Libertarian Media of the Year 2015

Before we greet 2016 with a hangover, it is helpful to first use our brains to think how culture has furthered the  cause of liberty in 2015.

My book of the year is non-fiction but for those who cannot read anything without imaginary characters, or pictures for that matter, it is short; so short that it has the word 'short' in the title:

A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
is an outstanding work which views the history of man from a perspective of private property, utterly shattering the glass floor of Marxism.  You will feel confident enough to have a deep discussion with anthropologists and political scientists after reading this book.  Containing Hoppe's brilliant essay, From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy, the case against liberal democracies and for natural order is laid out powerfully.  The best part?  It's free!
(You can purchase a hardback copy here: http://amzn.to/1LzzuTQ)

The most Libertarian movie of the year is probably also the best movie of the year.  You would be forgiven for asking what exactly is Libertarian about this movie:

Max Max: Fury Road
makes critics use words like tour-de-force.  George Miller returns to direct and apparently had the story stewing in his mind for many years; truly, this is his best and the practical effects are white-knucklingly envigorating.  But the plotline is what fascinates the most.  If you haven't watched it, watch it!  If you have, rewatch it!  But I would recommend reading Hoppe's excellent book (above) before you do.  Miller has apparently thought a considerable amount about human prehistory and how the State came into being.  Immortan Joe is the villain who treats others as property, developing a superstition about himself in order to convince his primitive serfs that he has some supernatural power over life, death and the afterlife and, therefore, must exercise a monopoly over violence and control who has property rights, i.e. govern coercively.
The Feminist message is present but, ultimately, the female characters need Max to save them.  However, he is no white knight and his character was despised by most women I discussed the film with.  He is not a romantic character and does not help for sexual profit.  The women have no gynocentric leverage with such a character and are entirely dependent on his whim.  Instead, Max purely desires personal redemption, entering their lives,  dominating the scene, and leaving to go his own way.  The character is very masculine and not at all a husband/utility to be bagged by some damsel in distress.  The irony is that he is titled and considered mad but self-described as driven only by survival, making him the sanest and most prudent one on the scene, though he hardly says a word.  Max's heroism derives from the selfish impulses of his conscience.
If you can take the hints of Matriarchal, 'earth-mother equals good' imagery at the end with a pinch of salt, the movie is a visceral feast depicting the Libertarian message that Statism is a superstition and that even the wildest and most selfish of men behave and trade peacefully in a post-Neolithic Revolution situation.

As for gaming, we have to look for something which allows maximum liberty for the player and moral dilemmas with a plethora of consequences, politically or otherwise:

Fallout 4 ticks the boxes and is notorious for presenting a number of ideological groups vying for political power in an alternate nuclear-apocalyptic reality; their superfluous endeavours are the landscape you have to traverse as well as a gritty world so vast you could play it for a year and still find novelties.

What I Love/Hate About Conspiracy Theories

Questioning anyone or anything that claims to be an authority and challenging the status quo are great western traditions and are these are in sad decline as the ridiculous ideology of political correctness grows in popularity.  I love the fact that people can recognise that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we do society.  That’s why the classic sci-fi film, The Matrix, struck such a chord with the audience, particularly the line, ‘there's something wrong with the world.  You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.’  Sure, asking questions is good but, just as important, is where you get your answers from.  What is your source?  What I hate about conspiracy theories is that, as a Libertarian, I am often compared to one.  I am one who wants to be well-equipped with knowledge of government activity to maintain what liberties I have from further encroachments and hopefully even to see the tide turned against state coercion.  However, when conspiracy theorists theorise, they typically consult two kinds of poor source material: 1. a mystical sage; or 2. some ideologue with an axe to grind.

Let’s start by examining the sage: David Icke, whilst he appears to be about as sincere as someone who at one time claimed to be the return of the Messiah can be, he expects us to believe that the world is controlled by lizard people.  Automatically, one would have to wonder why the elite of the world are trying to stem global warming; lizards like it hot!  If your theory included penguin people, then you might have me curious.  But where does he get his information from?  A spirit guide; that is, voices in his head which he claims to be benevolent aliens.  Other people claim that the world is controlled by Satanists and, again, they can tend to have purely mystical sources.  What this does is makes another human being your source of truth.  As soon as you create some sage with authority, they can insist that you believe things that defy empirical evidence and that you do things which defy your conscience and rationale.  This phenomenon doesn’t just affect conspiracy theorists but is how entire religions and societies function today.

Now, let’s look at the second poor source used by conspiracy theorists – ideologists spreading propaganda.  For example, many truly believe there is firm evidence that the Illuminati control the world, the Illuminati being anything from satanic cabals to lizard aliens (or more likely penguins).

The origin of the conspiracy theory that the Illuminati survived being disbanded by the Bavarian government in 1785 lies ultimately with a French Jesuit priest, Augustin Barruel.  Life had become increasingly difficult for Catholicism in France during the Revolution.  Barruel fled France and found safety in England.  With militaristic Jesuitical zeal, he wrote against Napoleon and the Revolution and sought to turn the British against the French, hoping Rome’s enemies would eventually come to war.
As well as popularising theories about the Knights Templar, Barruel wrote Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism in 1797.  He postulated that the Illuminati had continued, despite evidence to the contrary, and were working through Freemasonry in a conspiracy to establish governments which were antimonarchical as well as anticlerical, representing a threat to remaining monarchies of Europe.  It was soon translated into English, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian etc. and became a transnational sensation.  Even political figures began to take the claims seriously and public discussion became so unavoidable that Freemasons from across Europe began writing openly in their defence against the theory.

The reality is that there was not any organised force behind the enlightenment or the genuine desire to be free from oppression, whether it be religious or otherwise.

As men became better educated during the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, the desire was for a separation of church and state and, furthermore, to question whether we should separate the state from ourselves while we are at it.  This was not brought about by any secret society but by the public at large.  The greatest evidence for this was the birth of Classical Liberalism and the founding of the United States of America.

Sadly, at exactly the same time, a Roman Catholic monk and secret agent, Alexander Horn, who hated the French Revolution and the demise of his hope for a Holy Roman Empire, personally provided the material for Scots Professor John Robison to write Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies.  Robison’s book was equally successful and influential, despite the highly questionable source of these ideas.  In fact, an American pastor sent a copy to President George Washington to learn his thoughts on the matter, to which he responded: 

            ‘It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic   Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.’

George Washington could see that the Secularist and/or Classical Liberal principles were not unique to any secret society but were principles held to by many individuals and organisations and even expressed by the principles of liberty in the United States Constitution. 

All the secondary sources used to supposedly prove the conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, such as Nesta Webster and William Guy Carr’s books, base their theories of the above two primary sources!  Are these sources reliable?  Obviously not, yet these and similar conspiracy theories abound.  If we want to discover the truth and not be swayed by some sage or someone with an axe to grind against some other group, we have to do our research.  As a parent, I know we don’t all have the luxury of time to do our own research and so it is important that we only defer to those who sources and material are reviewed by various independent bodies of other researchers and where healthy debate in that field of research is the norm.

A good place to start on the subject of Illuminati conspiracy theories might be the book Conspiracy in the French Revolution from Manchester University Press.  Because, come on, all the universities of the world can’t have been taken over by penguins.  Everyone knows that they’ve been taken over by the Communists.

How Libertarianism Could Save the Whales and the Rainforest

If you enjoyed Dances with Wolves or the sci-fi remake, Avatar (dances with blue people), you will believe that property rights are the evil ways of the white man.  But if you’ve researched the history of that time, you will find that it was, in fact, the practice of common ownership of land and animals that was most harmful.  The natives could practice harmful agricultural techniques on the land which affected more than just themselves and no one could rightly stop them.  And when the Europeans appeared and heard that no one actually owned the buffalo herds, they took as much as they could in far more effective ways than the natives were capable of, technologically speaking.

You see, when you have common ownership of something, like a pizza open in the middle of a table of a children’s party, there is greater incentive to grab all you can, while you can; there is almost no incentive to think about the future.  If you don’t take all you can, then someone else will.  So, compare the buffalo’s situation, a phenomenon which is economically referred to as ‘the tragedy of the commons’, with the introduction of private property rights and the plenitude of cows we continue to see today in North America.

What then of the cow of the sea, the whale?  To be able to properly seastead and to actually own and/or farm whales would result in far greater numbers of whales and greater living conditions for them.  We can say with absolute confidence that Libertarianism could save the whales.  

But, furthermore, private ownership of any piece of land creates an incentive to protect what you own.  For example, if you owned a piece of the rainforest, the economic incentive would be to replant trees and even have the plants and life their studied for potential medicinal or other productive means.  As things are, there is a tragedy of the commons situation with people clearing as many trees as they can, while they can.  So we can equally say with confidence that Libertarianism could save the Rainforest too.

What do Libertarians believe?

See the video of this article here

So, what’s Libertarianism?  In a political sense, Libertarianism is the application of Natural Law.  Natural Law is basically the universal legal principles which we humans are capable of recognising naturally, through our reason alone, i.e. without any organisation or government having to teach us all about it.

Does Natural Law even exist?  Certainly.  It is a biological fact proven by the parts of our brain which make up what we would call our conscience.  And of course we see that this basic non-aggression principle has been universally recognised across the globe since the most ancient times.

To understand this a little better, sail away with me to a little example.  Robinson Crusoe awakes on a desert island and finds himself alone and, to make things interesting, he’s lost all recollection of the past.  Nevertheless, he is able immediately to recognise that he is in control of his own body.  He has ‘self-ownership’ and free-will, if you will.  Given that he chooses to continue living, he sets about mixing his energy and creativity with the natural resources around him and consequently he begins acquiring and producing his ‘property’.  Thus, we have property rights for one’s own person and property.

Now let’s make things interesting and add another person to the equation.  Along comes Friday.  As Crusoe has a natural right to himself and his property, it cannot reasonably also belong to Friday.  If Friday were to attempt to claim it as his own, Crusoe would thus have the right to defend himself and his property from Friday.  Likewise, Crusoe could not attempt to claim Friday as his slave.  These acts would be a molestation of the natural rights of another and would be contrary to all reason, conscience and, therefore, nature. The only just interaction they can have with each other’s property is either to trade or gift it to one another.

Agreed so far?  Well, let’s apply the principles of Natural Law to modern ideas of government and see how they fair.

Let’s start with Socialism.  Most Socialists are well-intentioned; their heart is in the right place.  They see the poor and needy in unfortunate circumstances and they rightly desire to alleviate any suffering.  However, they posit a big government to seize the property of one section of the population by force or threat of force in order to distribute it to another.  Clearly, this contradicts the Natural Law and what’s more it removes any moral exchange which would occur between the individuals.  Through voluntary charity, the recipient feels a sense of gratitude for having been helped and the donor feels moral satisfaction for helping someone in need, perhaps believing that they in turn will help someone else in future, spreading kindness in the world.  Under Socialism, however, when government swoops in and threatens the use of violence unless you cough up the cash, the citizen receiving the assistance develops a sense of privilege and makes demands over rights that do not naturally exist; likewise, the citizen whose property has been seized is left with a sense of resentment.

Instead, Socialists typically view Capitalism as the problem.  The real problem is that what Socialists call ‘Capitalism’ in the West today isn’t Capitalism at all.  Rather, we see widespread Corporatism; otherwise known as Crony-Capitalism or ‘Crapitalism’.  This is where wealthy private interest groups either heavily lobby the government or simply buy the politicians outright, funding their tremendously expensive campaigns to office in return for favours afterwards.  This is why we have businesses which are unnecessarily subsidised by government and why some are ‘too big to fail’ and so are bailed out with taxpayers’ money.  Governments can thus be used by big businesses to stifle any competition from smaller businesses and even go so far as to use tax funded armies to protect and expand their business interests abroad too.  Sound familiar?  At the very least, this shouldn’t sound like a free market system to anyone.  Such a system ultimately results in monopolies being in cahoots with corrupt governments and, inevitably, Fascism.  This is the opposite of freedom and the opposite of Capitalism.

But isn’t Democracy the Saviour and solution to every problem in the world?  No!  Democracy is the problem which results in Socialism and Corporatism in the first place.  Democracy is essentially a mob rule where 51% of the population can use government to violate the natural rights of the other 49%.  Furthermore, these ‘Social Democracies’ are the very foundation of Corporatism.  This is the reason for the fixed system of red vs. blue - almost identical candidates whose policies only differ on how a tiny percentage of the vast national debt they have incurred is to be spent.  Private interest groups have the system rigged in their favour and the people are duped into thinking they are free, a bit like a gambler who doesn’t realise that whether he bets red or black, the house always wins.  Democracy is freedom?  Sure, freeDUMB!

For the sake of Natural Law, let’s just take government out of the picture altogether.  Only then do we see a system in which the natural rights to life, liberty and property can remain unmolested by others.  The question of how we should live together in society is hugely important and only Libertarians advocate a system in which Natural Law is upheld without exception for every individual.  Don’t be fooled into thinking that this Libertarianism could only work for Robinson Crusoe.  As the great polymath, Murray Rothbard, wrote:

‘The regime of pure liberty — the libertarian society — may be described as a society where…no man's property in his person or in tangibles is molested, violated, or interfered with by anyone else. But this means that absolute freedom, in the social sense, can be enjoyed, not only by an isolated Crusoe but by every man in any society, no matter how complex or advanced… And, of course, being in a society of voluntary exchanges, each man can enjoy absolute liberty not in Crusoe-like isolation, but in a milieu of civilization, harmony, sociability, and enormously greater productivity through exchanges of property with his fellow men. Absolute freedom, then, need not be lost as the price we must pay for the advent of civilization; men are born free, and need never be in chains. Man may achieve liberty and abundance, freedom and civilization.’

But, without government, what will happen to the poor and needy?  Who will stop fast food chains from killing my children?  Surely, there wouldn’t be a justice system, so wouldn’t everyone just kill each other with guns and swords?  Who will stop climate change and pollution?  Who will defend us from foreign armies?  What about the terrorists and paedophiles and superbugs?  Oh my!  But, most important of all, what will happen to the roads?  All of these questions have been answered and will be in our next video – Government, do we need it?

To study the philosophy of Liberty further, recommended reading would be The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, which inspired this video, and visit Mises.org - the excellent website for the von Mises Institute.