but only want
you to embrace statism by threatening you with statism.
 14. National Defence Without Coercion

Other works have explained in detail how the state fails at

providing defence and how there are inherent contradictions in
the current system. I don’t aim to focus on the state in this
chapter or talk about some vague theory of the market or
warfare, my goal here is to demonstrate how market entities
could and would beat large, centralized states. There are many
legitimate practical concerns by ordinary people who are not
concerned with “public goods” theory or Hobbesian
philosophy, this is mainly to answer those questions.
The most often heard criticism of having military and
large-scale defence in private hands, is that it could never
match up to an actual conqueror. It may provide a deterrent to
some forces without sufficient armies, such as other libertarian
forces, but if compared to an actual army or a driven warlord,
there is no chance of effective resistance. Because of this, you
have to adopt the state, if you would not you would be
conquered by a state.
But this ignores that the state in the first place is as bad a
conqueror as any other, it may mask itself behind a will of the
people or social contract or some notion of being a necessary
evil, but fundamentally it is the usurper of a large land area. It
has conquered whoever is in the territory it holds, and the
territory it holds is gotten from those it has conquered. The
state itself is the greatest fear with a libertarian production of
security. One may counter this by saying that the state is the
least bad state, the alternatives of a Hitler or an Attila are worse
than the relatively forthcoming states of today.
However, why would you expect that the alternative is
some egregious despot bent on destroying liberty, it may be
true that the current states are relatively hands off when it
comes to things that would outrage their population, but every
corner of the world is micromanaged to the detriment of the
population. You can only drink the milk the state approves,
while high fructose corn syrup laden sodas are okay. You are at
liberty to completely ruin your body, but only in the ways the
state approves.
And with conscription, jury duty, civil service and other
countless state programs that amount to forced labour, you can
not even object that we have averted that. Furthermore, in most
western countries the government controls around 40% of the
total revenue in an economy, no matter who you are, around
40% of your labour goes to the state. In this sense you are only
free for 60% of the year and spend over a third as a functional
slave.
 The only thing that we can yet say is not comparable to
the horrors of certain totalitarian regimes are the absence of
concentration or death camps. Although the current prison
system and state-sanctioned abortion providers come fairly
close. It’s not as if prisons persecute jews or homosexuals, but
how is that of any relevance? If what matters is that some
group relevant to the progressive cause is persecuted, then the
blight of harsh sentences for mild or victimless crimes becomes
irrelevant, even though it does not change any actual ethical
consideration.
The state is upheld by ideology, it requires people to do
its will to survive, the president cannot collect taxes and
conquer other nations. If every person suddenly resisted the
state, there would be no state, this is also true with the
citizenry. With the bloated budgets and deficits that the state
holds if just 10% of the top 50% of taxpayers stopped paying
all taxes (expropriated from these people is over 90% of the
total revenue), the state would collapse in on itself fairly
quickly. And it’s almost impossible that a state will extort that
mass of people.
Even though this means that even though there is no
actual consent given to the state, it can only exist if it is
functioning on a tacit agreement and non-resistance, an
ideological motivation does not need to be tied to the state and
every good part of the ideological position can be replicated on
the free market. A person working in a private military may be
as or even more of a patriot than a person working in a state
army. The involvement of the state does not somehow bless the
institution it has become a part of. There is no magical element
that makes the state run organizations better or more humane
than privately run organizations.
It is even healthy for that to happen, a private
organization aimed towards defending a nation should follow
the values of the nation and it should be nationalistic. A
military that aims to defend property rights should also have a
staunch ideological stance that favours those property rights.
Even if we would say that this is all baseless and asinine and
that private companies do not have to do anything, it is an
extremely good resource.
A person who wants his nation defended would do that at
the hands of the corporation who provides at least an apparent
devotion to that nation. This aspect is a great comfort to
anyone, and as such a good business strategy, if nothing else.
You wouldn’t want a person whose interests are establishing a
global government to have control of massive funds and thus
massive amounts of military equipment. Likewise, you
wouldn’t want any army that has a mass amount of defectors
due to them having no loyalty to what they’re defending.
Private armies must embrace some amount of ideology if they
wish to get the business necessary, although this ideology will
only consist of the good parts of state ideology
We cannot dismiss the value of nationalism when it
comes to private defence. It keeps troops from defecting and it
keeps the military out of the affairs of other nations while being
motivated to secure the prosperity of the nation its defending.
Nationalism is also the solution to people who do not pay the
military, but that will be discussed below.
The same logic goes with property rights, a private army
should not be one that directly interferes with the rights of
property, and should thus have a solid ideological stance
towards the right of people to own property. There would be a
strong market pressure to not aggress on property even if there
was no formal ideological stance, but having that position is
again a great decision from a public relations perspective. A
private military cannot ever adopt a message that goes against
nationalism or property unless their goal is to not defend, but
rather become a state. That sort of military is not beneficial to
most people interested in patronizing the services of the
military for their personal defence.
 And an ideological commitment to property would be
present in any land area that has done enough to rid itself of the
state. It could not have put up the resistance in the first place
were it otherwise, so there is no reason that the people willing
to fight in the first place are not willing to keep fighting against
any oppressor. This is a very strong motivator in itself.
There is a fundamental truth often ignored about any sort
of defensive military, it serves as a form of insurance against
potential damage. The purpose of such a military geared only at
defending the people who keep it up is to protect them from
potential damages, much like an insurance company does. The
military is not some hallowed concept, but rather the simple
agent within an economy that protects the economy from
foreign damages.
The further importance of this notion is that insurance
companies can provide the military. The reasons for this are
threefold. Firstly a private person does not possess the tools to
accurately assess which person is the best to provide a navy or
which person is best to defend against nuclear weapons. There
would be companies that review the military firms, but the
individual who may trust a flawed review may get into a rough
situation. If he is robbed and the police agency does not help or
if he has a bad dinner without proper compensation, he is only
at a small loss, if his home is taken over by some foreign entity
or he is killed, he has a giant issue at hands. An insurance
company can aggregate the results from different reviews and
itself send inspectors when necessary.
The second reason is that whoever provides insurance
has an interest in making sure he never has to pay the people he
is insuring. This means that he’d rather make sure that there is
never an invasion than suffer from the consequences of having
to pay people for property damage and lives lost. There is
obviously an option of providing insurance without any
protection from war, but the people patronizing such a
company would have to take upon themselves the risk of
military interference. This also helps us to deal with the issue
of people not paying for the military, they’d simply not be
compensated for any damage, provided that they are not paying
for the military and that it subsequently fails.
The third reason for an insurance company to take
responsibility over providing military is the one mentioned
above, they both serve a similar function, protecting a person
from risk. This means that there is a high degree of
substitutability of one service to the other as the reasons people
have for adopting the services are similar. Due to the
calculation problem and market pressures, a merger is not
profitable for either, but a high degree of co-operation and thus
making sure that people do not choose one over the other is
beneficial to both parties. This does not mean the total erasure
of choice, one could still independently purchase insurance and
military, but the combination of the two is an option that
everyone ultimately benefits from, as with increased customers
insurance companies and militaries could both lower the
amount they charge.
Another part is simply the convenience of this
arrangement if this sort of paradigm shift would arrive, people
who are already insured could easily pay more from the
amount they formerly paid to taxes and it would be convenient
to them to do it so simply. On the other hand insurance
companies have enough resources to hire militaries sizeable
enough to protect the people they are defending. And military
companies would rather not spend time and resources on
advertising their presence to the general public if they can just
pitch their services to the insurance company.
A very real and very legitimate concern is that some
people just wouldn’t pay and thus there would be an
underproduction of security. This is because it is assumed that
whether you pay or not the military still defends you, this is not
true as described below, but we might just assume that this is
the case. Even if this were correct, this would not be easy as it
sounds, after all, people tip without any legal obligation to do
so.
It would firstly be considered very impolite to not pay for
the military in any capacity. People do not like others using
their money without their own consent to any degree and they
do not like the people who use their money. There would be a
high degree of social exclusion of those who have not paid the
fees for military, and it’s advantageous for local branches of
insurance companies to keep a database of all people within the
area24, and it’s additionally beneficial for them to share the
names of people who have not provided payments to the
military. This could even go so far as to have potential
employers make sure that the future employee has been paying
the insurance premiums, as to not face backlash over
employing someone who benefits from others in a parasitic
fashion. If they are not paying for military, the conditions of
employing that person would be to deduct the insurance from

24 This could not be compulsory, but it could be achieved. If these

companies had agreements with hospitals to keep track of all people born to
already assess the additional risk of having children as it pertains to parents,
and if these companies kept records of unsavory characters or got access to
privately issued confirmations of age and identity, they could easily
aggregate these into databases. And if they do so they would also benefit
from sharing these collections with other similar institutions, as both get
new info at no additional cost.
the paycheck and pay for the person if he doesn’t pay it
himself, or to just not employ him at all.
Further than that this shared information would put these
persons at risk for any terroristic activities, if some people
know that they are not going to be stopped in an area where
people don’t pay for defence, they will commit their terrorism
in that area. If this doesn’t result in an immediate influx of
additional fees to the military, the area itself is doomed for
other reasons than just not paying this fee. It is still
distinguished from taxation, as there is no direct compulsion
for not paying, but as with anything else, one has to live by
their choices and suffer the blowback they get.
Furthermore if a person has any sort of patriotic or
nationalistic spirit he will pay the fee to ensure that his nation
is protected, even further, he might even pay additional
amounts far beyond the required sum (there may be a named
commemorative token issued for such people to appeal to their
love of the nation). The neo-conservatives and fascists of today
who yearn for heightened military presence would then have to
be willing to put their money where their mouth is and pay far
greater sums than required to get the additional military
presence they want.
 This social pressure also aids with the reduction of any
interventionist plans, for example, it is true that some people
may want to go die for Israel, but they cannot use the money of
others to do so. If the health of a jewish country in the middle
east is less valuable to me than the money spent on protecting
it, I am free from having to pay to protect it. If the foreign
cause was deemed unjust, there would be social pressure for
people to stop protecting it. This could end up working the
other way around, where people are willing to pay for aid to
Israel because there is social pressure to do so. Israel on its
own is inconsequential, there would only be aid amounting to
around 20 dollars per adult, however, coupled with all other
foreign ventures, the figures become very significant. This is
especially so in areas where the public has no interest of
fighting in, and which may be undemocratic, but not repressive
enough to motivate people to pay extra.
A very brutal, but potentially necessary way of dealing
with this issue is dividing the land up into sections and only
protecting those where enough people pay for it to be
profitable. Were this to happen, the social pressure to pay
would be so immense as to serve as a functional guarantee of
payment. If for example, the former state of Texas did not
collectively promise to contribute the amount of money
required to have a profitable military, opportunity cost
included, the military would simply not do its business in Texas
and leave it to fend for itself. Practically these areas would be
divided by different means, but the same concept remains. If
some area is not willing to pay for protection in a sufficient
amount, then protection could just not be provided to the
entirety of that area.
To incentivize people to sign up for the military, the
company could offer special privileges to those who do. In this
way, even though abstract defence is not very individually
dividable, the concrete service is. We discussed this previously
in the advantages of providing security through insurance,
there the special privilege provided to the person is the ability
to get compensated should he be harmed by a war. But this is
not the only kind of extra service a military can provide.
There is the immediate solution of giving plaques, flags
or other tokens to those who have paid for putting on their
lawns, flagpoles, houses or businesses. These would signify
that a person has paid for the military, ease whatever social
pressure there was to pay them would be alleviated and further
in times of conflict help the military identify people they are
supposed to protect. Each person could also be provided with
an identification card, signifying that they are worthy of
protecting, which they would carry around constantly. With a
more dangerous and modernistic technology, there could even
be subdermal microchips to help identify those who have paid.
These help greatly in situations where they can’t carry the card
and if the conditions are not such that they are visible (in such
a situation where the defenders are in aerial vehicles or in a
heavy downpour, for example.) or there can be no fingerprints
taken, additionally these chips are also not forgeable, which
helps with weeding out any potential fraud.
The additional services may include access to secured
facilities, military zones or bunkers. These areas can be heavily
limited and can house people in a relatively safe environment
in times of war. If you have not paid for your military
subscription beforehand, chances are that admission will be
extremely costly, if it is even possible at all. The people who
have not made the regular contributions would thus miss out on
many chances of keeping themselves safe and may much more
easily fall for the carnage.
Additionally, the military may provide extra benefits to
areas that have an extraordinary rate of being able to make
their payments. Good military facilities and crisis centres or
hospitals may be located in such areas for people to access, this
may even be the case at times when they are not at war. In this
way, the military may provide crude healthcare at no cost to
people who have problems that can be solved with the
expertise of idle medics. This would provide a further incentive
for a society to pay, as they could qualify for a much more
valuable status with further increased protection.
One extra benefit could be the access to weapons at cost.
There could be no additional profit charged if you bought a
standard-issue rifle or pistol from a military facility. This
would only apply if you were paying for the military. People
looking to arm themselves would get a very significant benefit
from such an arrangement. This would more likely than not be
limited per individual, so as to not get people buying and
reselling the weaponry. It may not save significant sums of
money, but it is a good gesture and individually huge.
A valuable service could be to be able to undergo a
limited period of military training, provided that there are
vacancies. If there is peace and not so many recruits as to
overburden whoever is training them at the moment, civilians
could join in if they aim to improve their physical conditions or
weaponry skills. They would not be forced to do so and they
would be devoted no extra attention to, but having a
professional trainer who you can visit at your leisure for high
intensity training is extremely useful. People who cannot
handle the most extreme exercises would be excluded from
those, but those people already have more incentive to
purchase military protection.
Another perk could be the use of army facilities if a
person who already has paid the insurance finds himself
homeless for some reason. These people could be provided
housing at the barracks for no additional cost to the military,
provided that they keep them in order and don’t cause any
damages to the facilities. There would be a time limit, as to
prevent abuses of this system, but people who have taken this
precaution would not have to fear living in their car.
We must now tackle the alternatives to such a military, as
on a free market these would always arise. An alternative to an
organized military is a militia, it may seem at first glance that
such a haphazard type of defence is not enough for anything,
but this would be wrong. Communists may have adopted
guerilla tactics themselves, but these are extremely useful for
any militia and using this type of strategy they can beat armies
of much bigger size. Militias have the advantage of being able
to use the houses and resources of the population that supports
them. They do not have to constantly obtain gear and can thus
sustain themselves indefinitely while fighting. If they target the
supplies of the enemy, attrition will eventually win.
 Tanks and air strikes may kill multiple guerillas, but they
also will have civilian casualties and the guerillas have family
and friends. When a domestic entity is targeted by a foreign
one, that foreign entity will only become more hated within the
domestic population. This will eventually result in a situation
where killing a guerilla only produces more guerillas.
And expensive cumbersome equipment may be disarmed
in inexpensive and swift ways. One well placed missile or mine
can destroy a tank or a plane worth millions, this makes
fighting these wars much more expensive than they’re worth.
And militias are fairly dispersed, even though they are in
communication. This means that there can be no massive
assault in the same fashion there can be on an organized
military, if you kill a high ranking official the entire military
structure is in chaos, the decentralization of the militia does not
allow for this to happen.
There have been many historical incidents where this was
the case, great warleaders and states have been defeated by this
kind of decentralized civilian action. Of course a militia can
never compete on foreign ground but this would not mean that
militias cannot keep their home country sufficiently safe. It is
better to professionalize, being able to fight for a decent pay is
better than to desperately defend your home and being able to
have top tier weaponry is preferable to having your rifle and
some missiles, but militias are able to defend in times of crisis.
An additional common complaint when proposing this
sort of market solution is that it would be equivalent to
mercenaries, and everyone knows the troubles with those
people. They have no loyalty, they defect constantly, they are
evil greedy bastards who just want to kill people. But this
complaint is faulty on multiple grounds.
Mercenaries are not actually as unreliable as one may
believe, a big part of their value is that they are not disloyal,
who would pay someone who is known to defect. If a
mercenary does defect he will be likely maimed or worse when
the campaign of the enemy is over. This is because the enemy
does not want the mercenary to defect and partake in some
future fight against him when he himself has paid the
mercenary and that mercenary has demonstrated how he is
willing to defect. Defection for a mercenary is career and
personal suicide.
After one campaign is over, they may be at odds with the
nation they were fighting for a few months ago, but this is not
much of a problem for anyone. A mercenary was hired to do
one job, he did that job and demonstrated his value, what he
does next is not treason, as he had no responsibility afterward.
And after that campaign is over he may find himself a reliable
contributor back at the nation where he started, thus coming
full circle. He would not be suspected to any degree similar to
a defector, as he has demonstrated on multiple counts his
unwillingness to defect.
This is obviously not ideal, they cannot be provided any
sensitive information and it’s better to have a reliable soldier
who will always fight for you. But there are cases where
supplements for existing manpower are necessary, in a statist
situation these would be acquired via conscription, but it is
much more desirable to simply pay people enough that they are
willing to fight for a nation. When compared to the alternative,
which is just slavery, mercenaries seem like a much less bad
alternative to modern war where people who have much better
things to do are mobilized at very limited pay.
And this complaint is not even valid at its core, due to the
need for some amount of standing army if you are near other
powerful states, you would not want to have them be constant
mercenaries. Much more important roles would be played by
local militia organizations and private militaries, the safety
provided by those companies is much cheaper and better. There
is no reason why these companies and militias would be any
less patriotic or any more greedy than the existing state
institutions, so comparing them to mercenaries is wholly
dishonest.
Further the defender is always at an advantage. Even
discounting the value of local supplies, reinforcements, a
supporting population and the ability to fortify, the defender
has a mathematical advantage. The previous concepts are well
known, but they pale below the pure logical proof for how they
will always have a huge leg up in a free market. The aggressive
party will never be willing to pay more than the venture
promises to bring in. They also will want a high profit margin
to compensate for the huge risks taken with any campaigns so
dangerous.
The defending party is willing to pay most of what they
have if they are able to keep some semblance of property and
their lives. If they both have to pay some parties to do their
bidding for them, and if we assume that the better financed
party will win a conflict, that party will almost always be the
defending party. And this is discounting everything else that
would factor in, most of which just provides a bigger
advantage for the defending party. If defence is nationalized,
this ceases to be the case, a state has no need to actually ensure
it’s existence. Each politician within the state only wants to
defend the state so far as it defends the politician. And people
within states may actively not want to defend their own
property, as they expect the states to do it for them.
Of course this is not factoring in the value of having the
power to subjugate a massive of people under your control,
however, if these people have first sold most of what they have
to be able to obtain defence, this subjugation is not worth that
much either. Even provided that some technology or greatly
superior strategy wins the war for the aggressor, he will still
only be left with empty houses belonging to people who are
outside that area by now. There is a limited amount of space the
military can control, and without statolatry, that is the only area
that the aggressor can hold.
As this chapter comes to an end we must distinguish
between modern total war and traditional gentleman’s war. The
modern form of making war is pitting one nation against the
other, this is a sort of conflict between two peoples and not two
armies. The armies will kill civilians, as due to being a part of
the state they are a part of the conflict by default, the armies
will also wage war by any method not explicitly banned by
international law.
This is not the case if the parties are not peoples merged
with the state, but rather militaries in conflict. This type of war
leaves out the properties and persons not involved in the
military. For a purely defencive force, this is extremely easy, as
the only civilians are the ones that the military is trying to
protect or who are staying out of the conflict completely.
However, for an offensive military, this would only be the case
if the people who hired that military only had business with the
other military.
It is conceivable that in a libertarian social order arise
groups with their own militaries that end up in conflict, this
could be due to mass claims of property or differing
conceptions of religion or law. If the war was not ideologically
motivated, the war would only be between the two militaries,
with the expectation that the outcome would be settled for the
winning party. This is not a desirable situation, but may be very
necessary if we aim to be realistic, you cannot always negotiate
yourself out of any conflict.
Some concepts of an aggressive libertarian war would be
the reconquering of Constantinople or another islamized area
or a liberation of people from an extremely oppressive regime
like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. These would
both be just wars to compensate for current or past evils and
retake what is rightfully belonging to other people. These could
also both garner significant enough support to be privately
financed and funded with a chance to succeed. This war would
then again be between gentlemen, with the civilians excluded
from all activity and the army only relying on itself and the
conflict with the state it’s fighting.
Examining Cultural Destruction
Causes

There is one phenomenon which truly is the root of the greatest

number of evils I will be talking about here, and this is one
aspect of life that is hidden from the naked eye. The concept is
as follows: for each human, there is a distinction between
present and future goods, one would always rather consume in
the present (as long as he has any unfulfilled desires) or
otherwise, no one would ever consume, as all consumption
would be pushed indefinitely into the future. These preferences
vary from person to person. Some people value present
consumption higher, some value future consumption higher.
The importance of this fact is grandiose. It cannot be
overstated. This preference decides what each person will do
and how far-sighted they are. This decides whether you indulge
in your desires now or you put them aside for later. This
decides whether you invest or you consume. And not just
materially, your time preferences have grand impacts in all
other relationships, as you do need to invest a lot if you wish to
keep a functional human relationship.
A famous experiment showed that children who could
wait patiently for more candy, and not indulge in the smaller
amount of candy presented them at that moment, do better in
life. This is not an accident. The children who wait and have
greater results in the future have longer time preferences, they
can put their present desire away to have greater future gains,
multiplying their wealth in the longer run.
This is not something that can only be seen in
experiments. We could see social time preferences on the
demand and supply of investment on the free market. The
market interest rate would demonstrate what the time
preference of people generally is, how much people value
present goods over future goods and how are they willing to
invest, but these interest rates have largely been masked by the
government interfering in the market.
The fact on the market with time preferences is that
shorter time preferences cause a reduction in investment,
people who do not care about future gains do not make an
effort to secure those gains. And economic growth and
development relies on people being able to put present desires
aside to secure a greater potential for satisfying future desires.
So longer time preferences are vital if we are to have more
economic growth as constant consumption would ensure that
there is no room to advance or develop.
This fundamental principle has been lost to many people.
They pretend that consumption leads to economic growth and
as such preach an economic principle based on increasing
consumption. In doing so they aim explicitly to reduce time
preferences. Time preferences are thus very important and must
be noted when studying any human phenomenon. And the case
with time preferences is astonishing when you look at the
actions of the state. It seems like whatever the state does, it
reduces time preferences. But how does it do so?
One of the largest ways in which the state shortens time
preferences is simply because of the ever-changing nature of it.
The result of this is called regime uncertainty. Of course, this is
not necessarily linked to dictatorial regimes, but the
phenomenon applies to every sort of change in the nature of the
state. The state permeates through our entire life, that fact
cannot be denied. It taxes your wealth, it tells you what you can
and cannot do and it provides some of the most vital services.
This very important entity in every part of our lives is in
constant flux.
At every moment there could be a new law. At every
moment there could be a popular uprising. The democratic
process realigns power regularly. The methods of providing
previous services could be changed without any regard. All of
these breed tremendous uncertainty and there is nothing anyone
can do against them.
 When you are unsure if your plans can come to fruition
you’re less likely to make those plans. When the regime you
are surrounded by is subject to change those plans have a much
less likely chance of coming true. And as such people will
rather plan for the short term, which shortens their time
preferences. It is also important to consider that taxation and
regulation heighten time preferences as they reduce wealth.
People will allocate the money they have first to their more
urgent, short term needs and then to longer, less vital needs.
This means that the more wealth people have the bigger part of
their wealth they focus on longer term goals.
Taxation simply takes money away from people and
spends it on things that they do not desire. In doing so taxation
must reduce time preferences. Regulation prevents people from
assigning money to more value productive use, also reducing
their overall wealth and time preference. You cannot assign
money on the free market to developing goods that are
extremely hazardous as no person in their right mind would
buy them. This means that regulation could increase quality but
by doing so it prevents people from having alternative, lower
cost goods and doesn’t prevent unnecessary death. And even if
it did, it also prevents the creation of many things that could
save lives.
 An especially important factor of this are inheritance
taxes. The potential of giving your wealth to your children
pushes time preferences over the time in which you are alive.
To tax that inheritance is to reduce each person’s time
preference to their own lifespan more and less to the benefit of
their children. This does not help the less wealthy children but
rather causes people to get less wealthy as they can not plan
ahead to shaping the lives of their children. This fact differs in
degree if the rate of tax differs, it is still constantly present.
The more these factors of taxation, regulation, and
uncertainty within a government take place, the more time
preferences will fall. The same goes with all other activities
that we could deem by the same standards. If private crime is
not properly dealt with, people will lose certainty and people
will lose their wealth, but these problems are ones that can be
handled much more easily than the problem of states.
One more giant source of uncertainty is the fact of
recessions in the current economy. Recessions are not a
phenomenon that can be simply dismissed as integral to
capitalism. Recessions by their nature are a great deal of
businesses at the same time proving to be unsustainable. That is
the essence due to which both resources and labour remain idle
through the recession. However, it isn’t that it naturally
periodically happens, as long as we cannot explain why it
would happen naturally, so we cannot assume that it is so.
What must prove unsustainable is some common denominator.
The immediate thing to look to is money, the thing that
makes this sort of advanced economy possible. If money loses
its value, a lot of businesses will prove unsustainable, as the
money they planned to spend on future activity and sustaining
present activity will be worth less than anticipated. This
phenomenon could only be caused by the demand for the
money lowering or supply rising. Demand for money is
unlikely to lower as human desires for future and present goods
do not usually lower at the same time, but the supply for
money is rising whenever central banks or banks that are
allowed to keep fractional reserves are inflating the money
supply.
When the market realizes that the money they have used
has been inflated and now is worth less than they thought
previously, they will cease spending as it is now unsustainable.
This causes a recession. This won’t happen at the same time the
money supply is being inflated, as the market will not realize
that inflation has been going on immediately. This logic also
applies to setting interest rates.
 Leftist ideology by itself is not for the most part related
to heightening time preferences (aside from the cases
mentioned above), but it does play an important part in making
those higher time preferences sustainable. Leftists who
advocate for a governmental safety net inadvertently subsidize
behaviour that results from having shorter time preferences and
as such subsidize shorter time preferences.
The capitalist system in this scenario is even without
being the cause not wholly innocent. Capitalistic exchange has
accommodated these shortened time preferences and by this
could have been making the problem worse. This does not
mean that capitalism is bad in itself. The fact that people’s
ruined time preferences were able to be easily exploited via
mass media schemes and other such means for great profits and
thus increasing the problem was just a way for capitalism to
adjust to changing conditions brought on by the state and by
leftism.
The centre of the leftist doctrine is the notion that
everyone is created equal and thus can succeed equally. This
might seem like a pleasant concept to the casual observer, and
it plays well into the moral systems that we are predicated to,
but the position has no merit. This way of thinking is terrible
for everyone involved and destructive of everything great, due
to its repercussions.
It is the fundamental truth that people are not equal at
any part of their development. Even when you remove
environmental factors we all have different genes, neurological
features, and physiological aspects. We are not the same, even
if fabricated ideals would make this way of thinking extremely
pleasant. Although this fact that we are unequal makes it
possible to treat one another as equals. You cannot know a
person’s level of worth by a casual observation unlike in the
case of perfect equality. Humans not being equal is what makes
it possible to have any semblance of functional equality in
society.
But even with these cases equality may still seem like a
noble idea or an ideal world. But this view itself is far from the
truth. Often egalitarian views are produced as a solution to
materialist values. If all people were equal then there would be
no need to struggle for increased wealth. And if there is no
need to struggle for increased wealth we all could focus on the
spiritual, the human, the social. But this view is wrong on
every level imaginable.
Everyone being equal does not remove the need to
struggle for wealth, it just means that people’s struggles for
wealth would be misallocated. We can call this ideal equal man
the soviet man and describe what the condition would have to
be. With the ideal soviet man you would be squandering the
great gifts that being a human has given you. The soviet man is
equal to all other soviet men and the soviet man has no need
for self interest and works for the community.
If all soviet men are equal you have gotten rid of the
process of discovering and rewarding excellent factors. There
is no need for brilliant minds, as a brilliant mind and a strong
set of muscles are both equal. There is no need for each person
to seek the things about himself to develop to access their
personal talents. The soviet man has no need to do what he
himself is the best at and can just as well be relegated to
whatever task his community needs the most at the moment, to
counter this by saying that the community would be as
farsighted as an individual is inane, this community must come
to agreement on what is necessary and we have established that
people will look at short term goals first if there are no personal
negatives for doing so. The thing agreed upon must tend to be a
short-term goal. What the soviet man does is work to better his
community and not to better himself, he works in such a way
that the other tells him to, and the other works in the same
fashion, all working for nothing but the objects proposed by the
other.
They all struggle for material wealth, but not by their
own merit. The soviet man struggles to have general material
wealth as agreed upon by some faculty beyond his control. The
soviet men will not seek to maximize this struggle, they will
not need to better themselves mentally or spiritually as the
material is the common and the only thing soviet men can
strive for. No soviet man can truly know the spiritual or the
social values the other soviet man wants. The soviet man can
only toil for the material and never advance beyond that point.
Each soviet man working for the other faceless soviet man
making decisions and each soviet man living off the other
soviet men the best he can.
But we do not live in a world of the soviet man, we are
not equal and we are not lacking in self interest. We are
fundamentally looking out for the things we ourselves care
about and we are using our distinctions to our advantage. But
in this fashion where we aren’t and never will be soviet men,
what does the notion and the strive for equality do? Obviously,
if we are all to be equal, and if equality is our goal no one can
seek to be more than their fellow man. If you seek equality you
must renounce all the advantages given to you by nature or by
your environment as bad and use those advantages not to
yourself but the other. This situation seems like it would reduce
materialism, but this is not the case. The only thing this does is
shift the materialist leanings to the people who are the have
nots, instead of the haves. The people who have by nature or by
ability accomplished something must commit self sacrifice to
the people who haven’t.
These people who are the have nots must now strive for
material goods not out of their own ability, but rather because
of their own disability. The have nots will have to feast on the
haves with the only justification being that they are themselves
not naturally talented or have not with their environment
developed themselves. They must engage in a mad dash for
material goods taken from the haves without providing
anything in return. This materialism is in any case tens of times
worse than even the shallowest of bourgeoisie.
And this desire for equality will also affect those who
have accomplished something not by nature but by their own
development. A desire for material wealth out of nothing but
entitlement will not discriminate and only seek the people
whose gifts are by nature or environment. The people who have
gotten their wealth by their own betterment will have to,
alongside the naturally and environmentally gifted, give up
their material possessions to indulge in the desire of the have
nots.
In this sense, the notion and strive for equality truly
creates a class struggle. However the relationship is not that the
employer is the exploiter and the worker is the exploited, the
worker becomes the exploiter when the worker has a desire for
equality and the might to impose his will. When the worker
views the capitalist being the exploiter he can use the might of
the state, private violence or cultural infiltration to gain more
material benefits to himself. Everyone who is their better will
become the enemy because of their goodness.
But it is not only the worker who is affected by this,
every person who decides that they are the unequal will strive
to correct it. Women will seek to legislate anti-discrimination
laws that put them on an equal standing with men when they
themselves cannot earn it by their merits. And if not that,
women who have no need or desire to actually be in the
workforce will have to join the workforce, if they are to seek
equality with men. In this way, the women are trying to become
men while simultaneously dragging men down, as this desire
for equality will only be to drag yourself down in an extremely
advanced state. Most will rather consume the benefits created
by those more able while ignoring and dampening their own
ability as much as possible.
This is not to say that there are no unique problems of
women or that women should not be in the workforce at all, but
rather that this desire for equality where there is and never will
be will cause greater unhappiness for all. The women who will
step out of the natural role in which they are the most
comfortable in will suffer immensely and the men who are
being dragged down from their natural position will also suffer.
These positions are not necessarily tied to gender, but they are
heavily correlated due to genetics, psychology, and physiology.
But what more creates this overarching destruction? We
have to start with he best way to incapacitate a human, which is
is to rob him of his ability to look out for himself and his own.
This is a complete loss of autonomy. The loss of autonomy
does not need to be as blatant as absolute slavery, but it
nevertheless is still dangerous. A man who is fully autonomous
will protect himself and what is dear to him. This man who has
been responsible for the advances of himself and what he has
gathered must also understand the value of his accomplishment
and thus must have self respect.
However once a person is made to think that they do not
deserve some degree of autonomy, it will be countless times
easier to convince that person that he deserves absolutely no
autonomy at all. A person who is not responsible for himself
and who is not autonomous will not defend the rest of his
rights. That person has already doubt in himself, not doubt
upon the current condition with an intent to improve it, but
simply for the sake of doubt and for him to feel as if restraining
himself is just. This is the only way to truly rid someone of
their own autonomy. In any other manner, the people who are
wholly autonomous will resist and will not stop resisting until
they achieve liberty or death.
The man robbed of autonomy, who doubts himself and
accepts his controller as supreme, is certainly less likely to trust
others as he will see himself reflected in them. He will not treat
others as autonomous people as he himself is not, but rather he
will treat others with the same sort of doubt that he has in
himself. You cannot accept as human those who are not in
control or you must accept human by definition as one that
does not control.
This man who doubts himself will undoubtedly attempt
to justify this self doubt, this further creates social rifts as his
explanation must apply to everyone and he must sow this doubt
as much as he can. The doubter will not take responsibility for
himself or his own as he both feels as if he does not deserve
such and is not in control of that. But even crueler than to cause
a man to doubt himself would be to cause a man to doubt his
property, to take away his control of all the rewards of his
effort. The property of a man is the result of that man living, of
him being alive and improving. To cause a man to doubt what
he himself has is to cause a man to doubt life itself. He has no
control then not only of himself but also that which his own
acts create. This must also be rationalized as a fact of reality to
justify it.
A man who now has been convinced to rid himself of his
autonomy through self doubt will not strive to work for the
sake of himself, he will not strive to relate with other people
and he will not strive to improve himself. This man will think
that the other is also in the same condition as he is as he must
think that his condition is that of nature. Self-respect and full-
hearted living is nowhere to be found inside the doubter and
thus cannot be found in some other person. The doubter in this
way does not respect himself or anyone other than those he has
been lead to think are not human and not people as he himself
is. Inhumanity must be raised above humanity, death must
triumph over life. He will also not treat those in his personal
life as people due to his own moral and existential failures.
 Sowing this doubt is a prerequisite of the control itself,
not the consequence. To replace the void left by the absence of
living undoubting men, the state or any other moral parasite
can assert itself as something beyond human. This doubt and
loss of agency is what creates power vacuums, it is not that
humans by nature strive to be ruled unconditionally, but rather
those conditioned to be ruled will easily be lead to rule.
But now in the world of doubt, property and people can
be easily ruled, they will be begging for this rule due to the
sheer amount of doubt they have. Here the loss of autonomy is
complete and the only way to get self-respect back is through
the ones subjugated asserting his own personhood when at
some point they will have had enough. But what of the world
that is full of those who are subjugated? What would this sort
of behaviour cause once it has been achieved?
Once the property of man is no longer his own to protect
and cherish and is at its core in doubt, it will be claimed by the
force they have adopted in the place of self-respect. This force
can do with the property whatever it pleases as long as it is not
immediately repugnant enough to cause doubt in the force. And
even in the case where the acts done with the property are
immediately repugnant the person will likely not have the
courage to assert themselves and will rather rationalize those
acts by claiming that this is his duty and that the ones handling
his property are his betters- above humanity. The doubt that the
man may have will be hidden beyond layers of unthinking.
In this situation, the ones who have claimed property are
not the ones with the power to improve upon nature, but the
ones who are able to diminish man and exploit the fruits of
those who came before him to subjugate all the same. The
subjugators could insert themselves more and more, gradually
capitalizing on every facet of doubt, leaving enough time for
rationalization. This sort of world where property is not
claimed by rightful owners will not be a rule of none, but rather
the rule of those who claim the work of those too doubtful to
say otherwise. The fruits of the labour will not go for those
who have the ability to create value and will not be used for
any purposes other than to fulfil the desires of subjugators and
sustain subjugation.
To describe how this doubt in the other person is
destructive is not to worship any notion of trust in the other.
However much you can doubt the rightfulness of actions the
thing to not doubt is personhood and life itself. These are the
things that if doubted are incredibly destructive. These are
concepts that can be questioned but any person who will see
humanity and living as a great negative will not be able to do
anything other than sniveling before the feet of anyone who
will do him the honour.
And what have we seen over recent years? Has there not
been a great infantilization and a doubt-ridden mentality spread
across our populations? Are people not crawling to anyone who
promises to free themselves of their own human
responsibilities? This doubt has become so big a part of the
human experience that to ignore it would be madness.
If a socialist happens to read this, it will immediately
resonate with him how all of these are symptoms of capitalism,
but this is not at all the case. These are the symptoms of
capitalism once the seeds of doubt have been sowed.
Capitalism is a fluid system and it will adapt to any sort of
population in the way that fits them the best. If this sort of
doubt is sowed by your own philosophy of denying property
and agency it will cause capitalism to become a system
coloured by this doubt and ruled by those who can subjugate.
Some of the immediate consequences of this way of
thinking are noticeable with even the slightest examination.
Property will be managed poorly. People will have worse social
relationships. People will have less self-esteem and suffer more
from depression and other such condition. I will expand upon
these effects more in the sections below.
 Another such thing that perpetuates this sort of shallow
culture often characterized by materialism and consumerism is
the focus on the shallow. This shallowness will be perpetuated
whenever there are false values assigned to non-virtues. For
example, the left constantly asserts that it has a need for
diversity, for the eye to see different colours of skin or different
sexes in the media. Or that rare sexualities be represented or
that groups consisting of majorities lose virtue in some fashion
due to not increasing this diversity.
However this is all a part of the shallowest mindset and
this mindset of diversity will inevitably lead, alongside other
such focuses, to a world where people do not care about the
deep and spiritual, but the petty and immediate. People will not
be identified by their individual merits but rather how well they
fit into some label you think they should fit into. This mentality
will also inevitably cause major social disarrays if pushed far
enough.
The process and the impacts of this phenomenon might
not be immediately obvious, so I must explain how this can
come to be. The first step that must be taken in the search for
diversity is categorizing people into neat boxes. To be able to
have this sort of variety mixed together you must have metrics
by which to determine how to achieve this and what the variety
is. To do this you must erase the unique and the special in each
person and each group, only defining them by what you
yourself see them as.
By doing so the categorizer does not treat people as
people, but rather as pawns, as labels he can arrange in the
optimal way. This in itself adds to the process of
dehumanization that above characterized doubt. When he has
done so and created a diversity of labels and represented them
he obviously is not able to represent them proportionally. You
can’t have exact percentages, so he has to focus on that which
is under-represented in his eyes. And even if it was possible to
have proportional representation in this category, the
categorizer will, by assigning virtue to minorities as something
that must be represented, himself represent the minority more.
When you do so you bring out the minorities of people in
your own medium of expression. However this on its own is
not enough, you have to preach this sort of behaviour as a
moral good. There has to be variety everywhere, of course only
in the categories you have decided were important. This
mindset will spread by this facet. Those wanting diversity will
propagate it endlessly, as to them it is a moral good. To want
diversity will become the normal instead of the arbitrary.
 When the social consensus is that the minority is in this
way virtuous or deserving of representation, more people will
seek to join the ranks of minority. More and more will take the
labels laid out and apply some facet of them to themselves. In
doing so they must attempt to become a part of a minority
group they themselves are not and in the process, they will
harm themselves greatly with the denial of their own true
nature. People will not be able to identify with those alike to
them as we tend to do. We will lose the possibility to identify
with groups or cultures that are beneficial to us. Instead, we
must seek to alienate ourselves from our roots and our natures,
as such a behaviour is a moral good.
Of course when this is done a few of the majority group
will be enraged about not being represented according to their
proportion, and how assigning virtue to the minority has now
become the norm. This group you can call the reactionaries25 in
this area, as they are reacting to the over-representation of
minority. The reactionaries will too stop caring about the
individual merits of the diverse people, but rather be worried
about their people being less and less prevalent. And this is not
something that these people can really be blamed for in the
same sense. You cannot really say that they themselves are

25 Not to be confused with overall social reactionarism.

shallow as their behaviour was caused by the advocates of such
worldviews deliberately erasing them. And to care about your
kin is not in itself a shallow value as the experience of kinship
and community is very important to most people.
As such both the advocates of diversity and the
reactionaries to diversity will become fixated not on the merit
or the character, but those labels advocates decided to separate
and the majorities reactionaries are attempting to protect.
Advocating the view of diversity will lead to this sort of
process of shallow views on humans, a reduction of people to
some arbitrary base characteristics they have.
And if either of these desires are gone too far they can
wield disastrous results. The advocates of diversity will
fetishize all sorts of minorities and even if needed create new
categories so they can continue advocating that value even if
their previous values have been already successfully
implemented. The reactionaries to diversity will increasingly
villify any sorts of diversity and start fetishizing the majority
group. Eventually this fetishization will lead to overall conflict
over a shallow objective.
However both of these sides can be exploited for more
sinister means. Aside from adding to the tide of shallow
behaviour these groups can be used to launch a social attack
against the category which they are rallying against. The
reactionaries can be used to gain populist power and the
advocates can be used to replace the current order with your
own one, provided it is more diverse.
Symptoms

When people have higher time preferences, connect work with

wealth less (as they are unsure of their own property) and
wealth is treated as a given due to the search for equality
(which leads to a subsidization of negative characteristics),
people will seek to find wealth without doing anything that
would earn them wealth. But this is not enough, they will want
more wealth faster. People will want to work easy jobs that
make a lot of money fast. This problem becomes worse the
more people view certain levels of wealth as rights to them or
factors of society, or the wealth of others as being oppressive
for them. And if this ridiculous thesis is enforced by providing
them certain things without any effort this problem will worsen
exponentially.
It’s obvious how this sort of mentality will lead to
disastrous results. With people who don’t want to work but
want to consume in the short term, you’ll find an increasing
number of failed relationships, vagabonds, thieves, socialists
and all of the other undesirable symptoms of not putting effort
into things and still expecting results. But this will also mean
that people will be more eager to trust scams or shady projects
that will allow them to quickly get rich, leading the investment
there is to be misallocated. In this way, you will see more
people who want to perform fraud and more people who are
likely going to fall to fraud. And other than just fraud you will
see the criminal enterprise increase as it is one of the easiest
ways to earn a lot of money with barely any skills.
You will find resources going into unproductive criminal
work and not productive work and self-improvement as the
latter take time and effort and don’t pay off as quickly and most
likely if the pay they do so in less exorbitant amounts. You will
see social wealth fall more and more as the components that
produce wealth are made obscurer each day under this social
condition.
This is to say nothing of the fact that earning money
itself might become demonized or frowned upon. People who
want to earn money by productive means and are happy with
doing so may be bombarded by claims of their money being
unearned or exploitatively earned. This is because the people
who do not earn money are so accustomed to only wanting
money from luck or exploitation as they do not have other
skills. This factor might not be so rough on the people who
have already decided that they will be productive but it is
terrible for getting more people to decide to earn wealth via
productive means.
 However with the bourgeoisie mentality in those who are
wealthy you might see a reaction to these principles. Rather
than shun people from being productive they will indulge in
short term non-productive behaviour and see indulgence as
wealth. We would see the bourgeoisie with short time
preferences and less confidence in their property not shy away
from production entirely, but rather indulge more and more
instead of saving. This method would drive more bourgeoisie
to earn money via political means and not means that are
productive as they form a culture of consumption and not of
creation. Easily causing a political criminal enterprise of the
wealthy. Their money too can then be used increasingly
unproductively and they can work less and less as they have
political favour on their sides.
The afflictions of material entitlements don’t stop there.
The people who have shorter time preferences, worse work
ethics, and entitlements to the material, will not behave
healthily in other areas. These short term desires that avoid
effort will translate inevitably to the social realm. I mentioned
relationships before and I will elaborate on that further.
If a person is not willing to work for his station, he will
not have stable, long relationships. He will have no interest in
putting effort into stability but rather would put it into having
multiple short relationships. This sort of behaviour will not let
stable social bonds form and will reduce the psychological
wellbeing of society, as for most people social bonds are
incredibly important. This will not stop at the lessening of
relationships, but rather this behaviour will lead to demands for
respect and authority. These people have no intention of
working to be respected but rather feel as if they are owed it.
And with the notions of equality and the doubt about
personhood, they will feel that it is fully in their right to
demand respect.
Having a society of this type will feed the fire of all
leftist philosophy. People will be less happy with working for
recognition, but will increasingly assume recognition as
something they should have and put the blame for not having
this recognition on others. These people will then attempt to
assert themselves and their cause in such a way that it cannot
be avoided as they have no desire to merit attention. You will
see unrest and protest increase, and this protest will not be
peaceful and this protest will not be to demand the same rights
that others have. This protest will be simply to have attention
for yourself and this protest has no reservation about treading
on others to obtain this attention.
 You will also see that the people who are uppity in this
manner and who protest for attention have fewer other things to
do and to whom this sort of assertion is the social interaction
they will be used to. They will be unable to be close to people
who do not follow their own ideas as those types of people do
not let them assert their views. Their primary satisfaction of
socialization will not be the human contact but rather the
blatant assertion of themselves.
To keep this perverted society going and from fixing
itself once it has been achieved you either have to corrupt
spiritualism or remove it entirely, as it plays a giant role in the
mindset of people. If people believe in a higher purpose or a
higher order their time preferences will be longer as they are
invested in something greater than themselves. These people
will not seek this sort of equality that is proposed as they
assume to have a deeper understanding of the world in
themselves and do not need the ideas of others. These people
will also not see hierarchy as something that shouldn’t be there
as it was created by something higher or serves some greater
purpose.
This is not to say that all spiritual people are like this or
that all people who aren’t spiritual fall into destructive beliefs,
but rather to express that this is a more likely scenario to
happen. Spiritual tradition will lead people into a more
traditional society. And hence those wishing to advocate a non-
hierarchical society of people on the surface working only for
the benefit of the other must also advocate against everything
that could justify a society that contradicts their own perverse
ideals.
How can these people destroy spiritual values? Why do
they not attempt to corrupt these teachings? The answers to
these questions are simple. For them to remove spiritual values
altogether they have to change the way young people view the
world, which is not that hard as young people are very
impressionable. It is much harder to change spiritual habits and
attitudes, as those habits are passed down from generation to
generation and not much of a subject for altering, as older
people are usually more rooted in their values.
To stop this process of passing on spiritual values you
must demonize this process. You must claim this process to be
indoctrination and something that hinders the people who
believe in it. You cannot just apply this principle for actions
that could be considered actual indoctrination but to all
spiritual values. One of the ineffective ways in which it is
attempted to accomplish this is with the use of science. In this
case, people will try to apply the scientific method to the
question of religion. They do not realize that for the people
who believe in these principles, the actual perceived word of
god will trump whatever these who try to debunk faith propose.
This will only lead to more distrust of science by the religious
and not more distrust of religion.
I cannot say if this is the cause or just an addition to the
left fetishizing science in unscientific ways, but this most
certainly has an impact on it. When people get attached to a
method to replace religion they will start treating this method
as religion. No longer will they use science to question, but just
blindly accept the results that someone else has come to, with
no verification of the legitimacy of those results and no actual
questioning. This causes a sort of popularization of science and
a cult of science with no open debate. Common conceptions
(especially those benefiting the agenda of the anti-religious)
will become dogma.
We should now explore the concepts of equality and
hierarchy further. How could this change brought forth change
human society? If you desire equality you obviously must
eliminate all hierarchies. Hierarchies can not have any basis in
ability or worth, as long as you believe that all men are indeed
born equal. But however eliminating hierarchy does not mean
that people will stop searching for one.
 If you eliminate hierarchy within society you will find
that it is easy for there to be a hierarchy of all to all. People will
as a necessity for their own sanity see society as a concept to
be something above them. As they have a need to seek out
something to place above themselves due to a violent distrust
of humans. These people will work for the good of this abstract
concept. They must also put themselves below all other people
as the concept of society to them is an inherent value to
dedicate yourself to and the concept of society includes all
people. They will make themselves into servants to be used by
everyone other than themselves.
Obviously, there will be outliers, people who have no
desire to command or be commanded and in this situation can
create a hierarchy of themselves to themselves. This situation
needs total autonomy and self respect. And with this autonomy
you cannot expect for the result to be equality as these people
will assert themselves in society, not out of a desire for
attention but simply confidence in themselves and the fact that
this accomplishes their goals with their merit. They will place
themselves into complex unequal structures into where they
can best use their skills.
These people who have a high desire for autonomy and
high ability and as thus assert themselves as providers of
guidance and other services are the natural elite. These are the
people who will place highly in hierarchies formed without
coercion. Their ability to lead will be useful to those who want
to be led. In this case, the hierarchy will be beneficial to
everyone involved. If you decide to eliminate hierarchy, what
you eliminate are those outliers, those who construct a positive
hierarchy. After you do so and there is no natural elite, people
will gravitate to other sources of hierarchy, as there is still a
demand to be led and the people who lead out of ability will be
unable to do so. After doing this you will have unproductive
hierarchies.
I described above how government can assert itself into
the social order thanks to the doubt sowed, but it will also
replace the top levels of all hierarchies in the stead of natural
elites by getting rid of autonomy and proporting equality as an
ideal you have gotten rid of the natural elite. People will then
look up to government as an entity to follow and to get
guidance in their lives, the government can take advantage and
mandate their own guidance without causing much unrest as it
is the guiding entity for most.
However this might be beneficial to some strands of
leftism and the government, but it doesn’t go the full mile for
leftist ideology. They must promote the mundane and the
average as supreme and place that at the top of hierarchies if
they desire to achieve their equality. They have to exalt people
who have nothing to themselves and refrain from doing so with
people who have great accomplishments. Admiration for men
of thought and science or strength and courage will be more
and more drifted into men of no particular excellence. These
men of no excellence will also be afflicted by the desire for
diversity, and the desire for other vanity, as to keep people
invested they have to feel pleasant or morally satisfied in some
way. These people will also feel as if they deserve to be high in
social standing simply due to themselves being placed there of
no merit, their unearned desires will be filled.
I also described above how you can create a fetishism of
science or of certain groups, that notion also applies to
hierarchy. You will get people who follow a mythical entity of
science or a group without guidance as that were elite. This is
also destructive to any notion of a healthy society, this
hierarchy will become one of power and one of destruction, as
it is nothing but a mere concept and it can not be anything that
benefits any person.
How does this all relate to economics? You often hear
leftist complaints about how corporations rule the world and
how rich families stay rich. But how can this be? Wouldn’t
people in this time of incredible excess gravitate towards jobs
that are outside of the crushing corporate structure? One
answer is the perpetual unemployment in our society. There is
massive job loss caused by recessions, government regulation,
and taxation. And the jobs the government creates are wasteful
and sink up resources that could have gone to better and more
jobs.
However, it might be wise to consider the point that these
structures are created by the existing corporations. If you have
a government that is the final decision maker you will have
nothing to appeal its decisions to. This means that the people
who influence the government posses the power of it and have
total control over society.
These people will likely be the ones with the most wealth
and they’re interested in using government legislation to keep
it that way, without themselves having to provide anything.
You can see this in anti-trust legislation that has only been used
to stop more efficient companies. In corporate structures being
legislated in such a way it creates a great environment for those
controlling the existing corporations. You can see this in
patents being used to be able to provide bad services, in
regulation directed at small businesses and healthy economic
processes.
 Governments will be open to the highest bidder as long
as the selection process for government is not determined by
any sort of skill, but rather wholly reliant on popularity.
Gaining popularity costs a lot of money and with the territory
of politics and competition in politics increasing, politicians
must spend increasing amounts of money to successfully run
their campaigns.
Even if you limit such contributions they will move
underground. People who like power and thus go into politics
or people who just want wealth without doing anything are not
the sort of people who particularly care about legal or illegal.
These people will violate codes for their personal benefit. And
these people contributing will not mainly be businessmen who
earn for their merits as they would have no need to seek
political favour if they were. You will see productive
businesses and business owners being replaced by
unproductive political ones.
What creates this corporate environment is the existence
of a political system. In a free market with no force to exploit,
corporations will have to be value productive, there would be
alternatives to workers and customers to choose from. In a free
market there would also be much less unemployment, so that
factor could not be exploited for the gain of big business. This
soul-crushing corporate structure is not one that is there and
must always be there as long as there is capitalism. The
reduction from unemployment results in two fundamental laws
of economics, first humans have a desire for an unlimited
amount of goods, at no point do people prefer to not gain rather
than to gain (with a few notable exceptions). Since people
always demand goods, people will always need to produce
goods, as without production there can be nothing to exchange
goods. People do not produce goods that are not needed, so
every good they produce allows them to buy what they need
and allows another person to buy what he needs. Without the
burdens of taxation and regulation this would lead to perpetual
employment for everyone who wishes to be employed.
Another reason for why this has been able to persist is
the influence of labour unions. This might seem strange and
counter-intuitive as labour unions are thought to campaign for
better conditions for workers and even in libertarian theory
they serve a function as correctors of market pricing. But the
important factor to consider is that unions care about unionized
workers and have only contempt for workers who aren’t, as
those workers are opposed to their goals of power.
If they accomplish to get more jobs for union members at
the expense of even more jobs that actually produce value,
their goal has still been achieved. And for them, it is also good
to gain control in such a way that the workers who are not
unionized will have to become so. They will do anything to
reduce non-union jobs and the conditions of non-union
workers. If a threshold is reached where the material resources
are utilized for the sake of the union workers, their mandates
will be only working against them, they must reduce their
demands for worker conditions as this unemployment they
cause would be visible and detrimental also to the unionized
worker. In this fashion, unions both are a great stress on value
production on both the employer and the worker side with
themselves not ensuring that the value of the worker goes up
alongside the cost but rather just focusing on the cost.
And to end this discussion we must talk about family.
Family is the basis of all hierarchy, of tradition and of a civil
world. Parents teach their kids in which fashion social
interaction is appropriate and pass their wisdom on to their
children for them to be able to better accomplish their goals.
The unit of family is the cornerstone of all society. It is vital
that the parents do not do a bad job in raising their child.
Families take a lot of time and effort and there are multiple
ways in which the state and the leftist ideology break this
down.
 Firstly the state creates a condition of reduced economic
prosperity. This will force parents to work more and force them
to spend less time with their children. Coupled with an
increasing desire for material goods and shorter time
preferences this is utterly disastrous. Immediate satisfaction
becomes valued more with actual effort being valued less,
leading to even more increased work times, which will not
benefit the health of the family, as what is earned from work
will go to immediate desires and not the development of
healthy long-term connections.
This will lead to children not receiving proper guidance
and themselves gaining an even shorter time preference.
Families require a lot of effort and people who want immediate
gratification with a low amount of actual effort will not be able
to keep the relationships that make a good familial
environment. However, another important part is the social
ideal espoused by leftists.
The leftist doctrine must be fundamentally anti-family.
The leftist vision of society cannot come true as long as
children are with their family and there are strong social bonds
within the family. This society with wholesome family will be
full of people who have confidence in themselves and who
understand the benefits of a healthy hierarchy. Family is also a
large determinant of social placement. To the leftist who seeks
equality this cannot stand.
The leftist must characterize families passing their
knowledge onto their children as improper education. Then the
leftist must increasingly reduce the family as a factor in a
child’s life, then the state or another institution can fill the
vacated position. The leftist must also take resources from the
families with good conditions and give to the families with bad
conditions, for the sake of equality. In this way they are
explicitly subsidizing families who are not competent. Then the
leftist has an even larger excuse to decrease the family unit as
the family unit is less and less beneficial as there are more
dysfunctional families.
I mentioned that the state can take control of the family,
but in which ways does it do so? Firstly it is of utmost
importance to take control of the education of children,
determining the knowledge children obtain and taking
responsibility of spreading customs. If the state can interfere in
this process the state can have control of the population
through actual indoctrination of children. The other important
thing is for the state to police familial relations based on their
perceptions of what is a good family. By doing so they can
avoid uproar as they are hiding behind a facade of dealing with
bad families while gaining more and more control over how
families conduct themselves.
Of course, the state does all these things it claims to do to
help people very poorly. It barely helps anyone actually stuck is
abusive familial situations and the education it provides is
horrible in most ways. It can only succeed in gaining control
over a society increasingly devastated by it, and so it does.
To conclude on this chapter I would like to breach some
smaller topics. In a lot of cases, drugs are an escape. For people
to desire to escape they must have short time preferences, as
far-sighted people will understand that turning to drugs will
make them much worse off in the long term. The ideologies I
described before cause an increase of needs to have these
escapes. If people do not have close relationships and if they
lack spiritual values, it is much harder to deal with whatever
problems they might face. And if these people are also riddled
with self-doubt over themselves and others, as they do not have
control over their life(maybe even due to drugs), they will be
attracted to things such as drugs that give them a chance to
control their lack of control.
This fact that leftist ideology and state will increase drug
use will give a great opportunity to gain control over society.
The left can accept and normalize drug use as something
positive or trendy. They can portray it as something that is
good to do for fun, this situation leads to people losing their
cognitive ability enough to accept equality and all their ideas
on the basis of delusional intuition. The state in this situation
can intervene and police drug users. They have an opportunity
to use their might to gain control of the society they forced into
drugs and increase their aggressive capabilities.
The use of drugs in itself fuels the fire of other problems.
It increases problems with work, problems with family and
problems with self-esteem. Drugs exacerbate all other issues if
used in a way of addictive escape.
For leftists to maintain all these beliefs and not be aware
of the consequences, and to remain thinking that what you are
preaching can lead to the society of your utopia, you need to
construct a world of your own. People who desire these things
cannot function within the actual world and as such, they have
an even bigger need to turn from it. They have to imagine that
everything they don’t like is there because of some forces that
are greater than individuals. Using this they can justify things
as systemic that are not.
These sorts of people can take groups which their views
on diversity and equality target as enemies due to being well
off or majorities and assume that these people are behind their
woes. They must function within a world where problems are
not in any way their fault. They have to pretend that with the
expansion of their ideologies the situation has not gotten worse.
These people cannot provide reasoning for how their
views help solve problems or improve the world so they must
assign the existing problems to some other. The fact of the
matter is that the world is much more lackluster and empty
with the expansion of the state and the spread of leftist views,
but these people cannot provide any reasoning for their case
and build their worldview on erroneous assumptions. This can
also apply to a section of libertarians, who will not accept
anything other than the state as a cause for any problem. For
them removing violence is a magical fix to all problems of the
world and for them, violence is the only cause of all evil. They
live as much in their bubble as the others and are not willing to
provide detailed reasoning for their ideology or prove it’s
merits in any way.
Substitutes

These people who seek instant satisfaction, but are not willing
to work for it, who do not have strong relationships or spiritual
values, who doubt others and themselves, who worship raw
power, the mundane and infiltration, who have no intellectual
merit, who function based on intuition. They have nothing to
turn to other than the material. They might think that material
values are a negative and see it as crass and unworthy, but they
will still pursue material ends. They cannot improve
themselves nor have meaningful relationships so that’s their
only option. They will not even bother to think about it, as
they will enjoy it as long as it is them doing it. However,
whenever they see the results of this society, they will turn their
noses. They think that other people desire material for material
while they as enlightened individuals have larger goals.
Materialism quickly becomes a replacement for all other
values. They will focus on the material to compensate the fact
that they have nothing in any real terms. These people will
enjoy material pleasures because they cannot enjoy any other
pleasures. There will be an even larger desire for everything
material when material things are not considered as things
earned via hard work, but as things which are granted, which
people are entitled to, but still, the ownership of which they
cannot be certain about. They will not enjoy the merits of their
own work as they do not value work itself. They blame this
non-valuation of work on the fact that work is an oppressive
structure that is forced upon them, as they have faced no need
to survive. They themselves who created the environment in
which work is distasteful blame work for being distasteful.
To these people work is entirely an obligation, not an
opportunity and not an opportunity that is for their own good.
They feel entitled to their survival and they feel entitled to
other people giving them opportunities. These people have
been fed with the notions that they are in an oppressive world
and they have internalized it. Every avenue for dealing with
problems in non-material ways has been removed, what is left
is to be angry about the system they have constructed and to
indulge in material desires. In this way they are caught in a
loop of not improving and blaming their condition on a figment
of their imagination, causing them to further not improve and
demand even more.
They expect others to have no self-esteem and cater to
them in the same way they do. They value catering to the other
instead of themselves because they as people have no merit.
They do not recognize this fact consciously and must hide it.
But in their behaviour of self-indulgence and self sacrifice, you
can see the utter lack of respect these people have and how
they can only think in the terms of the material.
To be able to live they need to drag down those who do
have merit, as to them merit is not something earned, but given,
the same way with everything else in their personal lives. To
them all merit is injustice. They have to campaign for ideas that
only make sense in their own mind and have no application in
other areas. They are self-important and self-loathing at the
same time. They plaster their loathing over the earth and
corrupt philosophy to not understand life, but understand
loathing, leading more and more into their desires for the
material.
Merit is not important to this sort of person. They have
nothing to do with merit. To them what is important is loathing
and need. If they ceased to lack merit it would mean that they
would move out of the category of oppressed and into the
category of oppressors, as they see these two as the only
positions available. They can idolize suffering or causing
suffering, since to them other people having merit causes
suffering.
These people preach sacrifice and preach altruism but in
reality, they do not sacrifice anything other than their being.
The aid they provide to the needy is a philosophical system
which is designed to benefit their personal miserable existence.
To admit that in the capitalist system resources come from
personal merit would be treason to these people as they want to
believe that they advocate for a system of real merit. Even
though they could help others more if they had resources, they
would have to get the resources from themselves and that
would mean that they need to admit that they’re in a system of
ability and they themselves have ability.
They pathologically want to destroy themselves and not
improve in any way. They have no interest in offering actual
help, but rather they feel as if they owe it to others to not be
better than them, even if this sort of betterness would also
improve the station of others this would also improve their own
being, and to them that is a negative. They’re stuck in a world
of pain and their entire purpose is not to get out of it but to
rationalize it. They blame their personal faults on the things
which reward people for their merits. They cannot accept what
is not cognitively easy for them to accept. To them, life is only
about suffering and to for them to be able to enjoy it causes of
suffering must be eliminated. They do not consider that the one
causing their suffering is themselves and that they are the ones
refusing to reduce their own pain.
 These people do not want anyone else to improve, as that
would be an assault on themselves. They have no care for those
they perceive to be oppressed as anything more than the
perceived oppression, they don’t want them to stop being
oppressed. They need the notion of oppression, they do not
care about individual people. They should be overjoyed when
discovering that this oppression they describe does not exist,
but instead they descend into a rage, as this thought is
fundamental on sustaining their delusion. All they know is that
they are suffering and other people are better, so they blame the
suffering on their betters.
Material desires and an avoidance of merit will cause the
people who are already plagued by short time preferences to
consume in ever-increasing amounts. They will prioritize that
which they like over that which they need as this behaviour
satisfies them for a short time without causing them to advance
in any way. To invest in productive effort would cause a
lessening of suffering in the world, which to them in practice is
undesirable. Actual production to help humans would cause
them to not have anything to complain about. They would need
to move on to productive efforts. But however, as long as there
is any inequality these people would still be envious. Even if
the poorest person had his own castle they would be upset that
the richest person has more castles. To them, it is wrong that
people who have merit in themselves have been rewarded
better.
They will not stick to consuming the material, they will
consume whatever they get their hands on. They will corrupt
whatever is possible to fit their creed of suffering. They have
no desire to elevate anyone, but rather drag those down who
are elevated by themselves.To do so these people will have to
preach their ideology and masquerade it as against everything
they themselves are. These people are consumers of spirit and
of goods, the only thing they can propagate is ideology that
continues consuming the spirit of others and that justifies to
them the consumerism they indulge into.
However, they will sneer at the constant brigade of
commercials as bourgeoisie and manipulative and then they
will spend their resources on things they have no need for.
They will consume like this until they run out of things to
consume. When everything has been consumed they can point
their finger at those providing what is possible for them to
consume and blame that person for not providing them more.
To divulge from the rant about the people plagued by this
ideology I would, as a sort of a final word, like to point out an
especially cruel and anti-social scheme. This is one of those
things that at the surface seems humanitarian and seems to
create positive results, but it accomplishes the opposite.
In any society that is half-way functional people will aid
each other when the other is in need. These people will do so
out of a like for the other and out of empathy for other. In this
way, humans naturally have a social safety net. A criticism of
this would be that the safety net does not apply to those who
are anti-social, but why should this concern us? If people are so
alienated from society that no-one can feel empathy for them,
perhaps for the crimes that they have committed or perhaps
because of perpetual impoliteness, why should deserve any
contributions by merely existing?
When the government enters this system they will not
reward social behaviour by aid, but rather subsidize anti-social
behaviour. They will allow those who have not made social
contributions to retain their lifestyle. This sort of safety feature
becomes a way to systematically decrease social and
productive life. This sort of system will also lead people to
assume even more that a certain level of wealth is given to
them, that they are owed resources just for needing them.
Survival, to them, is not something that you have to strive for
but something that other people owe you.
 This anti-social safety net will likely not help those who
are truly in need of help. As the contributions they receive are
not out of the kind will of another but out of a bureaucratic
agency they do not have to pay back. They lack the
responsibility that the trust of another entails.
This gambit is even crueler than just that. Not only does
it incentivize anti-social behaviour but it also removes the
benefit that people have from contributing to another. People
will no longer feel pleasant as they help others, but are rather
coerced into having another agency do so. This becomes even
more vile in the situation where there is a hierarchy of all to all.
In this situation, no one would have a right to themselves, and
everyone would have an obligation to the state which then
distributes wealth as it pleases.
Solutions

The vast majority of problems can be solved, and it is so also

with these particular ones. The solution of these problems lies
in reversing the cause of it. The first thing to do is to get rid of
the problems created by the state. You may take the following
as a guide to abolishing the state.
The first step that must be taken is a restoration of
property rights to their fullest extent. The income tax must be
dealt away with, central banking must be destroyed and all
regulations on business and bans on specific things on your
own property must disappear. These factors are vital for people
to have back their confidence in themselves and their property.
This is the only way in which people could gain back the
confidence needed to sustain society. This must also mean that
people are able to form covenants and discriminate on will,
there can be no complaint about that. All mandates on
interaction need to go, people must be in charge of their own
lives.
Secondly, government involvement in schools is vital to
sustaining the system of not knowing. This must start with
removing any advocacy organizations, that are holding schools
back, having power in the government and end with completely
privatizing schools. At this point, you may still have programs
to help the needy get an education, but that must be dealt with
later when the economy is working. Children must not be
indoctrinated, they must have opportunities to actually learn
and improve instead of being blatantly lied to or brainwashed
by incompetent systems. You cannot have a healthy society
with members that are not seeking information.
After privatizing the schools you must privatize as many
government agencies as is possible and abolish multiple other
ones. The government has to be cut down to basic duties and
those duties must be separated as much as possible. The
government should at this point manage very few things. One
of the most important things is to localize or even privatize
roads to stop unwanted movement and to aid in people
restoring their own communities and keeping out those who
would break them up. People being able to form their
communities ensures that the social connection once lost is
able to be more easily returned.
After all this, social welfare programs need to be phased
out in their entirety, money must be seen as earned and can not
be seen as a given to every people out of need. This will take
some adjusting, but it is necessary that aid comes out of good
will. There will be immediate problems present but these will
work themselves out with time. In previous social conditions
there have been many alternatives to our welfare system,
mutual aid societies and decentralized helping of one another
being notable examples.
After these steps have been accomplished the population
should be ready to be social and cultural once more. After
adjusting they will no longer be full of doubt, their time
preferences will be able to be lengthier as the government pulls
away from their lives and allows them to live as civil beings.
This population is ready to live in a society, they are able to
interact and live peacefully and establish a true stateless
society.
This situation is utopian, but this is the way to fix the
problem society-wide. We, as individuals who do desire to live
in liberty, must in a realistic situation separate from others. We
are ready to live in a civilized society held up by mutual benefit
and positive human relationships. The only way to do so is to
congregate and ignore the state and leftist ideology. This is the
way in which we would be able to be social and civil, this
would not save the rest of the world but we cannot save the
world in any likely scenario.
If you are wondering about how you can yourself get
these virtues back, if you already don’t have them, the solution
is simple. You must realize that you belong to yourself and so
do your actions, and the fruits that those actions give you. You
must realize that this also applies to everyone else. After that,
you need to give up any and all self-loathing due to your
merits. These are the most vital steps to being social, you must
recognize that you and others are individuals who make up a
society and that infringing on those individuals only leads to
ruin. Society can only be held up in a scenario that lacks
infringement on those positive connections and in which
positive connections are able to properly form.
If libertarian societies are to ever be free of these issues
they must also have within themselves conservative values. We
must, as libertarians, understand that the only way to preserve
our society is if we do have morals and if we do have strong
hierarchy, formed of mutual consent. Libertarians can be
individualistic to a fault, but we must all respect and recognize
that some of us are fit to lead others, even without employing
physical force and we must delegate those who are fit to lead
us that duty. We need unwavering unity and strong chains of
command when we are trying to accomplish things. We need to
have a figurehead who is able to convince people who would
not immediately favour such a society to not infringe upon it or
even to join the community. Unity is the most important thing
in every such radical movement and unity can only be properly
accomplished by a moral, hierarchial system.
And we must ensure that we do have values which can
guide us that are not only natural law or the non-aggression
principle. These values do not need to be traditional but they
have to exist so we could after forming our own society
improve this society and stay clear of things that would bring it
down. We cannot descend into meaninglessness where drugs
take over and families break down. An economic system is not
enough, when people use it for self-destructive purposes, even
if they are otherwise victimless.
We must also never try to make everyone equal within
the libertarian society and never have any illusions about the
sameness of everyone. We must acknowledge that each person
has their station and that each person within their station knows
that their station is the result of their own being. Egalitarian
notions must, in their entirety, disappear from libertarian
thought, if we wish to not regress to a broken world.
We must also never preach mundanity or loathing. We
must strive for the excellent and not the common. We must
favour the aristocracy over the common man. We must ensure
that this aristocracy is an aristocracy of merit and not of force.
If we do not do so, people not as individualistic will attach
virtue to the common man, in which case the worship of the
common man allows all these cultural tragedies to take place
once more.
 Information

You can read more of what I write at: www.InsulaQui.com

You can contact me at: [email protected]
You can reach me on twitter at: www.twitter.com/insulaqui

I’m not good with citations, so instead here are the best sources
that you can use to start your own political education. As of
writing this, I’m not affiliated with any.

David Friedman “The Machinery of Freedom”

Gustave de Molinari “The Production of Security”
Hans-Hermann Hoppe “Democracy: The God That Failed”
Henry Hazlitt “Economics in One Lesson”
John Locke “The Second Treatise of Government”
Murray N. Rothbard “Man, Economy and State with Power and Market”
Murray N. Rothbard “The Anatomy of the State”
Robert Taylor “Reactionary Liberty”
 Libertarian Reaction
by Insula Qui

©2017 Insula Qui

No Rights Reserved

Author: Insula Qui

Contact: [email protected]

The author of this book hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and
moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may
be used, distorted or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without further
attribution or notice to the creator.