The concept of a libertarian party should be simple. A collection of multiple strands of libertarian and anarchist ideologues, thinkers and activists coming together to present multiple alternatives to the current statist world. Simple, right? Not so for the modern Libertarian Party of America. It seems, looking at its origins, it had the goal that I’ve just set out. A collection of differing viewpoints but with a core libertarian ideology at the centre of it all. But then came the low tax liberalism, and the lack of radicalism in pushing a message of political and non-political action. That was bad enough. But now it’s gone one step further in diluting more to becoming some Beltway Republican outfit for all those disaffected by Trump and Clinton. Continue reading →

I’ve heard it contended that when it comes to a multiplicitous anarchist social order, where anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists could live side by side in their own distinct communities, such an order would be practically impossible due to ancoms refusing to recognise the existence of property relations, as it is assumed ancoms deny the capacity for individual ownership of property as defined in the term “private property”. And because ancap economic theory is defined by a recognition of private property, the two communities could not exist together. Continue reading →

There seem to be two prevailing views on the particular outcomes of a truly free market mechanism. In the case of right-libertarians, such as Hoppe, we see a belief in a natural tendency toward inequality, where outcomes vary and there will be discrepancies in wealth and capital ownership[1]. With the left-libertarians, such as Carson, we see a belief in much more equal outcomes arising from market exchange, and that the reason this isn’t so is due to massive historical theft by the state and the continued subsidisation of most of the capitalist economy today[2].

Anarcho-capitalism is simply the idea that without the state, capitalist socio-economic organisation will become free of the antecedents of state patronage and regulation, which according to them hamper entrepreneurial activity and put businesses in a quagmire of legislative regulation they can’t possibly navigate. As a market anarchist I have sympathies with many ancap arguments and ideas, including those mentioned. Things like polycentric legal systems and competitive defence companies are both intriguing and a good answer to the statist question of legal order under anarchy. However, precisely because of their credentials as anarchists, and thus their rejection of state interference, they cannot in any way describe themselves as capitalists.

Why don’t we ban cars? I mean, they’re effective death traps, create far too much pollution and can be driven by inexperienced people. There are said over a million uninsured drivers in the UK, so there are many cars that aren’t regulated at all. And it’s obvious that control measures, such as speed cameras and traffic lights, don’t work as deaths on the road still occur. Nowadays we have good public transport, such as buses and trains, that can get you anywhere you like and aren’t much more expensive than a car and are driven by responsible, government-trained drivers. Continue reading →

Rockwell’s recent piece Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal provoked an angry response by Carson in How Low Can Lew Rockwell Go?. However they both go wrong. The former assumes a nonsense, fascistic idea that all American and European whites despise immigration and would prefer communities governed by restrictions on movement that have never been seen and takes a simplistic view of immigration and its forms and effects. However the latter also takes a simplistic view, asserting implicitly that because America was founded on robbery and imperialism, the people who live here now have no right to protect their culture and ideas in the way they would like. Continue reading →

Many may see anarchism and the general idea of statelessness as a pipe dream of abstract intellectualism and childish radicalism. Anyone who says this must have a stunted imagination and they simply serve as the useful idiots of the state and it’s plutocratic class. The Westphalian experiment is very young and in many respects ahistorical. The concept of governance in historical tribal or feudal structures was seen as much more decentralised and even voluntary. There were many different forms of governance, both economic and political. There was decentralised planning and economic control, as seen with kin groups in some tribes in Oceania and the Americas. There were also community credit-clearing systems, as well as local markets with forms of monetary exchange. Continue reading →

A major facet of the majority of individual’s lives is owning and using a car or other form of automobile. In a stateless society, like the one envisioned by libertarians and anarchists, this reality would remain, being a central part of everyday life. Thus questions of licencing, insurance and road safety become key in determining how driving and using a vehicle in a stateless society would function. Continue reading →

Adam Smith did not present a true critique of free market capitalism, but instead critiqued both overt forms of state capitalism, which during the period he wrote in was known as mercantilism, and covert forms of state capitalism, such as subsidisation within the corporate form of businesses and business relations. Continue reading →

To effect change, we must work within the systems that exist and support individuals who can affect the change I want to see. As a libertarian anarchist, I believe in the decentralisation of political and economic power and the minimisation, and eventual elimination, of the state. This is why I’m a member of the Conservative Party and work in right wing political circles, as I see these movements as the best way of minimising the state and developing a truly free market. Continue reading →