The original intent of my website was to simply talk about libertarian theory, applying it to my interests and ideas as they evolved. There was no necessary coherence apart from what I was thinking about at the time. However as my ideas have developed further, delving into libertarian and non-libertarian concepts and coalescing around particular points that can be considered a general ideology, I think it would be best to provide a foundational document for my website that best explains its reasoning and understanding in short form. Continue reading →

With the advent of Brexit in the UK, and the rise on the one hand of national populism (combined with demagoguery) and on the other hand liberal cosmopolitanism in America, libertarianism could be basking in the glory of its own radical praxis. It could advocate for economic and political decentralisation, for political pluralism and for the development of truly freed markets which limit the effects of capital accumulation and rentierism. They could be showing the world examples of stateless and quasi-stateless societies that have existed for millennia, or simply demonstrating the multitude of free market systems that exist within the cracks of modern state capitalism. Fortunately there are some that actually do this. However the majority seem more interested in defending corporate largesse, intellectual property and the plethora of phony free trade agreements that abound. Continue reading →

The constant need to define one’s philosophical and ideological beliefs through a convenient form of superstructure is something that can be found amongst all philosophies. The multiple libertarian ideologies are no different in this regard. Whether it be anarchism, left-libertarianism, classical liberalism or any other clique, fad or ism, they all share a common vapidity and a petty tribalism, which rather than allowing for a fluid, pluralistic movement which is open and understanding, prefers exclusiveness and minoritarianism. Continue reading →

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 →

The conceptions of Jeffersonian governance pride equality before the law, the democratic will of the people tempered by intelligent argumentation and natural societal hierarchies, and a belief in limited, decentralised government. Within this tradition, governance should never truly invade the sensibilities and direction of succeeding generations, and should never supersede the choice of governance that one believes in. From such ideas came the Articles of Confederation, a decentralist set of ideas that gave significant autonomy and rights to the individual states of the Union. Further, Jefferson’s concept of sunset clauses naturally implanted within legislation and law-making[1] the decentralist idea of individual sovereignty and the right of the generation of the living to not be burdened by the collective irresponsibility’s of their ancestors. Continue reading →

Propertarianism is a particular ideological position within libertarianism. It bases economic and political characteristics around their voluntary acceptance in a world of legitimate contracts and real private property (not the state-guaranteed property that currently takes the name of “private property”). In this sense, boundaries can be created between particular individuals and communities as this is the remit of private property. At the individual level, this is as simple as preventing uninvited people onto your property. At a collective level, it means a contractual agreement among property owners to decide on particular policies and boundaries. “If fifty people decided voluntarily to set up an organization for common services or self-defense of their persons and properties in a certain geographical area, then the boundaries of that association, based on the just property rights of the members, will also be just”[1].

In a recent conversation in the comments section of a blogpost that got published with the Libertarian Alliance[1], the individual I was conversing with believed that markets as a system naturally descended into capitalist organisation. I reprint here:

Tom Rogers says: I think we’re on the same page. Where I differ is that I believe such a society cannot function for very long on market principles. The market leads to capitalism, and capitalism leads inevitably to social disintegration. While I accept that market /=/ capitalism, I believe that one leads to the other. That, as I see it, is the main flaw with National Anarchism. However, I believe what you have outlined could be achieved within a global system of co-operative, non-market socialism.