The use of intellectual property is the attempt at monopolising the knowledge commons. By having control of ideas and concepts, particular economic agents can control flows of information and direct them under their own economic planning. Intellectual property “is a millstone around the neck of innovation and technological progress, a political mechanism for stifling both in favor of bare monopoly”[1]. From the monopolies that IP creates come proprietary rents, where consumers and small producers have to pay to access particular materials and ideas that have been developed under the auspices of a particular group that arbitrarily holds IP or patent rights. Coming down to it, this is the attempt to introduce a mutated version of private property rights on intangible goods in the form of thoughts or ideas. Continue reading →

Libertarians, particularly those found in the Libertarian Party or within the major “libertarian” think tanks, always seem determined to glorify the rich as the creators and progenitors of the modern world. Whether it be by celebrating CEOs or defending the stupid, inefficient acts of corporations, many “libertarians” have a firm belief that modern wealth and its subsequent creations are somehow indicative of the magic of market processes and spontaneous order. But on economic and political fronts, this is just simply untrue. The modern rich as they exist predominantly maintain their wealth through networks and systems of rentierism. Continue reading →

Modern foreign policy discourses, particularly those found in the US, revolve around what I call a form of schizophrenia, whereby decisions are made reactively in relation to perceived and existing circumstances. Long term decision making and the cultivation of diplomatic relations are shunned in favour of a militaristic stance which favours aggressive posturing and a belief in strength via dominance.

“We are the 48%” is a new mantra within the fold of those who voted to remain in the EU. They are also the type of people to push for a second referendum to truly make the result “democratic”. For what is more democratic than ignoring the result and instead pushing the same inane arguments which led to the British people voting to leave the EU in the first place. Continue reading →

Praxeology maintains its importance precisely because it implies fundamental principles as the guiding action in scientifically studying human action and understanding its dynamics and relations. From coming from these principles, human actions can be understood as having particular reasoning’s and laws which inform how further understandings of human action can be qualitatively determined and mapped.

Anarchists of many shades have tried to show the destructiveness of markets by pointing to capitalism as the exigent system of extreme markets and the construction of a market society. According to these anarchists, markets engender destructive competition and a race to the bottom with firms inevitably monopolising and thus imposing high costs and artificial scarcity upon populations. “Market economies are based on an all out economic war, where a game of economic musical chairs(artificial scarcity) is created”[1]. Of course, this is based on two false propositions: that markets are defined by modern capitalism and that scarcity is something inevitably escapable rather than being a complex of multitudinous social and property relations.

The majority of modern “free trade” agreements have one major goal in mind, regulatory harmonisation. Rather than opening up barriers by removing tariffs and costly regulations, which is what free trade actually entails if we follow the ideas of John Bright and Richard Cobden, regulations are harmonised through international product regulation and the creation of one set of regulatory protocols. Increasingly, this is becoming US-centric via FTAs like TTIP and TPP, as well as NAFTA. Continue reading →

In the short-term I’d like to see smaller, more decentralised nation-states that begin to codify the right of secession. Once that is codified, as it has been in more ancient legal codes such as Saxon law, the monopoly of violence which I think defines the state and from which many other monopolies (such as those defined by Benjamin Tucker) flow from can be more easily broken. I think this is best accomplished today simply because state’s cannot crush movements (localist, decentralist, secessionary, etc.) in an age of mass media and 24 hour news without some form of backlash. Already this can be seen in the increasing importance and significance of nationalist and regionalist movements throughout Europe. There is no possibility that the EU could seriously mount more than a political offensive against such movements who are increasing in power. Continue reading →

In seeing the pointless brutality of police shooting Black people who have committed petty crimes (which should not be crimes) and those who have committed no crime, we see the reality of a state constructed for a particular elite, that cannot tolerate autonomy or independence that removes individuals and groups from its grasp. With Black Americans (as well as Black British) that role is of a permanent, entrenched underclass that can serve as a pool of cheap labour and as a source of externalisation for the overconsumption present in capitalism. Cheap jobs and cheap junk finds its way into impoverished neighbourhoods. Further, it serves as a racial barrier, or, in a way, a warning for the poor white people who may dare question the stupidities and excesses that define state capitalism. Those who benefit from state capitalism can smirk and point them towards Black neighbourhoods and show them how life would be for them if they don’t except slightly better conditions. Continue reading →