Borders Between Anarchists Dependent on Mutual Benefit Reply

By William Schnack

Chris Shaw wrote an article called “Borders Between the Anarchists,” in which he suggests that it is possible for anarchist communists and capitalists to get along. To support his argument, he points to the anarcho-communist philosophy, demonstrating that even communists have some sense of property, that of “individual property.” He shows that anarcho-capitalists are wrong to dismiss attempts toward mutual-tolerance between the two groups, and he argues that anarcho-communist respect for the property of anarcho-capitalist communities does not constitute anarcho-communist acceptance of private property. He says,

“Surely by having something like a private city, with members of it joining by contractual means, there is an inherent recognition of sociality in the realm of property. Or is private property, collectively part of a larger structure developed through voluntary means, now itself a form of private property.


CrossTalk Debate on Climate Change Reply

The media coverage of Superstorm Sandy was 24/7. However, there was little mention of climate change. Why is this? And why didn’t Obama or Romney mention climate change at all in the three TV debates despite a summer of record temperatures, historic drought and wildfires in the US? Why are so many people in the US in denial of this dire situation? And is the thermometer going up or down? CrossTalking with Patrick Michaels, Denis Rancourt and Richard Milne.

Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? Reply

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

Is Revolution Brewing? Reply

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

Virtually all the reporting about this fall’s presidential election focuses on the candidates and the question of who is going to win nomination and election. That is to be expected. But it misses what really matters.

The likelihood that either the nominating contests or the election itself will bring change is small. The machinations of the bosses in both political parties to keep the anti-Establishment candidates from being nominated (Trump in the Republican Party and Sanders in the Democratic) become increasingly open. They are likely to succeed in both cases. In the improbable case that one party nominates its anti-Establishment contender, the entire Establishment will come together to demonize him, frightening the public into voting for more of the same. The model will be Lyndon Johnson’s campaign against Barry Goldwater in 1964. Presumably we will see television ads showing little girls picking flowers snatched away to be white slaves in the harem of either a plutocrat or a socialist.

Should a miracle happen and both Trump and Sanders be nominated, the Establishment would be undone. I would cheer madly, but I would also expect to see the Virgin Mary hovering over the White House.

In fact, the contests don’t much matter. What really matters has already happened and the Establishment cannot undo it. In both parties, the peasants have revolted.



Is War by Assassination on its Way? Reply

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

Russia intervened in Syria, did what it came to do–strengthen the position of the Assad government–and has partially withdrawn. Meanwhile, our war with ISIS continues its endless futility, an inevitable result of war by pinking.

War by plinking, using airstrikes that blow up an ammo dump here, an ISIS leader there, and wedding parties everywhere is largely a product of futility of thought. We think we have to do something, but our military leadership has few options to offer. We can invade, but as we have experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing so merely increases the scope and cost of our defeat. We can carry out an aerial campaign of annihilation, but our civilian leadership’s ideology forbids it. It might also generate new enemies faster than we can kill them, no matter how many bombs we drop. Approaches that require both imagination and skill cannot make it through our leaden, elephantine military decision process (where the process is the product). So we plink.

Much of our plinking seems devoted to war by assassination. There is a reason states have generally avoided that. As I fear we may discover, it is a game two can play. In the end it devolves, as it has, to mere war of attrition. Wars of attrition are usually indecisive, continuing until one party or another, or both, are exhausted. we are likely to tire before ISIS does.


Fascism: The Career of a Concept Reply

Paul Gottfried explains what historic fascism actually was on the Tom Woods Show.

Listen here.

How about that: fascism has a definition after all, and isn’t just a term for whatever people happen to dislike. In his new book, Paul Gottfried traces the meaning of the word and how it’s been used over the years as a polemical device in ideological battles.

About the Guest

Paul Gottfried is professor emeritus of humanities at Elizabethtown College and a Guggenheim recipient.


The Tyranny of Liberalism Reply

An interesting debate between Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist Tom Woods and conservative Catholic traditionalist James Kalb.

Listen here.

Liberalism portrays itself as the ideology of liberty and liberation, as neutral between competing views of the good, and as the position all right-thinking people should adopt. None of this is true, but it is all brutally enforced. Jim Kalb and I discuss the true nature of liberalism in today’s episode.

About the Guest

James Kalb is a lawyer and an independent scholar in Brooklyn, New York.


Charles Koch: ‘It’s possible’ Clinton is preferable to a Republican for president Reply

Will the Soros-owned Democrats and the Koch-owned Republicans come together in opposition to the insurgencies that are developing on both ends? The ruling class always forms a united front in the end.

By Kristen East


Billionaire businessman Charles Koch said Sunday that “it’s possible” another Clinton in the White House could be better than having a Republican president.

Koch, the CEO of Koch Industries, made the comment to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl during an interview that aired on ABC’s “This Week.”

Koch, his brother David and their associated groups plan to spend nearly $900 million on the 2016 elections.


Borders Between the Anarchists 4

By Chris Shaw

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.

This is based on some erroneous assumptions from the outset. First, that ancoms do not recognise individual property. They do, as do nearly all socialist variants of anarchism. They make a distinction between private property and individual property, with the former being seen as representing the ability to separate production and control by removing the capacity for worker-control. This is an important distinction as ancom economics is based on confederations of production and workers, which if we take Kropotkin’s economic theories, means many small firms and workshops organised together in communities of production and consumption, with value being measured by use and socially necessary labour inputted. Within this, individual property is recognised, but economic property is held in common.

The second assumption is that social borders existing between Ancapistan and Ancomistan are themselves a form of private property. Surely by having something like a private city, with members of it joining by contractual means, there is an inherent recognition of sociality in the realm of property. Or is private property, collectively part of a larger structure developed through voluntary means, now itself a form of private property.


In a Rebel Camp in Colombia, Marx and Free Love Reign Reply

By Nicholas Casey

New York Times

IN THE MOUNTAINS OF COLOMBIA — The rebel camp is a Communist time capsule. An old guerrilla fighter sings songs about Che Guevara on his guitar as a crowd leans in to listen, armed with rifles and grenades.

Salaries do not exist here, or even marriage. The fighters believe in free love, saying they are wed only to the revolution. They say life is still possible with Karl Marx in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other.


Rules For Libertarians Reply


A practical guide for success, in the moment we have all been waiting for.

By: Ryan Ramsey

Chairman, Bradford County Affiliate

State Executive Committee Representative, Region 4

Libertarian Party of Florida

 Since 1971, Libertarians have dreamed of this day. The moment  enough members of the one party system’s two factions  “wake up”. The dawn of that day has already broken. In November, The Miami Herald reported the following breakdown of voter registration by party.

 3.2 million Floridians avoid both major parties.

27 percent of all Florida voters are now NPA, or “No Party Affiliation”

Two decades ago, 47 percent of Florida voters were Democrats and 41 percent were Republicans.

With the continuing rise of no-party voters, Democrats now make up 38 percent and Republicans 35 percent, but Republicans control two-thirds of the 160 seats in the Legislature.



Preserve Culture, Preserve Liberty Reply


Libertarians who feel the need to tear down American culture and values are not striking a blow to the state, but forging their own chains. Be a non-conformist, but leave everyone else alone. They will conform to the idea of leaving everyone else alone when we claim victory.

You can regulate society on a voluntary basis, with culture, tradition, and honor for your ancestors guiding your actions.
You can have an ever increasing government.
You can pick only one.
Libertarians are the smartest people in the room, and perpetually ahead of their time. Unfortunately, they live in this bubble, clueless as to how the majority of people think.

The Israel Lobby: What It Does and How It Works 1

Tom Woods takes on the Israel Lobby. Listen here.

We are supposed to believe that the network of organizations promoting a particular view of Israel and the U.S. relationship with that country doesn’t exist, and that anyone who says it does is a crank and a hater. Yet it’s precisely the network of organizations that would call such a person a hater that we’re talking about in the first pace. Grant Smith joins me for a rational discussion of this inexplicably sensitive issue.

About the Guest

Grant F. Smith is director of research at the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.

Book Discussed

Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby Moves America

Episode Mentioned

Ep. 475 Iran: The Myth of a Better Deal — Interview with Stephen Walt