My book is now available! The Uniqueness of Western Law.

My book is now available! With endorsements from Walter Block, Gerard Casey and Frank van Dun, and an afterword by Ricardo Duchesne, how can you resist?

UK – https://amzn.to/2TDHxJN
US – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1912975033
Visit the Arktos page for the book here.

‘Readers of Richard Storey’s The Uniqueness of Western Law won’t like his book — they will either love it or loathe it! Almost every page of this book challenges the creeds of current liberal orthodoxies (its subtitle is “A Reactionary Manifesto”) and does so in a concise and scholarly yet very readable, fashion. Storey’s approach to his topic is one that many readers will never have considered before and therein lies one, but not the only one, of its particular virtues. Read this book and prepare to be either exhilarated, encouraged and fascinated or disturbed, angered and provoked. Either way, you won’t be bored!’— Gerard Casey, MA, LL.M., Ph.D., D.Litt., Professor Emeritus, University College Dublin, and author of Freedom’s Progress? A History of Political Thought

‘All too many libertarians misconstrue the philosophy they are explaining. Not Richard Storey. He correctly states that libertarianism is solely a theory of just law. This chapter alone is worth the entire cost of admission. As a contrarian myself, I take my hat off to this author for his fearlessness and bravery.’— Walter E. Block, Ph.D., Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, Loyola University New Orleans

‘With its wide-ranging, yet easy to follow arguments, Richard Storey’s Manifesto makes a compelling case for a conscientious libertarianism, rooted in the basic idea of the Western philosophical and Christian tradition, viz. that there is a freedom-promoting principle of order (“a natural law”) of the world. It is a law that reveals itself in that most specifically human activity: raising and answering questions, arguing with each other, appealing to one another’s conscience of our common humanity. Elucidating the real-world conditions that enable this conscientious search for order at all levels of human coexistence, Storey effectively destroys the caricature of libertarianism as “globalist market fundamentalism” that became prominent in the Cold War era.’— Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur., Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law at the University of Ghent

How Medieval Christianity Can Save the West - an interview with Rachel F...

The Bible is Anti-Statist

Introduction

In this article, we shall see that the Bible is an explicitly anti-state collection of books throughout and that the few supposed exceptions to that rule are not exceptions at all. 

Genesis

As Norman Horn of LibertarianChristians.com has pointed out, Josephus does describe the origin of tyranny in the rise of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel.  Whilst this is entirely correct, the text of Genesis would have had an even more explicitly Anti-statist message to its original readers. 

 

The vast majority of scholars recognise that chapters 1-11 of Genesis are intended as a polemic against Babylonian and other ancient Near-Eastern myths.  The Epic of Gilgamesh presents an account in which the barbarian, Enkidu, discovers the wonders of city-life (equal to Statism in that age) after being seduced and lured to the city of Uruk by a prostitute.  But Genesis responds with a ‘decidedly anti-urban bias’ against the city-state propaganda of the Babylonian text.[1]  Whilst Nimrod the tyrant wishes to utilise mankind as a resource to his own ends, God wishes that each person be His representative and steward over the earth and its habitats (Genesis 1:26-28), not over each other.  The biblical perspective therefore promotes the free, ‘uncivilised’ (i.e. unconquered), stateless society and the individual sovereignty of the so-called Barbarians.  

 

Indeed, we can see that, far from the historical evidence conveying people rushing to the city-states by the rivers in the plains, where food production was more predictable and occupations more varied, people have actually ‘been fleeing the oppressions of state-making projects’ to be free from enslavement, conscription, war, taxation and disease.[2]  Yet, the historical context of Genesis as a valuable, ancient, political voice against the rise of the city-state (and later Imperialism) is apparently never explained to the average churchgoer; many of whom, particularly in the US, believe that God and nation go hand-in-hand. 

Certainly, the rest of Scripture presents us with illustrations of government as various monstrous beasts which are destructive and ungodly (most notably in the books of Daniel and the Revelation).  After all, the agent of evil himself, Satan, expresses to Jesus that all governments belong to him (Luke 4:5-6) and their very existence and purpose directly contradict the golden rule taught by Jesus Christ.  But what of the nation of Israel which God established?  Was that evil?  And why does Paul speak favourably of the state in Romans 13?

Israel

Did God vindicate Statism by creating the nation of Israel?  It is important to recognise that the government of ancient Israel was wholly synonymous with the covenant which God made with Moses and the Israelites.  In the ancient Near-East, nations were typically created using the same covenantal method, including the tablets and laws that we read of coming from Mount Sinai in Exodus 20.[3]  Therefore, you cannot have ancient Israel without the Law or vice versa. 

So, was the Old Covenant a perfect system, designed to last forever?  Or was it put forward for us to learn that such a thing was impossible because of our nature?  Of course, many Jews today would insist on the former answer, but as Christians we recognise that the latter is true.  The Law of Moses embodies that purely judicial system of government which was originally established in ancient Israel (see Judges).  However, the New Testament writers are explicit that this was not a perfect system and was only intended to last until the Messiah came to establish His spiritual covenant and kingdom (Hebrews 7-8).  Furthermore, the Mosaic Covenant did not have the purpose of showing us how lovely we could all be but of showing us how frequently or seriously we all fail ethically (Romans 3 & Galatians 3).  It should be of no surprise then that the national framework which was set in place to administer this legal system was wholly for the same purpose – showing us that government cannot and should not be in the hands of fallible men.

Yes, God established a system of government, but it was apparently preconceived that the Israelites would demand more government to their own detriment (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).  As Thomas Jefferson put it, ‘The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield [sic.], and government to gain ground.’[4]  It is for this reason that Samuel called the Israelites’ act of asking for a king ‘wicked’ and a sin (1Samuel 12:17 & 19) and warned of the calamities of taxation etc. which would come upon the people as a result (1Samuel 8:10-18).

God never intended the Old Covenant nation of Israel to be perfect or to perfect anyone, but to show us our imperfection, especially in demanding increasingly oppressive state control over our neighbours.  We shall never find angels to govern us impeccably, nor can people be trusted to vigilantly ensure their government remains limited in power.  We are obliged to learn this important lesson from the example of ancient Israel.

Romans 13

As for Paul’s comment regarding governments being ordained in Romans 13, I admit that I was (like most Christians) convinced that these verses were ipso facto supporting the immoral practice of government, contrary to my conscience and my rationale.  However, upon studying the matter personally, I am utterly convinced of how short-sightedly erroneous that position is.

Whilst these verses are often read as ‘Paul’s Theology of the State’, many scholars have argued that because verses 1-7 stand in such contrast to the many godly rebellions against the state in the Old Testament, the immediate context and normal Pauline language suggest that the passage was a later edition.  For example, Paul says to obey and never resist government for the sake of conscience, but what about when Israel did the exact opposite for the sake of conscience, such as the coup against Queen Athaliah (2Kings 11) or the threat to revolt against King Saul because of the unjust law he implemented (1Samuel 14:24-45).

Assuming, however, this passage is a genuine part of the text, there were good reasons Paul would suddenly write about government in the middle of a discourse about Christian love and everyday behaviour.  Throughout Romans, Paul deals with divisions in the church, specifically between rich/poor and Gentile/Jew.  In its historical context,

‘Paul’s argument responds to an incipient anti-Judaism, which was already established among Roman aristocrats and was beginning to emerge among Gentile believers as well. Given the horrors of an anti-Jewish pogrom in Alexandria in Egypt (38–41 ce), and even more recent market tax riots that had turned deadly in Puteoli, a city south of Rome, Paul was concerned to prevent in Rome the sort of civic disturbance in which the city’s minority Jewish population would be especially vulnerable. This danger may explain the notorious exhortation to “be subject to the governing authorities”.’[5] 

Furthermore, there was the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius in 49 A.D.; thus, there were significant political events motivating Paul to command peaceful, law-abiding behaviour from the ‘Jewish sect’ of Christianity alongside the command for Romans and Jews to love each other as brothers. 

Jesus had continuously warned in apocalyptic language that Jerusalem would soon be destroyed, something Paul knew was imminent (1Thessalonians 2:16) and which did occur in 70 A.D.  Naturally, he wanted to protect his fellow-Christians by discouraging any unsavoury behaviour which would incur state punishment and consequently give Christians a bad name during that tense period.  This passage is therefore not commanding absolute obedience to all governments and the rules they impose, but would have been addressing specific political issues which were affecting the congregation at Rome, particularly as they expectantly awaited the First Jewish-Roman War.

The only argument against the Libertarian interpretation of this passage is presented indirectly by Schreiner.  Discussing the ‘sword’ wielded by the Roman authorities, he comments:

‘The reference…is to the broader judicial function of the state, particularly its right to deprive of life those who had committed crimes worthy of death. Paul would not have flinched in endorsing the right of ruling authorities to practice capital punishment since Gen. 9:6 supports it by appealing to the fact that human beings are made in God’s image.’[6]

Certainly, it is most likely that Paul is referencing Genesis 9:6, as most scholars have recognised and the covenant God made with Noah to establish a system of Capital Punishment and the general principle of lex talionis-style retributive justice for crimes against person (and property).  In context, this was done to avoid the savagery before the flood.  But do Genesis 9:6 or Romans 13:4 insist that such things must be carried out by the state?  

Luther certainly could not see any way in which a judicial system could function without the state and so assumed that ‘[b]y these words temporal government was established, and the sword placed in its hand by God.’  Sadly, the vast majority of Westerners continue to share this superstition.  However, according to the Talmud, among other sources, the ancient Jewish understanding of the covenant with Noah was that courts should be established, not the state.[7]

Paul was simply re-affirming the Jewish belief frequently stated throughout the Old Testament - if a government comes to power or is conquered or ceases altogether, all these things are in the providence of God.  Paul explicitly says that those governments ‘which exist’ only do so because God predetermined it.  Did God not also predetermine those times in human history when societies were stateless?  Paul does not say that states must exist for judicial punishment to take place, rather those which exist should perform that function.  Indeed, the era in which the story of Noah is set is prior to and outside of the ancient Near-Eastern city-states.  Therefore, the sort of system administering Capital Punishment was understood by the author of Genesis to be a stateless one, perhaps not unlike the Anglo-Saxon Common Law system which ‘developed over the centuries by the competing judges applying time-honored principles rather than the shifting decrees of the State…by applying rational-and very often libertarian-principles to the cases before them.’[8] 

An argument I previously made against Libertarianism was that my ideological belief (Capital Punishment for the crime of murder) would not be properly administrable in a stateless society.  However, upon reflection and study, I found that some of the greatest Libertarian thinkers were and are advocates of Capital Punishment, arguing that it would inevitably become normative in a stateless society.  One notable example is the great scholar, Murray Rothbard who, in his article, The Libertarian Position on Capital Punishment, wrote:

‘It is relatively easy to allot monetary penalties in the case of theft. But what about such a crime as murder? Here, in my view, the murderer loses precisely the right of which he has deprived another human being: the right to have one's life preserved from the violence of another person. The murderer therefore deserves to be killed in return. Or, to put it more precisely, the victim — in this case his surrogate, in the form of his heir or the executor of his estate should have the right to kill the murderer in return.’[9]

Many typical questions are subsequently raised when one suggests the unspoken idea of people actually having basic rules in a society without a state.  These have been thoroughly answered time and again but a fine academic discussion of this can be found in Bruce L. Benson's The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State.

Conclusion

Isaiah 9:7  Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Frederic Bastiat, an Economist and Statesman of France during its revolutionary period, noted: ‘antiquity presents everywhere - in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome - the spectacle of a few men moulding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and of fraud.’[10]  Napoleon himself may also have regretfully agreed with this assertion at the end of his life; in this controversial quote, he compared his military conquests to Jesus winning the hearts of empires and nations:

‘I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.’[11]

The Kingdom Jesus founded exists in our hearts.  It is a clear conscience before God and men whereby we recall the example of the love of Jesus and remember His command for us to love each other, our neighbours and our enemies.  Jesus did not come to force people to do His will - to love and respect each other - but to live it out and become the greatest example to men and women so that we would willingly do the same, from the heart.  Generally, the principle of this kingdom is to do to others as we would have them do to us and to never use force to coerce others to do our will; Libertarians commonly call this the ‘Non-Aggression Principle’.  It is this universally recognised ‘golden rule’, naturally at work in our conscience, which Jesus came to hold up as the objective moral law for all people. 

We do not need that chief manifestation of coercion and evil, the state, to control us and our families.  We only need our freedom, especially freedom of conscience, and the example of the love of Jesus to live out our lives, as stewards of God to the earth, in peace.  I invite you to imagine such a beautiful world and to pray and act with me that God’s kingdom would come and that the dominion of the evil of a past age would be extinguished forever.

---

[1] HarperCollins Study Bible (1993) HarperCollins Publishers, p.18

[2] Scott, J. (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, Yale University Press, Preface

[3] Lopez, R. (2004) ‘Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants (Part 2 of 2)’, CTS Journal, Spring 2004

[4] Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788 - http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-13-02-0120

[5] The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Fourth Edition, 2010) Oxford University Press, p.1975

[6] Schreiner, T. (1998) Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, p.692

[7] See Talmud Sanhedrin, 56a

[8] Rothbard, M. (1978) For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Ludwig von Mises Institute, p.283

[9] Rothbard, M. (1978) The Libertarian Position on Capital Punishment - http://mises.org/daily/4468 (20/10/2014)

[10] Bastiat, F. (2008 ed.) The Law, Misbach Enterprises, Kindle Edition, p.36

[11] See Conversations avec General Bertrand à St. Helena

Libertarian Media of the Year 2017

Read the full article at Mises UK:

https://misesuk.org/2017/12/28/libertarian-media-of-the-year-2017/

Libertarian Media of the Year 2016

What a year!  Brexit, Trump and a whole host of world-changing nationalistic events which have made political satire redundant.  Let's look at the tidbits you lovers of libertarian law should have been consuming in your free time during the previously 'current' year.

Book of the year must go to Keir Martland's Political and Cultural Essays, which is really just
'an extension and overhaul of [his] first book', Liberty From A Beginner.  This is an ideal starter for anyone interested in libertarianism.  Keir is sharp, thorough and insightful; I can't rate him highly enough. 
https://thelibertarianalliance.com/2016/11/04/political-and-cultural-essays-by-keir-martland/

The movie with the most outstanding libertarian qualities surely must be Captain America: Civil War.  Captain America and Iron Man come to blows over the centralised power of the UN attempting to take control of the superhero team, the Avengers; Iron Man explains that if they don't sign the accords handed to them, they are 'no better than the bad guys' - what's the difference between an outlaw and a vigilante working outside of the law?  This is of course the struggle all statists must face when confronted with their love of superheroes.  Do we want a strong, Nietzschean ubermensch to come and get shit done or are we too afraid to trust in the goodness of the vast majority of people, even within a homogeneous society, and demand instead that the state micro-manage our interactions?  Captain America is the good guy here and stands firmly on the side of individual sovereignty without losing an inch of the hearty nationalism his character embodies.  When confronted with the authority of the UN, he complains that this is a political organisation run by people with agendas and that shifting the blame to another isn't good enough for him.  He trusts in his own goodness and wants to take responsibility.  To sign, he argues, is to 'surrender our right to choose'.

Civil War is nothing short of a radical stand against globalism and centralised state power.  Captain America as an archetype has been a real hero in the world.  The film is very personal; the villain is a simple man with very personal motives and the clash betweeen Cap and Stark is just as personal.  Captain America must go beyond the law to do what he knows is right and is ultimately proven right.  This is a milestone moral chapter in the West in that we are remembering that one man can be right when the majority and the loudest voices are not.



(Hunt for the Wilderpeople deserves an honorary mention and is a MUST WATCH!)

TV has been overtaking cinema in its ability to not just impress with high-budget scenes but also to make us think.  Whilst The Walking Dead has continued an anti-coercive theme, one of the best shows of the year is Stranger Things.  Three young school-nerds must go outside of the law to protect a young girl who appears to have been part of some secret, MK-ultra style psy-ops program run by a shady federal outfit in the US; meanwhile, they are trying to find their friend who has.  The local sheriff, who has one of the best mantras ever (mornings are for coffee and contemplation), eventually concludes something is suspcious and also joins the youngsters and others outside of 'the law' - that is, tyrannical legislation.  The show is a heart-warming pastiche of all the elements we loved about children/teen adventure movies as 80's and 90's kids.  The message is similar to Civil War but much more emotional as it's experienced between children and parents.  This show is very cool and very libertarian.

The choice of game pains me but is nonetheless libertarian in its scope and achievement.  Pokemon Go is a worldwide experiment in spontaneous order.  A game is created by augmenting the reality of our world when viewed through the lens of one's phone and players from all around the world have had to organise themselves civilly in order to politely compete to collect small monster and to engage in friendly cock-fights with the monsters they collect.  Moreover, people have opened their homes and businesses to act as gyms and spaces which they virtual world benefits from.

Just recently I was engaged in a 'conversation' about roads etc., as anarchic libertarians such as myself sometimes are.  I tried to explain that the roads here in the UK were developed privately during the Industrial Revolution and the same with the railways in the North-East US.  This did not result in chaos but, rather, different businesses benefitted from co-operating peacably with each other and so did everyone else as a result.  Pokemon Go has go people out of the house, engaging with many others and making the world around a more lively and interesting place; it's not just keeping people fit but reinvigorating a sense of community in its own, small way.  This is essential for helping us understand the pro-social nature of individualism and the ability of our market community to handle organisational issues that arise.

Enjoy these and please offer your thoughts in the comments section.  Happy New Year!

What is the Spirit of Christmas?

 Consider this article my Merry Christmas to you!

http://proudboymagazine.com/what-is-the-spirit-of-christmas/

Decentralisation, Libertarianism, the Alt-Right, National Action Ban - R...

Decentralisation, Libertarianism, the Alt-Right, National Action Ban - R...

https://youtu.be/EfnkqZP4_xY

Folk-Right Versus Multiculturalism

Folk-Right Versus Multiculturalism

My article on Libertarian Nationalism

Alternative Right: CAN'T HAVE LIBERTARIANISM WITHOUT NATIONALISM: Confused multiculturalism seeking the wisdom of nationalism. by Rik Storey
On the anniversary of 9/11, President Obama called fo...

Right-Libertarian: Sorry, National Socialism

Recently, Seventh Son at therightstuff.biz has been trashing national socialism's only friend in the alt-right – right-libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism. They have declared libertarianism to be a fundamentally Jewish ideology and, thus, all libertarians are Jews and, thus, great deceivers. They have reiterated the trustworthy sentiment of the neocons - that libertarianism is egalitarian and anti-hierarchy, like Marxism. As such, they have labelled us 'cucks'. Furthermore, they have reminded us that the socio-biological obstacles to achieving a libertarian society are such that it is entirely unrealistic to expect one, except through national socialism as a stepping stone. I would therefore like to tell the national socialists that I am sorry:

I am sorry you have decided to turn your sights at your only true ally in the fight against cultural Marxism at such a crucial time, when the very future of Western civilization hangs in the balance and her enemies overwhelm us. I am sorry you have betrayed not just those of another ideology but your very kin in doing so.

I am sorry that you were unaware that libertarianism is in fact a theory of law, is not synonymous with Austrian Economics, and in no way precludes nationalism. I am sorry that you had no idea that right or paleo-libertarians believe in a natural order and, thus, in hierarchies which organically arise. I am sorry that you do not know that libertarian aristocracies were the way of the Indo-Europeans from whom we are descended and whom you are supposed to venerate; those who gave birth to the individualism and libertarian streak which has uniquely run through Western civilization's history.

I am sorry that you do not see that your own ideology of socialism does in actual fact originate with Jewish thinkers, making you hypocrites, or that it is a fundamentally leftist ideology, putting you in no position to throw around accusations of cuckery. I am sorry that you more highly prize the Prussian Socialism of Spengler (which merely adapted leftism to focus on race rather than class) than the ways of your ancestors and the natural order of European peoples. I am sorry that you like Hitler a great deal but fail to recognise that his politics were no more a part of Western tradition than his vegetarianism.

I am sorry that you think the establishment of a Nazi regime in the US is more realistic than achieving a natural order through reforming the monarchies of Europe, following the wave of nationalism currently sweeping the continent. I am sorry you fail to recognise that there are vast swathes of degenerates who happen to be white in the US and could never maintain the sort of socialism that the Germans were able to in the 1930's and the Nordics (decreasingly so) since the 1970's. And I am sorry that you fail to recognise that your only hope to ever see your ideal system would be within the sort of covenant communities proposed by the only people who tolerate you – your now spurned friends, the right-libertarians.

If you would like to make amends (and I sincerely hope you do), I would recommend you first read Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed, Duchesne's The Uniqueness of Western Civilization and my own articles re the historicity of libertarianism in Western civilization, especially Northern European civilizations.

Oh, finally, I am not at all sorry for being facetious.

Paleo-Libertarianism and the Heresies to the Natural Order

No Social Contract in Anglo-Saxon Common Law

Recently, a chum asked me, 'So is the Common Law the fabled "social contract"?'

My response:

'Not quite. Anglo-Saxon Common Law predates the Norman Conquest and was written down in Anglo-Saxon and not Latin. It is one of those germanic bodies of law which was devised privately when rights were based on kinship, i.e. folk right. As such, its basis is in the libertarian aristocracy practised by the Anglo-Saxon nobility, descended from the same Indo-European practice. It was upon this that English Common Law developed. Sadly, but to a lesser extent than other germanic law systems, this was intermingled with Roman Law which was fundamentally statist despite also being developed by private bodies. This was merged with Anglo-Saxon law to become what we know as English Common Law which is, most significantly, the system the US legal system is based upon. Thus, Burke's 'ancient constitution' or 'ancient rights and liberties' of the Englishman and every Englishman's home being his castle.'

Iron Man vs. Trump, #BLM riots and Brexit legal quagmire

I'm back, like Optimus Prime, and I've been busy

I told you I'd be back!

Here's my weekly news breakdown and a discussion of what I've been doing.  Stay tuned for my behind the scenes look at the Property and Freedom Society 2016 held in Bodrum, Turkey; also my podcast is soon due to be broadcast over at ProudBoy Magazine.  I'm pleased to say my articles have been doing well there, especially this response to Prof. Obioma's article in Foreign Policy about why there are no successful black nations.

Apologies For Podcast Delays

I apologise to my viewers who have not seen my weekly podcast for the past fortnight.  I have been busy starting a new job, writing articles for ProudBoy Magazine and conducting some interviews with other sources.  Please check out the Propertarian Institute's podcast to hear a discussion with Curt Doolittle and stay tuned for a behind the scenes look at the Property and Freedom Society of Hans-Hermann Hoppe.  Like Optimus Prime, I will return; for now, sorry.

ProudBoy Magazine launches and yours truly is a columnist

Finally, ProudBoy Magazine has been unleashed and yours truly is a columnist.  The brainchild of comedian and commentator, Gavin McInnes, the theme is the promotion of libertarianism and 'Western Chauvinism'.

So far my articles have been defending the white middle class from attacks by the left.  Some articles will be more comedic and ranty, such as my article about why Star Trek Beyond thought it was necessary was to make Sulu gay and have an on-screen kiss, despite George Takei's protestations; some will be more serious, such as my interview with Prof. Richard Lynn on John McAfee's declaration that libertarians should be ashamed that over 90% of us are white.  Be sure to check the site every week for fresh articles; here is my author's page.

In other news, in the past fortnight I have started a weekly transatlantic news commentary from an anarcho-libertarian perspective.  Please check it out.

Keep supporting my work by liking, sharing, subscribing etc. etc. Every little helps.  Many thanks to my core readers and viewers for the encouragement.

The Libertarian View of Immigration and Borders

Please check out my article over at the Council of European Canadians' blog Ocean Drive on the debate among libertarians as to whether we should support open borders or greater regulation.  The answer is: the third option!

Here is an extract of my interview with Walter Block which inspired this article:

Goodbye, EU. Hello, the European.

First, I must apologise to you, my core audience, for the month-long break I have taken since my last post and video before my Brexit interviews; I have moved - moved country!  I have come to the beautiful peninsula of Bodrum, home to some of the greatest ancient Greek thinkers and the birthplace of many great ideas which galvanized the development of the West.  If I may digress a little further, this place is renowned for stealing the hearts of its visitors, as it did mine, not least because of its uniquely arresting bays and coves, and dry warmth softened by gentle breezes, but also because of the history of the place, e.g. the ruin of one of the seven ancient wonders of the world - the tomb of Mausolus, from which we derive our word mausoleum.  What is more, Bodrum is the meeting place of the Property and Freedom Society, baby of the greatest Libertarian philosopher of our time, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.  One can see why and I will make it my job to provide you with a first-hand look in good time...

But, to the point at hand: I was not the only one who left Europe, so to speak.  Though I left the territories called European, the United Kingdom left the centralized, protectionist European Union.  Not moments after the votes had been counted in favour of the 'leavers', the threats of economic apocalypse came.  Britain would sink beneath the waves; however, such talk was followed not only by the US, Canadian and especially the German governments saying they want to continue strong trading relationships, but European right-wing parties immediately voiced a desire for similar referendums (N.B. not referenda).  Scotland, which voted with a majority in favour of remaining will now most likely have another referendum as to seceding from the UK, London too would seem as though it would wish to secede as a city-state from the rest of England; on and on the secesssion must go, for this is the way of the West.

There can be no middle-ground between individualism and collectivism and the West, because of the foundations of our cultures and the interaction between this and our biology has led to the favouring of individualism, especially in the Anglo-Dutch world.  Nature presents us with a battlefield over resources and our genes determine overwhelmingly which side we are on - the strong middle and higher classes or, rather, the capitalist class; or those without, who are incentivised to push the irrational slave ethic of socialism, using coercive power to violate the private property rights of those with.  Secession is a victory for the capitalist class, those who choose to recognise private property rights and have no biological incentive to wish them away.  Its logical conclusion is the secession of all indviduals from any coercive power and, as such, would be the greatest thing ever to happen to those less fortunate.  I feel justified in my optimism, the market shall prevail over all unsustainable political projects, and what is the market but the realm of individual choice.  We have seen this week, a huge victory on the side of the market and those who excel in it for the benefit of all.  But, the war is not over.  Wherever we can, we must push for greater secession and dispel the illusion of the benevolence and legitimacy of an untouchable corporate body called 'the state' until all that is left is individual actors, using means to achieve ends, not one of them mysteriously immune from justice.

The battle will be fierce.  Even now exaggerations are made, such as that leave-campaigning politicians lied to coerce voters their way and that they are now backtracking - an easy thing to do when only one side of the story is sought.  The weak-minded are swayed by such propaganda and have suddenly 180'd to hypocritical desires to retrospectively tweak democracy (the god which has failed again but which cannot be directly spoken ill of).  Be sure that the political class will continue to catastrophise and declare Brexit the root of all evil.  We, who want freedom, must be equipped with the facts and be ready to defend this secession and indeed all secession.  We must be the optimists and we must shine a light of truth so that the path to freedom can be made visible to others.  The enemies of freedom will not be merciful when they cast up smoke and mirrors.  Fight on, a new enlightenment and a brighter future await.

Optimism about Aritificial Intelligence and the Future

Hunter Hastings discussed with me the brilliant innovations in the market to develop AI for the assistance of consumers.  Also, the abilities of what he describes as the cognitive assistant will  probably revolutionize the activities of entrepreneurs, not just by connecting individuals, but by providing people with information, skills and opportunities they would not have otherwise.

Hunter provides brilliant examples of how AI is changing our lives for the better right now, even saving lives!  Also discussed are irrational fears for the future and the hope of the reduction of state activities as individualism increases dramatically, people's unique abilities being enhanced and made more marketable.  For such reasons, Hunter describes AI as the 'augmented individual'.

All this and more:

David Gordon's conversation with Murray Rothbard about Argumentation Ethics

The following is an excerpt from an interview I conducted with David Gordon, editor of the Mises Review:

RS: Would you mind if I queried you a little bit about argumentation ethics?  I must confess I’m very enamoured with it; I think it’s fascinating, especially having a legal background.  I’m very interested in Stephan Kinsella, who has developed this in terms of its application to jurisprudence.  I’ve also written on the subject of holding state judicial powers accountable under a private law system and how the state can never lawfully be a judge and could be taken to court for aggressively establishing a judicial monopoly.  What are your thoughts on argumentation ethics?

DG: I’m afraid I’m going to be disappointing, I think there’s something to it but I have difficulty seeing exactly what.  One of the points is: suppose I were to say, I don’t own myself.  I would be involved in some sort of contradiction because in order to say, 'I don’t own myself,' I show that, in fact, I did own myself.  Suppose I say in English, 'I’ve never spoken an English sentence in my life'; my saying just that shows that my statement is false.  Therefore, the claim is that it’s a similar type of profound contradiction.  The problem is: I just do not see what the contradiction is supposed to be.  If I can tell you a funny story, I was talking to Rothbard and I said, 'What if someone just said “I just can’t see what the contradiction is?” and he said, ‘Ah, f**k ‘em!’  There may be something to it and maybe I’m just failing to see it.