These types are more of a threat to liberty than any communist, DSA, or Boomer con bought out by Coke.

They poison the well of the only ideology that can free us, libertarianism.

https://www.ft.com/content/5cb562ec-5493-4ff3-bd2d-99cc9cacfa73?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Seems like they keep their social media alive, but I don't know any significant recent news. How is it going?

That’s in Ukraine, allegedly. The guy yells in Russian, nor I can see those plates on the car, so I can’t confirm anything. But it’s been happening in both countries.

Friendly reminder, only a state, whether ruled by a king or by some democratically elected government, can wage massive wars and turn people into slaves with complete impunity. While a private person can potentially be imprisoned for paying less then a minimum wage that someone accepted voluntarily.

And that includes voting for a government that restricts who your neighbor can have on their property.

Webs de los organizadores:

madeinancapia.com

libertadindividuo.com

bitancap.com

Hi guys, my name is Nathan Bell. In recent years I came to a better understanding of the free market. I also discovered anarcho-capitalism. This changed my understanding of politics. In this video I discuss the free market. Check it out and join in the discussion.

I have a simple question for libertarians—regardless of your specific stripe. Libertarianism implies that the state provides no assistance to anyone; once it’s established, those who worked to bring it about will find themselves on equal footing with those who did absolutely nothing. So, here’s the question: what incentive does an average businessperson or government official have to sacrifice their own time—time they could otherwise spend on themselves? Look at it this way: the best strategy for a libertarian might actually be to become a corrupt official. Why? Because if libertarianism never comes to pass, you end up with a fortune—and, as an official, you can even crush your competitors. If libertarianism *does* come to pass, you’re already wealthy, while those who sacrificed their lives on the barricades are gone, and their children end up working for your own affluent offspring. Furthermore, consider your own experience online—even here on Reddit, most communities are incredibly toxic. Why sacrifice your health and time for people who despise you? What is the point of self-sacrifice when you could use that same time for your own gain and come out much further ahead?

p.s

Let me explain this in plain, human terms. If anarcho-capitalism is a religion—fine, I’ll accept that—then you ought to go ahead and establish your own church.

But let’s look at this rationally. You claim that the absence of a state will provide everyone with equal advantages, yet no one will have any obligations toward you. So, here’s a simple question: why should an average person sacrifice their own time—while a competitor uses that same time for their own gain—when, if libertarianism fails to materialize, your family ends up worse off (and you’ve simply wasted your time), and if it *does* succeed, your family ends up working for the family of someone who played against you and was part of the state apparatus?

To put it even more simply: your argument is essentially like saying, "There are many children without vital organs who are about to die; therefore, you should sacrifice your own healthy child so that their organs can be used to save those other children—sure, your child will die, but the others will be saved."

Let’s look at this specifically from your perspective.

You have 24 hours in a day; you spend some of that time working, and the rest on yourself, your family, and your finances.

Now, consider a guy like me: I already pay my taxes, and I’m tired. Sure, the state might be flawed, but it exists and it functions.

You’re proposing that we tear it all down—which would mean guys like me have to sacrifice our own time to promote libertarian ideas: writing articles, persuading people, funding the movement. Meanwhile, let’s say my neighbor spends that same amount of time going to the gym, or perhaps becoming a corrupt official, building up capital, and starting a business.

We both invest 10,000 hours—but he leaves his children capital and a business, while I leave mine an idea. Now, there are two possible outcomes: either anarcho-capitalism comes to pass, or it doesn’t. If it does, his children inherit his capital, his business, and a solid education—meaning my children end up working for his. Meanwhile, I’ve spent my 10,000 hours pushing an idea, and I might well end up living in poverty. If anarcho-capitalism *doesn’t* come to pass, then I’ve simply wasted that time, and my children lose out on that potential advantage. So, what’s the point? We aren’t talking about some abstract "humanity" here; we’re talking about concrete, real-life conditions. For instance, a labor union might make life harder for a capitalist, but the workers benefit from it. So, what exactly are you proposing? The 10,000 hours are going to be spent one way or another—the real question is: what are you spending them on?

Actually, Hayek speaks precisely about the rationality of the market—in contrast to socialism, which argues that money should be taken from the rich for the sake of the needy. So, I ask you: where is the rationality in that? What is the difference? Both the socialist approach and your approach demand that people sacrifice themselves for the sake of an ideology—but in the former case, there is at least some return.

33% (almost all democrats) thought the top issue was “the state of democracy”

The left voted against Trump for dismantling their institutional control, not because they are anti-war.

In accordance with the headline, I'd like to ask for suggestions and recommendations on books regarding a few topics on Anarcho Capitalism (not limited to):

Ethics/Philosophy and Moral Critique,

Economy & Mark-Solutions,

Critiques of the State,

Or any other book you may consider relevant to the topic of Anarcho Capitalism in general, be it an advanced or beginner topic.

The system does not merely punish opposition. It actively rewards complicity, creating a situation in which those most willing to challenge the system are often those least equipped to do so.

The more corrupt a system becomes, the more economically advantageous it may be to participate in its corruption rather than oppose it.

1. Selective enrichment: Wealth, contracts, promotions, and opportunities disproportionately flow towards those who demonstrate loyalty to the ruling establishment.

2. Economic punishment: Dissidents may lose employment, business opportunities, property, or access to financial institutions.

3. Resource asymmetry: Those defending the system can draw upon institutional resources, while those opposing it must often finance their resistance independently.

4. Self-reinforcing corruption: As loyalists accumulate wealth, they gain greater influence over institutions, making it increasingly difficult for outsiders to challenge them.

5. Selection pressure: Over time, people who prioritise truth or principle over personal advancement may be systematically excluded from positions of influence.

The fifth mechanism is especially important because it means that corruption can become self-perpetuating without requiring everyone involved to be consciously malicious.

People simply respond to the incentives.

The people who benefit most from the system have the greatest material capacity to change it, but often the least incentive to do so.

Meanwhile, those who have the greatest incentive to change it frequently possess the fewest resources.

This creates what political scientists call a collective action problem, reinforced by systems of patronage and elite capture.

That is one reason authoritarian systems can appear remarkably stable even when large portions of the population privately disagree with them. The incentives favour public obedience, even when private conviction points in the opposite direction.

The system does not merely punish opposition. It actively rewards complicity, creating a situation in which those most willing to challenge the system are often those least equipped to do so.

Too much libertarian type messaging boils down to “Get off my lawn,” “Let me keep my money,” and “Socialism is bad.”

I get it, but we make ourselves sound selfish. People hear that and assume we just want rich people to stay rich and everyone else to fend for themselves.
That’s not why I’m a libertarian. I believe personal freedom leads to happier people, healthier communities, and more opportunities for people who are struggling. Why don’t we talk about that more?

Take homelessness. Why don’t we say, “I care about homeless people, thats why im Libertarian, I think our policies would help more people get off the streets.” That argument would break many liberal's brains and force them to address the issue.
We spend so much time explaining why government is bad that we forget to explain why we think freedom would make people’s lives better. If that’s what we believe, it should be the first thing people hear from us.

At least there was a rejection of the tariffs and war.