AynCrap

fdhgsdfhsd Is something rotten in the state of Canada? Apparently people there pay more in taxes than food, clothing and shelter put together... Oops.

I reserve the right to be wrong. I am contemplating starting another blog with more specialised posts called something like "How Hard Can It Be?" which would look at exactly what red tape gets in the way of what human activities... Shall I do that? ANSWER ME!

I reserve the right to be wrong. But I'm not... Tom Woods interviews Bob Murphy about defence in a stateless society . I'm sure you recall the name Robert Murphy, cos he had a debate with Milton Friedman's son David. On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matt figures out how to make quotes look pretty and dances with the stars!

I reserve the right to be wrong. PEACE = Absence of violence or aggression. JUSTICE = People getting what they deserve. ORDER = Rule of law. Is it just me or are peace, justice and order three descriptions of the same thing? And are they not the parent and child of the condition called liberty? That is to say, the condition of complete rights (freedom, power) over everything that you as a person - as a moral agent - own. That logically means that you do not own anything that other persons - other moral agents - own and so have no freedom or power over what others own. PEACE Peace and liberty? Peace seems to be about the simple quiet of the non-initiation of violence of any kind. Perhaps the courtesies and forms of politeness and avoidance of conflict are the peaceful part of our social activities. Liberty might promote peace insofar as living in liberty makes it disadvantageous to do violent things, where today it is often advantageous to be aggressive or cruel, s...

I am wrong or right or neither. THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE Aggress not, lest ye be aggressed upon in turn. I wouldn't want to be ostracised by the society I lived in. That's an anxiety that many people do experience now, though not I, since my responsibility to not be a dick has been somewhat abrogated by the structures of power around me. But then what is society, what's wrong with how it's constituted now, and if something is wrong, what should be done? Surely society is the product you get from letting two or more humans interact, however fleetingly or rarely, but generally in a context where they can engage in exchange; of news, stories, advice, solace, intimacy, or material trade. I wonder what might imbalance that dynamic... The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is simply a statement that to aggress against others is immoral. Most libertarians, whether they are classical liberal, minarchist, or anarchist, take the view that aggression is any wilful act ...

I reserve the right to be wrong. Stef attack , baby! This feeds yet again into the point of the Live in Liberty argument which I intend to put across through this blog over the rest of this year. On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Mister Matthew seduces Jeffrey Tucker and they fly together to the moon and play among the stars.

I reserve the right to be wrong. David D. Friedman and Robert P. Murphy debate  the efficacy of the Chicago vs. Austrian schools of economics. I sympathise with the Austrian School and not the Chicago one. There is an exception, though, namely Public Choice Theory . This Chicago School theory takes in the study of rent-seeking in the public sector, as opposed to the usual point of economics, which tends to study the profit-seeking behaviour of people in the private sector, and doesn't really study government in detail. But that's another story. On the next Ecomony Blogtime; why can't fusion reactors consist of solar panels facing inwards toward the plasma? Is that not a way to produce electricity that can be stored or sold onto the grid?

I reserve the right to be wrong, but this post is right. Without the labour theory of value , there's no class struggle, no oppression by capital... and thus no rationale for any government action that limits the free action of moral agents/people. On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matt twerks morse code and adopts an Austrian accent!

I reserve the right to be wrong. What would make Libertarianism's internal divisions clear? Perhaps a simple exposition of degrees of Libertarianism is in order. The degree to which different Libertarians reject elite monopoly power - whether it's a system built for a small fixed caste ( oligarchy ) or for the rich ( plutocracy ) - is important to recognise correctly so as to know what it is that people actually want the world to be like. First, a definition of terms. State - Metaphysical entity that is governed by an elite/government who are appointed either by themselves, the population at large or by sortition. Responsible for agreeing to and abiding by international treaties. Courts - Arbiters in deciding which parties in a disagreement are right on a case by case basis. Supreme Court - Arbiter in cases involving the body of laws itself. Policing - Legally-empowered enforcers of laws. Defence - Peeps with guns of various sizes for discouraging arme...