Hi, I’m Skyler.

Welcome to my website.
Who am I?
Just a man.
And a husband.
And a father of 3.
Also a writer.
And a podcaster. (Schedule a chat.)
Sometimes a web designer.
But always a seeker of riches.
And the richness of life.
Explore what I do or have done in the menu above. (CV)


Contact me if you please.


My Latest Content 

  • Is Lockheed Martin an “Arm of the State?”

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    I have another reddit discussion for your reading pleasure. I kicked this one off with this image posted to r/Anarcho_Capitalism, with the commentary, “This so-called libertarian thinks that Amazon is not giving their employees enough benefits in the form of better working conditions and the employees have no other options but to either endure it or starve. Everywhere I go online and offline I see companies hiring. SMH.” The following ensued with user upchuck13 which quickly veered away from Amazon to Lockheed Martin.

    upchuck13: Having an option to go elsewhere doesn’t mean that one is treated sufficiently well. This is a common argument statists make: you’re free to leave.

    Skyler: Working conditions are a part of the total compensation package for workers. If a company is able to attract and keep workers with the total compensation package they offer, there’s absolutely no reason to change it except “feels”. These people have likely never had to make these types of [entrepreneurial] decisions.

    upchuck13: This is all true but it ignores the larger context in which the actors (employer and employee) may find themselves in. The fact that a company can attract and keep workers, and that workers are better off working for that company than any other alternative does not address whatever historical circumstances may have lead to unequal bargaining power between the two.

    Skyler: Why would that bestow any responsibilities onto the employer that are not explicitly agreed to? Social contracts are for statists, not markets. The circumstances are not the fault of the employer, and so they incur no obligations.

    upchuck13: In a rigged market like the one we have now individuals may agree to certain arrangements within a limited choice framework, but that doesn’t indicate that the agreement is voluntary in a broader sense – just as a taxpayer “chooses” to pay taxes because the alternatives are a lot worse.

    Note I’m not saying the employer incurs some obligations – just that the arrangement employees make with Amazon may not be the kind they would make in a free market.

    (In the case of Amazon specifically though, I would certainly say they’re not a morally neutral actor. They willingly accept state money and benefit from a whole slew of state regulation and legal protection.)

    Skyler: Amazon isn’t doing the rigging, the government is. The government is also threatening aggression for not paying them taxes. These aren’t analogous at all. Does Amazon have any obligation to hire someone in the first place? Then how can they have any obligations beyond the employment contract? There are no doubt plenty of willing workers waiting in line behind every employee at Amazon who disagrees with the working conditions. Amazon has no obligation to improve working conditions so long as they can attract and keep workers with the working conditions as they are. And the only obligations they would have to meet would be to their shareholders, not to their workers.

    upchuck13: I’m not sure I’m very convinced by the de jure distinction between governments and large corporations any more. Amazon accepts millions of dollars from the US government, it receives government contracts, uses government roads for its delivery service, benefits from intellectual property, provides services to the US government, etc. The state skews the playing field in favour of Amazon to a substantial degree, such that Amazon may not be really considered a free market entity. Once that’s the case it’s much harder to determine whether contracts entered into with Amazon by employees are free in the true sense.

    Skyler: I highly recommend one of the recent episodes of kinsella on Liberty. He talks about exactly this sort of thing and I think all of his points are valid: https://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol354-cda-230-being-part-of-the-state-nick-sinard/

    upchuck13: Hi, I listened to this. A few points.

    I plan to read more of Kinsella’s take on this topic, specifically some of the stuff linked below that video, as well as the JLS stuff he’s written.

    A few interesting side points. Around 35 minutes in he makes a distinction between “harm” and “aggression”, saying something like “You have a right to harm people as long as it’s not done with aggression. So, if I open up a business and compete with you I am harming you, even though it’s not aggression.” This is an interesting idea, I can’t say I disagree.

    More to the point, it doesn’t seem like Kinsella is on face opposed to my point. He doesn’t say that we can’t ever rule out private entities being part of the state. He even uses the term “nominal private ownership” indicating that he, like I, doesn’t think de jure private property claims are sufficient to justify de facto property claims.

    He says we can’t make such claims from our armchair. I agree – the specifics are important. It doesn’t make sense to say that all corporations are part of the state, all wealthy people are part of the state, etc. It has to be discussed on a case by case basis.

    Near the start I think he somewhat straw-mans this argument by saying something like “If google is part of the state, what about civil servants? What about people who receive contracts from the government? What about welfare recipients? What about kids attending public schools?” I think this is a bit disingenuous. There’s clearly a difference between a company like Lockheed Martin or Boeing vs. a homeless man receiving food stamps. Off the top of my head one could make up some kind of ranking or hierarchy that takes into account different aspects of the entities relationship with the state. It could consider:

    • The entity receives government money.
    • The entity actively lobbies the government for money or benefits.
    • The entity benefits from government policy.
    • The entity lobbies for policy that will benefit it.
    • The entity receives state benefits but only for sustenance.
    • etc.

    At the top of the hierarchy could be an organization that receives government money, benefits from state policies, actively lobbies for such policies, has its product/service demand primarily from the state, has a captive market, holds extensive political influence, routinely circulates staff from the highest levels of government administration, while retaining high profits and grossly benefiting its members financially, reputationally, etc.

    On the other hand could be company that receives funding from the government but doesn’t hold any political sway, serves primarily a private market, is made no better off or is harmed by government policy, and earns a typical market rate of return.

    From a libertarian perspective these 2 entities are clearly different, and at different ends of a spectrum.

    At the end, around 36 minutes I think Kinsella actually makes a point that supports this. It’s funny because he uses the same analogy I do to make my point when speaking with libertarians. He uses the analogy of a bank robbery.

    There’s a shotgun holder, the bagman, and getaway driver. It doesn’t make sense to say – as Kinsella states some libertarians do – that by Rothbardian rights theory only the man who holds the shotgun (in my analogy, the state) is the only party committing aggression (in this case aggression is the existing economic order). Clearly the bag man (monopoly capital, plutocracy, state capitalists, whatever you want to call them) are also complicit in, willing, and benefitting from the bank robbery. As such both parties, the shotgun holder and the bagman, are morally culpable. The distribution of that culpability depends on the specifics, as Kinsella says, and I agree.

    Skyler: I would say Lockheed making bombs and then deploying them against innocents is Lockheed committing aggression. Lockheed making bombs, selling them to the state, and then the state deploying them against innocents is probably not Lockheed committing aggression. No more than gun manufactures who sell guns to people who commit crimes with them. Maybe all of Lockheed’s profits come from governments, but I don’t think that makes Lockheed the aggressor, or any sort of “arm of the state”. The state is the bad guy here, the aggressor, and should be abolished. Lockheed is just an arms dealer, not engaged in aggression against anyone. Same with Facebook, Google, Microsoft, or any other company with a government contract. We can agitate for them not to do business with the state, but it seems wholly nonsensical to agitate for the state to commit more aggression against these business partners.

    Having said that, I did think of one possible tactic in getting companies who do business with the state to respect First Amendment protected rights like free speech: force the state to include in their contracts a clause that require companies who accept the contract, and the state’s funds, to respect First Amendment protected rights. IOW, no company is forced by the state to respect free speech, but if you want to do business with the state, you must. This is a bind on the state directly, and only indirectly on the company via explicit contract.

    upchuck13: Can you give reasons why you don’t think LM is not a de facto wing of the state?

    I just went on to their web page to find a PDF of their financial statements to look through the notes on their revenue and what the different sources are. But before I even got there I see their homepage: It’s a picture of a warship with a military jet aircraft flying over it. In big letters I see “Overmatching adversaries” and underneath, “Bringing distributed maritime operations and deterrence to the US Navy”.

    This is blatantly stated on their home page. If they removed the corporate logo and threw in some seals I could easily have mistook it for a website of one of the branches of the US military. If I continue to scroll down all I see is more pictures of various military ships, planes, helicopters, missiles, etc. See for yourself:


    Scroll down and click on “Products” – it’s all military hardware.

    If I open up their 2020 FS and look at the section on revenue recognition I see:

    “The majority of our net sales are generated from long term contracts with the US government and international customers (including foreign military sales contracted through the US government) …”

    If the US government were to nationalize LM would that make a difference? As it stands the corporation is basically a nominally private manufacturing wing for the US military.

    You said, “No more than gun manufactures who sell guns to people who commit crimes with them.”

    I disagree, I don’t think it’s analogous.

    Gun manufacturers sell to customers who are willingly paying with their own money. LM sells to the US government that purchases arms with stolen money.

    Hand guns can be used for self defence, hobby, and other uses. LM missiles, military style aircraft and navy vessels are basically exclusively used by the US military to commit imperial aggression.

    It’s not reasonable to expect a gun manufacturer to expect to keep track of all the different uses of the guns it sells. Most of the time they’re used peacefully. LM clearly knows its weapons are being used to kill civilians every day on a large scale. They cannot claim plausible deniability.

    Skyler: Is the United States government their only customer? They might be evil, they might be aggressors in a sense, they might be wrongdoers, but that doesn’t make them an “arm of the state” subject to the First Amendment. That just makes them another criminal organization, albeit with legal sanction.

    upchuck13: I am not approaching this from a first amendment point of view, but more from a libertarian class analysis perspective.

    Skyler: Then what’s the point in calling them an arm of the state?

    upchuck13: As a party closely aligned with the state certain broad sweeping comments about markets or private property may not apply to them. In a market firms are profitable because they supply consumers with goods. LM is profitable because it collects rents from taxpayers. Etc.

    Skyler: But it’s not the one employing aggression. It’s customer is. That’s an important distinction I think.

    upchuck13: I guess we have to agree to disagree in this case. To me the features of LM I laid out above constitute coercion. To bring it back to kinsella, they are an accomplice. Sole aggressor? No. Maybe not even primary aggressor, but they are engaging in coercive behavior.

    As a thought experiment, let me push the other way. Who is “the state” in this case?

    Skyler: These people: https://everything-voluntary.com/the-facts-on-government (I wrote this.)

    upchuck13: While I don’t agree with what’s written here, this doesn’t give us a specific empirical guidelines as to how to identify Group A, or how to determine whether or not a specific party is in group A or group B – as is the issue in our discussion.

    Skyler: Sure there is. Who controls the prison systems?

    upchuck13: The government?

    Skyler: ding ding ding. Hence, group A.

    upchuck13: OK but, the empirical issues aside (does the government control the prisons or do prison gangs?) I don’t think controlling a prison is sufficient to indicate whether or not an entity is the state or not.

    After all, the Federal Reserve doesn’t run any prisons, nor does the post office.

    And it’s conceivable that a government could entirely outsource its prison system to a nominally private entity.

    Furthermore, I could see it not being beyond a Nordic socialist country to entirely abolish prisons, but that certainly wouldn’t mean they don’t have a state.

    Skyler: The Fed isn’t a state, but it is controlled by one. Same with the post office. Any more examples of how I’m right?

    And I never claimed having a prison was the fundamental characteristic, did I?

    upchuck13: What specific institution can we point to and say “it’s the state” (as opposed to it’s controlled by the state?) Is the CIA the state? The department of defense? The state department? The education department?

    Skyler: Those are all departments of the state. I don’t know why this is difficult for you. Any institution (and it’s myriad departments) claiming and maintaining a monopoly on determining when force (violence) may or may not be used in a defined territory is a state. In shorthand, the state is the institution in society claiming a monopoly on violence. The state doesn’t really exist. It’s a construct by group A to legitimize their predatory behavior over group B. It exempts itself from crime, essentially. See my short essay: https://everything-voluntary.com/the-facts-on-government

    See Rothbard from my book, “the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered, but by coercion.” link: https://everything-voluntary.com/everything-voluntary-chapter-4a

    See Hoppe, “A state is defined conventionally as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making (jurisdiction)” link: https://mises.org/library/democratic-leviathan

    upchuck13: I read your essay. I pointed out that although we can define Group A as such, it’s still less clear how to identify these groups empirically in the real world. You made a point about which group owns the prisons. That’s fine, but it’s clearly not sufficient.

    As an example, the department of agriculture presumably operates no prisons, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a state institution. You can reply that “Yes, they don’t operate any prisons, but they’re still part of the state”, but that’s just begging the question.

    The state doesn’t really exist. It’s a construct by group A to legitimize their predatory behavior over group B.

    Exactly. The state is a concept, or social construct, and as such it’s fuzzy around the edges. This is where I am coming from when I discuss LM. It’s not enough to define the state as the various tax funded departments that have the eagle seal in their logos. More analysis has to be done.

    Skyler: Modern states incorporate through some sort of constitution or supreme legal code, a “written instrument”, none of which apply to anyone, but they pretend it does. Start there if you’re looking for documentation. Otherwise, I’m not really sure your point. Group As throughout the world and throughout history create written instruments and pretend that it gives them authority over other people, and proceed to commit acts of aggression against them for violating their rules. It’s predatory aggression disguised as “good government” or “democracy” or any other number of bullshit terms.

    edit: i missed your bit on LM at first read. im getting old. anyway, people contract with group A and accepts stolen funds from group A, but that doesn’t make these people a part of group A. yes, there is often a revolving door between group A and these other groups, but we shouldn’t conflate them until group A is paying them to actively and directly aid in their predation of group B (or C, D, etc.).

    That’s where it ended as of 2 months ago. Having read through this again, his arguments, my mind hasn’t been changed. Those who do business with the state, contract with the state, are not the state unless their contract includes predation on behalf of the state (like every military officer and law enforcer under it’s employ). I don’t believe Lockheed Martin fits that bill. They are just an arms dealer receiving stolen funds, which justice would demand they return to the state’s victims. That’s really as far as it goes, methinks. What do you think?

  • On the Non-Aggression Principle II

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    The Non-Aggression Principle of libertarianism is simple, but it begs the question. How do we know if an act is aggressive? That depends entirely on who owns the scarce resource on which the act is being perpetrated. If I own your body then me attacking your body with force is just me using my property as I see fit, but if you own your body then my attack is an act of aggression. Perhaps the Non-Aggression Principle should have embedded within it the idea of relativistic ownership. What is that? Instead of asking “Who had it first?” we ask, “Among the current parties in dispute, who has the better claim to it?”  This way we don’t need to understand or assume the underlying property rights convention before we use some scarce resource that we discover. All we need to do is ask ourselves, “Do I have a better claim to this scarce resource than anybody else?” It should be obvious that unless I created the scarce resource or I am certain that I pulled it out of an unowned state, that I must get permission to do whatever it is I want to do with it, and I don’t act before doing so (we call this doing our due diligence). For example I believe that I own my body, that my claim to my body is superior to anybody else’s, so I may operate on the presumptive certainty that my body is mine to do with as I please. I’m also certain that I own my house and the land on which it sits, because I’ve gone through the process of getting title to it and paying for title insurance that guaranteed to me that my title was free and clear of any other claims. If you know it’s not yours, then you may not use force against it. That’s the Non-Aggression Principle that doesn’t beg any questions, and today’s two three cents.

  • On Cultural Appropriation

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    I was reminded recently of the silly notion called cultural appropriation. It’s silly for two reasons: 1) every culture on Earth is a result of the mixing of previous cultures, and 2) cultural practices are ideas, and ideas cannot be owned. These are also the same reasons why “intellectual property” is a silly notion: 1) every idea on Earth is a remix of previous ideas, and 2) ideas cannot be owned. Accepting intellectual property means you must accept the lamentations against cultural appropriation, and vice versa, for they are the very same silly thing. Fortunately for me I don’t accept intellectual property and I don’t lament cultural appropriation. In fact I practice and celebrate the appropriation of ideas from other people and other cultures shamelessly. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • How to Deflect and Pass The Burden of Proof

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    I had another discussion with somebody on reddit regarding defamation. This person was responding to me after I responded to somebody else and seemed to be the champion who would take me to task. Instead what I was treated to was deflection and an attempt to pass the burden of proof all the while attempting to mirror me in my accusations of him making simple assertions instead of arguments. Let this be a lesson on how to unsuccessfully use those bad faith tactics.

    Original post: John Stossel Sues Facebook Alleging Defamation Over Fact-Check Label, Seeks at Least $2 Million

    total_carnage1: Libel is still a crime.

    Skyler: False: https://everything-voluntary.com/defamation-is-not-aggression-ergo-not-a-crime

    However turnabout is fair play and I’m sure Facebook does believe that defamation is a crime and so this may be used against them.

    vankorgan: If I started a multi million dollar campaign alleging that my competitors product was made from cat piss and arsenic wouldn’t that actually hurt them?

    Skyler: You need to explain how that constitutes aggression in the libertarian sense in order for it to be considered a crime in a libertarian society. Can you do that?

    vankorgan: Purposely trying to ruin another person by spreading lies that cost them business?

    Skyler: Asking questions are not logical arguments. Please construct for me a logical argument about how defamation is an act of aggression. I’ll wait.

    Grouchy_Fauci (self-appointed champion): Pretend the question mark is a period and read the words again.

    “Purposely trying to ruin another person by spreading lies that cost them business.”

    Is that clear enough for you?

    Skyler: Your challenge is to construct an argument showing that spreading lies is an act of aggression, an uninvited property border trespass. If it’s not an act of aggression, then it’s not a crime, and may not be responded to with force in a libertarian society. See Friday on Rothbard: https://mises.org/wire/no-one-has-right-good-reputation and Block/Pillard on Rothbard as well: https://mises.org/library/libel-slander-and-reputation-according-rothbards-theory-libertarian-law

    People do not own their reputation, which only exists in the minds of other people. If I damage your reputation, I am not committing an act of aggression against you because you don’t own your reputation, your reputation is not your property. The implications and fallout is totally irrelevant. Many non-aggressive actions harm other people (stealing a girlfriend, competing against a business, painting my house an ugly color), but if the harm is not the result of aggression, then it’s not a crime in the libertarian sense, and may not be responded to with force (laws, government).

    Grouchy_Fauci: I’m not the original person you replied to and I don’t agree with your premises, but I’ll go along for the sake of discussion.

    People do not own their reputation

    Granted, but they do own their business.

    The implications and fallout is totally irrelevant.

    No, you don’t get off that easily. You can’t just hand-wave this away as being irrelevant.

    If your lies damage someone’s business (something they own), how on earth is that not a violation of the NAP? Your counter-point about not owning your reputation doesn’t apply because I’m talking about harm to the business not harm to the reputation. You’ll have to come up with a different counter-argument.

    Skyler: You keep asking questions as if you are making an argument. Questions aren’t arguments. If you believe in “damaging” someone’s business through lies (or competition, or destroying demand, or, or, or) then you must show how this is an act of aggression.

    Breaking the physical property of your business is aggression. Breaking the bodies of you and your workers is aggression. Lying about your business is not. How can it be? I own my body and my mouth, and may use it as I see fit, including lying. You have zero right to control my body and my mouth, or the minds (brains) of other people.

    (Lying only amounts to aggression through fraud, by taking title to someone else’s property that they only relinquished because they were fooled into believing the conditions for their release were meant. Fraud is stealing, and stealing is aggression.)


    Lying about your business is not.

    This is a naked assertion, not an argument.

    Lying only amounts to aggression through fraud,

    Assertion, not an argument.

    I don’t see any actual arguments from you. I see you just asserting things as if they were true but I’m not seeing the logical reasoning behind any of it.

    How can it be?

    Because your lies damaged someone else’s business. That’s how.

    Edit: removed rude comment about you being obtuse

    Skyler: Is this how it’s going to be, you play at mirroring instead of supporting your claim that defamation is aggression?

    Lying is speech. I have the right to control my mouth, not you. Or do we need to go further back and develop libertarian property rights, first? Obviously I’m making some assumptions for brevity considering this is a libertarian sub.

    Your claim is that because defamation damages someone else’s business, it’s an act of aggression. You are defining “damages” as losing customers. Businesses do not own their customers, because slavery is invalid under libertarian property rights. Customers may patronize any business they please, for any reason. Making your business obsolete by doing what you do, but better, may also cause you to lose customers. Have I damaged your business by doing so? Is market competition an act of aggression? By your reasoning, it is. Absurd, obviously, and without any rational merit.

    Try again.


    your claim that defamation is aggression

    I never actually made this claim. I merely responded to your comment saying that it’s not aggression because people don’t own their reputation, and I pointed out why that counter-argument was flawed/moot.

    Lying is speech.

    Yes and?

    I have the right to control my mouth, not you.

    And if you tell lies about me, I have the right to hold you accountable.

    Business do not own their customers.

    Nobody ever said they did and this is a silly response.

    Have I damaged your business by doing so?

    Comparing fair trade and free market with defamation? Nah, terrible comparison. Yes a business could be damaged by a competitor’s legitimate business practices, but that doesn’t somehow absolve you of liability if you damage a business by lying. One doesn’t logically follow from the other.

    By your reasoning, it is.

    Nah, you misunderstand my reasoning.


    And if you tell lies about me, I have the right to hold you accountable.

    Yes, but not by force. Do everything you can, short of using force.

    but that doesn’t somehow absolve you of liability if you damage a business by lying.

    You’ve yet to explain how there’s any criminal liability to defamation. That ball is still in your court.

    Nah, you misunderstand my reasoning.

    Because your reasoning isn’t going as far as you think it is. You’ve gone to “damaged” and then equivocated that to be the result of aggression. You made a logical leap, a non sequitur. Explain how defamation is aggression. Define your terms and connect the dots.

    Grouchy_Fauci: Yes, I can use force to hold you accountable. You haven’t presented any argument to the contrary. You merely asserted that I couldn’t use force. You have to present an actual argument dude—you don’t get to just declare things like this.

    And I said nothing about “criminal” liability. This is a civil issue.

    I made zero leaps of logic. Your lies damaged my business, I get to hold you accountable. Period. If you won’t allow yourself to be held accountable, I’m justified in using force.

    If you disagree, present an actual argument to the contrary.


    I get to hold you accountable. Period.

    Why and how?

    If you won’t allow yourself to be held accountable, I’m justified in using force.

    Why and how?

    If you disagree, present an actual argument to the contrary.

    Burden of proof is still on you. You can’t just make assertions and then pass it off. I’m still waiting.

    Maybe you should take the time to read what the libertarian theorists who came before us had to say on it, as I’ve already linked to:





    Because you damaged my business through your lies


    Civil suit.


    Because I’m entitled to recover damages caused by your lies.

    Burden of proof is still on you.

    No, you’re the one who first made the claim that you can’t use force—the burden is on you to back up your claims. You can’t just assert things and demand everyone else provide logical arguments proving your assertions wrong. That’s not how this works.

    I’m not talking about anyone’s reputation, as I made clear before. I’m talking tangible damages to a business caused by lies. There’s no Libertarian principle you can point to as some magical get-out-of-jail-free card here.

    Skyler: You refuse to explain and you refuse to understand. Bad faith. I guess we’re done.


    You refuse to explain

    I literally just answered the questions you asked. How is that not explaining?

    Bad faith.

    Sure buddy.

    I guess we’re done.

    Did you ever really begin? You never presented a single logical argument to back up your position. Not one. It’s assertions all the way down with you.


    You must have missed my first link, as well as the links from other libertarian theorists, all making the argument the defamation is not criminal (and if it’s not criminal, then it may not be responded to with force). Here they are again:




    Grouchy_Fauci: These links are irrelevant to the question at hand. This is about defamation causing damage to one’s business, not one’s reputation.

    Care to try again?

    Skyler: If you read the links you’d see why they aren’t irrelevant. Many things “damage” a business as I’ve already explained above, but aren’t aggression. The result is the same. If the cause is not aggression, and in the case of defamation its not, as the argument goes, then you may not respond with force. Duh. Do your homework. I’ve provided the arguments, and you’re choosing to ignore them. More bad faith.

    This person will likely continue to deflect and ignore what’s right in front of them, and that’s fine I suppose, a lot of people choose to play that game instead of educating themselves and having a good faith conversation. But I don’t have to continue banging my head against the wall for their shits and giggles.

  • Yes, Corporations Would Exist without The State

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Here’s a real snoozer, probably. This conversation with u/T3XASOUTLAW on reddit centered on whether corporations could exist without the state. I took the affirmative and they the negative. Spoiler alert: I am right and they are wrong. See for yourself.

    Skyler: “Analysis Shows Facebook Allows 99% of Climate Disinformation to Go Unchecked” Good. They shouldn’t be in the policing speech business. If you see something you believe is wrong, fight back. More speech, not less speech, is the answer. And no, forcing Facebook, et al, to allow all speech is also wrong.

    T3XASOUTLAW: I’d agree with that, if they weren’t a liability protected, quasi-state functioning apparatus.

    Skyler: And who’s fault is that? The state’s. So we beg the state to limit the state? That usually doesn’t work.

    T3XASOUTLAW: No. We end it, preferably peacefully. No state, no corporate liability protection, no state to function inside business apparatus, no fictional entities called corporations, ooh no central bank.

    Skyler: Corporations are not a creation of the state. A corporation (and limited liability for financial debts as agreed to by lenders) is just a group of people working together for a common cause. There’s nothing inherently statist about corporations, and they can take on many different organizational forms.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Corporations are set up by law. How can something that is set up by law not be a creature of the state?

    Skyler: You also have a legal identity. Are you a creature of the state?

    T3XASOUTLAW: The entity is yes.

    Skyler: Then you agree there is something there separate from the legal entity. As with you as a person, so it is as you and anybody else you incorporate with for common cause.

    T3XASOUTLAW: I think you are confused. The legal entity is a creature of the state. I as an individual gain legal protections because of legislation that otherwise wouldn’t be available without the state.

    Skyler: It doesn’t follow that the state may increase its aggression against the company.

    T3XASOUTLAW: You are on an ancap sub trying to defend a concept created through legislative action (legislative action is monopolized by the State.) That is what doesn’t follow any logical reasoning.

    Skyler: You believe that the concept of a “corporation” was created by legislative action? Etymology: https://www.etymonline.com/word/corporation#etymonline_v_28912 Comes from anglo-latin, 15th century, well before the modern nation-state. As for what “corporation” means in today’s statist context, yes, it’s a legal entity. So what? You believe it wouldn’t exist without the state? That people wouldn’t incorporate for common cause, for financial legal liability (contractual) protections? That seems unlikely to me.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Yes in Latin it meant a body of people or a group. So is a softball team. But a softball team doesn’t have a legal liability shield.

    You are arguing a very losing position. Corporations are fictional entities created through legislation. Sure in a free market groups of people can voluntarily do things, and even be in business together, those are called partnerships. But they would have no mechanism to shield themselves from business mistakes. The idea that a legal entity can take the financial hit for an individual, or group of individuals is counter to the free market. The free market is as much about loss as it is about gain. Shielding people from loss, while letting them accumulate gains is the opposite of the free market. The state is the only mechanism that can cause this atrocity.


    But a softball team doesn’t have a legal liability shield.

    They do if they contract together and then contract with lenders to shield the owners from personal financial liability. It’s all a matter of contract. No state needed. See Kinsella, Block, etc: https://mises.org/wire/defense-corporation


    As for tort liability—well, I am not aware of corporate law limiting the liability of any person, shareholder or otherwise, for torts he commits.


    As far as contracting with individual businesses, I guess you could, but it’s the bankruptcy protection and tort protection that protect the most. Try again. Still corporation are creatures of the state.

    Skyler: Yes, in today’s statist context, they are. But there’s zero reason to believe that individuals would not incorporate through contract to protect their interests in the venture. They are creatures of the state today, but they are not necessarily creatures of the state.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Right but a few extra contracts does not make a fictional legal entity. There are no amount of contracts with individuals that can create a legal straw man to protect you or assets from foreclosure, bankruptcy, and liability. There is no way to enforce that level of protection and having protection on that level is counter to a free market.

    And for someone at the Mises institution to do mental gymnastics to try and figure a way we can create a mechanism in the free market that is explicitly a state function is beyond me.

    In a free market you will get sole-proprietorships, partnerships, even decent sized groups of investors, but you aren’t going to get anything near the size of Amazon, that level of size requires a lot of State “fuckery.” (Sorry for using such economically technical terms this early in the morning.)


    Right but a few extra contracts does not make a fictional legal entity.

    If by “legal entity” you mean something the state authorizes and recognizes, then without a state, no, a contract couldn’t make that, because it couldn’t exist.

    that is explicitly a state function

    You haven’t demonstrated that it is. Please, do tell. How is an incorporation contract (that lays out which owners/officers do and own what part of the business) or a limited liability finance contract necessarily statist? I’m not seeing it, and you’re not explaining it. Also, the state grants bankruptcy privileges to businesses and individuals, but I am curious if the concept could exist without a state. Doesn’t seem so since the state is required to coerce lenders into dropping their debt claims. Quick search and I can’t find anything on it. I’ll email Kinsella and Block and see if they have anything.

    but you aren’t going to get anything near the size of Amazon

    This is an empirical question, and I agree. I think that corporations that size rely on all sorts of corporatists/fascist (including IP) regulations that wouldn’t exist in a free market. But that doesn’t mean that corporations wouldn’t/couldn’t exist at all.

    T3XASOUTLAW: A limited liability financial contract, could work for example my company is Tim’s Tires, I have a contract with Firestone to deliver X number of tires and in the contract can be written if Tim’s Tires goes out of business the contract for delivery is no longer valid. But no bank is going to loan Tim’s Tires anything that erases the debt if Tim’s Tires goes out of business. The owners of Tim’s Tires will still have to pay back the loan after all of the business assets are liquidated if a balance still remains.

    Like I said it’s the shield from loss that makes corporations so much better than a Sole-Proprietorship or basic partnerships.


    But no bank is going to loan Tim’s Tires anything that erases the debt if Tim’s Tires goes out of business.

    Sounds like a contractual issue. Maybe no bank would do that, but how do we know until we have a free market and see what financial instruments exist?

    Like I said it’s the shield from loss that makes corporations so much better than a Sole-Proprietorship or basic partnerships.

    Perhaps, but that’s not the only component of a corporation. Get rid of it with the state, fine. Good. That doesn’t mean the rest must go with it.

    T3XASOUTLAW: If my bank was making loans to people with built in shields for their mistakes I wouldn’t be banking with them. So I think my original view is correct, without a state you don’t get fictional entities that act as a stand in.

    Skyler: Banks today lend money in the forms of high-interest credit cards and high-interest payday loans and auto loans to risky people all the time. And these people can all declare bankruptcy and ask the state to protect them. And these banks still do it.

    T3XASOUTLAW: There is nothing free market about banks today. Usually those high interest loans come with collateral, or are of small amounts of money $1k or less.

    Skyler: Good point. FDIC and those things definitely create moral hazard. In any event, this doesn’t change what corporations are and why they would also exist in a stateless society.

    T3XASOUTLAW: What you have described so far hasn’t been a “corporation,” but can more accurately be described as a “doing business as.” A DBA can have pretty much the same structure, investors, and a CEO but none of the state protections given to an individual or group of individuals as a stand in legal fictional entity.

    Skyler: You still haven’t detailed these supposed state protections that cannot also be covered by contract.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Yes I did.

    Skyler: Incorporation contract (all types) = no state required

    Limited financial liability contract = no state required

    I’m not seeing it.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Dude go reread. Corporations and limited liability companies offer personal liability protection. The liability protection offered by these types of business entities helps ensure that a loss or incident that occurs in your business doesn’t result in exposure to your personal finances and assets. As is always the case in law, there are exceptions, although generally speaking, these types of entities will shield you from many types of personal liability risk.

    You making a contract with ten of your buddies does not protect you from me; if you, acting on your company’s behalf, did something to harm me. the state is the only mechanism that can provide that type of protection.

    Trucking companies are a very good example of this. Just because you have a contract with other people doesn’t protect you, in a free market, from damages you did while operating your company truck. I really hope I don’t have to hold your hand and walk you through how this works.


    You making a contract with ten of your buddies does not protect you from me; if you, acting on your company’s behalf, did something to harm me. the state is the only mechanism that can provide that type of protection.

    Why do you believe this is a necessary component of corporations?

    I can conceive of corporations existing without this component. Why can’t you?

    Seriously, Kinsella covered this in 2008: https://mises.org/wire/corporations-and-limited-liability-torts

    T3XASOUTLAW: I don’t think you understand that the liability/tax protections/incentives are the only thing separating a corporation from a DBA or just a business. You can contract any way you want, with your employees, with your bank, with investors, and with suppliers. You can organize the business any way you like, no state required. You cannot gain liability protections without a state. The only reason I’m bring up tax incentives is because it’s another benefit but that becomes a mute point without a state.

    Skyler: And you still haven’t explained why any of those things are necessary components of corporations. Get rid of all of them, you still have organized corporations with incorporation charters (for the benefit of the owners/shareholders and for the public to know who owns the business) and limited financial liability contracts.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Okay your not getting it. Have you incorporated a business?

    In a stateless society, who would you file the charter with?

    You can create your business, detail the major components of a company, such as its objectives, structure, and planned operations without the state, and without a legal fictional entity.

    Without the legal fictional entity it’s not a corporation, it’s a business, or group of individuals working together.

    The charter is what sets up the legal fiction and who owns the legal fiction. I don’t think you understand that, what you are asking me doesn’t make sense. Liability protection isn’t necessary to a business, but is the defining trait of a corporation.

    Skyler: Yes I have and I can imagine all sorts of private accreditation or similar companies that you would file your charter with, including those who lend you money or invest with you. Not to mention your lawyer and your partner’s lawyers so that if there are ever any disputes in the company you have a charter to support your claims. I still see no reason why people would not incorporate their business (on any form) or charity or nonprofit or whatever in a free society, and you haven’t given me any.

    T3XASOUTLAW: But do they have 3rd party liability protection, if so how? If not then it’s just a business with a contract. A charter is a very statist thing, why are you trying to shoehorn it into a free market. Or are you trying to call contracts charters?

    Everything you listed is done, and can be done with a DBA, without an LLC or type S/C attached.

    Yes I have and I can imagine all sorts of private accreditation or similar companies that you would file your contract with, including those who lend you money or invest with you. Not to mention your lawyer and your partner’s lawyers so that if there are ever any disputes in the company you have a contract to support your claims. I still see no reason why people would not incorporate their business (on any form) or charity or nonprofit or whatever in a free society.

    There fixed it



    A written grant by a country’s legislative or sovereign power, by which a body such as a company, college, or city is founded and its rights and privileges defined.


    A charter is a very statist thing

    Okay, “incorporation contract”. Jesus Christ. You can’t make the argument, so you revert to semantics. That’s usually how it goes, I guess.

    T3XASOUTLAW: No there are very clear definitions. Don’t play the leftists game of, “I define corporations as a none statist enterprise therefore I win.” I showed you time and time again how a corporation IS a legal fiction and cannot exist as such in a free market without the state protecting it. A corporation is a legal fiction designed to protect individuals from liability.



    a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

    Now if you want a group of people agreeing to contract with each other that’s fine, but that does make a corporation. That is called just regular business.

    Skyler: Corporation is just a “body” (corpus) of people working together for a common cause. Incorporation contracts and limited financial liability contracts would exist as whatever-name-you-please without the state. Yes, this has become about semantics. I guess “roads” wouldn’t exist without the state because “roads” as we know them today are a statist construct. Herp, derp.

    T3XASOUTLAW: No. That’s not the definition of a corporation, this is why you led with the etymology and not the definition. When you apply solid definitions your entire argument falls. You are trying to play semantics not I.

    Roads only exist because the state borrowed money to build them. No telling how travel would be in a stateless society.

    Your definition could apply to a volleyball team, or a bowling team or a family unit, even a government could fall under that definition. See the definition of corporations.

    I reject you assertion that I’m playing semantics. I am not picking apart the meaning of a word to draw a different conclusion, I’m literally arguing the definition as written and understood is correct. Playing semantics while projecting it onto me is rather ironic, don’t you think?

    Skyler: Your argument: Roads exist today through eminent domain. Eminent domain would not exist without the state. Ergo, roads would not exist without the state.

    Your argument: Buildings exist today through government building and zoning codes. Government building and zoning codes would not exist without the state. Ergo, buildings would not exist without the state.

    Give it up, already. Corporations would exist in some form without the state, just as would roads and buildings.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Not my arguments. How did you get imminent domain? But please continue to straw man me. Sure your on the correct sub? You argue like a commie. Corporations can not exist in a stateless society as they are DEFINED. Sure if you change the definition to be something they are not then yes they can, but they wouldn’t be corporations would they, they’d be just a business.

    Corporations exist for the fundamental purpose to protect individuals from liability. Specifically from 3rd party liability, that is to say people NOT apart of the organization, and therefore could not have been a party to any contract you are trying to shield liability with. Jesus dude get it right. You cannot oblige someone something they haven’t agreed to.


    Corporations exist for the fundamental purpose to protect individuals from liability. Specifically from 3rd party liability, that is to say people NOT apart of the organization, and therefore could not have been a party to any contract you are trying to shield liability with.

    Kinsella demolished this argument, as I already linked you to: https://mises.org/wire/corporations-and-limited-liability-torts

    Corporations don’t require shielding third parties just because that’s some benefit the state supposedly (they don’t, see Kinsella) gives them. Same with roads with eminent domain and buildings with government codes. Corporations, roads, and buildings would all exist without the state giving them any privileges. This is why you’re wrong.

    T3XASOUTLAW: And I pointed out DuPont. Who spun off a legal entity to take the hit for their liability. The Chemours company. This is the type of garbage I’m talking about and can only happen in a statist society with legal fiction hood of companies.

    This is why I quoted from your article. Pointing out that it is wrong. You are wrong and are in a losing argument. You don’t even know it, but I already told you.

    So company A does stupid shit, goes through court looks at the case, says “we are fucked,” then puts forth one of its other straw man companies(company B) to take the liability hit.

    Skyler: Your pointing to a single component of modern, statist corporations and declaring that all corporations couldn’t exist in a free market. It’s absurd, as I already showed you with roads and buildings. Define anything with “state” in it, and of course it wouldn’t exist where the state doesn’t exist. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see in the glorious stateless future, now won’t we?

    T3XASOUTLAW: It’s the legal fiction that allows this to happen. Without the fiction it can’t. Without the legal fiction there is no corporation.

    Without a state, would you have a state funded road system? No. But private roads would still be built right? Yes.

    A business is still going to exist, it can be organized in many ways voluntarily, but one of those ways can not be a legal fiction set up with a charter from a state agency. Get it now?

    My original point still stands undefeated. Corporations are creatures of the state. Your welcome.

    Skyler: Obviously it wouldn’t be a state-based “legal fiction”. It would be a matter of contract, as I’ve already explained.

    Thanks for the concession. Was that so hard?

    T3XASOUTLAW: [Quoting himself] “Without the legal fiction there is no corporation.”

    Skyler: There is no legal-fiction based corporation, but there would still be a contract based corporation. QED.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Okay fair. No legal fiction. Just a normal business organized the way the individuals who created it want it to be. Also called a business.

    Skyler: And nobody arguing that corporations could exist without the state has ever said otherwise.

    Skyler: Do you have a link to the DuPont case?

    T3XASOUTLAW: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306374715301081



    In October 2013, DuPont announced that it was planning to spin off its “performance chemicals” business into a new publicly traded company in mid-2015.[2] DuPont filed its initial Form 10 with the SEC in December 2014 and announced that the new company would be called “The Chemours Company”.[3] The spin-off to DuPont shareholders was completed on July 1, 2015, and Chemours’ stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the same date.[4] Chemours has assumed various liabilities arising from lawsuits against DuPont.[5]

    This is why even in a free market you can not allow the fictional straw man to take liability. What stops you from just spinning off another one to take the hit.

    Skyler: Yes, this is all statist fuckery, none of which would be possible without the state. I fail to see how any of it condemns corporations as a principle and as a practice, however. It condemns the state and what the state is allowing corporations to do, but what’s new? The state allows all sorts of bad guys to get away with doing bad things. That’s what the state is, a corporation of criminals who aggressively maintain a monopoly on the legal use of force, of ultimate decision-making, and use this pretend authority to excuse themselves and their friends. None of that condemns corporations any more than war crimes condemn private militias or street crimes condemn gun owners.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Right but what mechanism did they use to bs the system? The legal personhood mechanism that you spent so much time defending. If it where available in a free market (it’s not) this type of spin off to eliminate liability would still happen.

    This is an example why this mechanism cannot be allowed.

    Skyler: I don’t know why you insist on defining a corporation as legal personhood. It’s totally unnecessary. Which brings is back to semantics. Obviously without a state corporations would not have legal personhood, but they would still exist in contractual form.


    Because that’s the definition. “I don’t know why you insist on defining air as an invisible gaseous substance.”

    I’m not sure what your irrational attachment to corporations is, or why?

    What does a corporation do, that can’t be done with a normal business? Anything from a large DBA, to a sole-proprietorship.




    a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.


    Skyler: Do you believe that the state is the only source of law? Corporations can also be recognized in common law via contracts. And around we go. Why? Because there’s nothing fundamental to a corporation that requires the state.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Nothing fundamental, except the definition. Without the legal entity it’s just a business. How could you enforce a legal entity, separate from it’s owners in say Brehon law, or common law. Those are the two I can think of.

    Skyler: Imagine thinking word definitions are set in stone, never change, never adapt, never have multiple meanings. SMH.

    T3XASOUTLAW: So what I said like 20 comments ago. If you change the definition of corporation to mean something other than a corporation then yes. Instead of redefining corporation, we use a word that already means what you are trying to shoehorn corporations into. It’s called a business

    Skyler: I suppose marriage won’t exist in a free society either, since today’s it’s defined as a “legal union” or some such. Semantics.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Seeing as how marriage pre-dates state legal monopolization of it, that would appear to be a false dichotomy. Oh, and how business pre-dates corporations by a few thousand years. So again no matter how you carve this turkey your wrong.

    Skyler: No matter how you carve this turkey, you’re making a semantic argument.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Again you are the only one making semantic argument. Mr. “Imagine thinking word definitions are set in stone.”

    I already had to call you out on this exact hypocrisy earlier.

    Skyler: I have exhibited no hypocrisy. Quote me. In any event, we’ll just have to wait and see. Hopefully.


    Corporation is just a “body” (corpus) of people working together for a common cause. -Arguing semantics-Incorporation contracts and limited financial liability contracts would exist as whatever-name-you-please without the state. Yes, this has become about semantics. -not by me-

    I guess “roads” wouldn’t exist without the state because “roads” as we know them today are a statist construct. -straw man- Herp, derp. -ad hominem?-

    My reply:

    You are trying to play semantics not I.

    I reject your assertion that I’m playing semantics. I am not picking apart the meaning of a word to draw a different conclusion, I’m literally arguing the definition as written and understood is correct. Playing semantics while projecting it onto me is rather ironic, don’t you think?

    Skyler: I see no hypocrisy. What I see is you arguing semantics, that a corporation in a free market shouldn’t be called a corporation, because it bothers you, or something.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Yeah you see no hypocrisy, I think you miss a bit, not just the irony.

    I never said a corporation in a free market shouldn’t be called a corporation. Jesus I hope you do better when you argue with commie.

    What does a corporation provide that a DBA doesn’t besides the legal fiction part. What is it specifically that you like about a corporation over say a unincorporated business?

    Skyler: Plus stock offering contracts. Add that to the list of contracts that would form the basis of incorporation. Legal entity-hood is important with or without the state. But keep believing as you please. (Author’s note: I ran away from “legal personhood” at first, but realized that’s a mistake by this point. “Legal personhood” or “legal entity” can exist without the state as a matter of contract, and thus recognized under common law for disputes involving business assets.)

    T3XASOUTLAW: So you think selling portion of your business requires legal fiction-hood? Why? You can sell a portion of your business to whoever wants to invest. No legal entity required. Actually the reason it’s required now is because of the State.

    It’s almost as if someone has been telling you this the whole time.

    Another ironic thing I’ll spell out for you.

    So legal fictions can exist without a state, but people can’t sell portions of their business without a legal fiction. Hmmm. I sensed you where hung up on something irrational. Now whose stuck in a statist paradigm. The only reason you can’t sell stocks of a DBA is because you are required by the State to have legal entity known as a corporation.

    Also this idea of raising capital and selling parts of your company off is a very statist driven process through the printing press, control of interest rates, tax incentives, etc. Savings are key in the free market, and no more chasing fiat money and government teet suckling.

    Skyler: What is it they own stock in if not a corporation? The business is the corporation. Semantics. You’re still stuck.

    T3XASOUTLAW: I’m stuck? Says the the guy who thinks you can’t buy parts of businesses without a legal fiction attached. Like I said you have an irrational attachment to the idea of legal fiction status. You can purchase parts of businesses without it being a fucking legal fiction.

    You have this concept, started, and perpetuated by the state, and you are the one stuck in that paradigm. You would even see markets where people buy and sell parts of companies in a free market, but it would not be nearly as big as any stock market today.

    The main reason most people invest in the market is because of statism and fiat currency.

    Skyler: Even contracts require legal recognition of people. The same for businesses. You must represent the person or business in some way if you are to contract with it, to buy stock in it, to lend it funds. That recognition for a business is a corporation (all types). You call it a DBA. Same thing. Semantics.

    T3XASOUTLAW: A DBA is just a legal definition of a business that is not incorporated. In a free market it’s just business. You don’t need legal fiction status to buy parts of businesses. Just like you don’t need legal fiction status to buy or sell parts of your time, it’s just compensation or a job.

    Skyler: You need some sort of legal recognition for contract purposes. What are you buying, what are you contracting with? Not the officers, not the owners, not the stockholders/stakeholders, but the business as its own entity. How would you represent it on a contract if not “ABC Company” or “ABC Corp.” or “ABC LLC” ? Those are corporations (lowercase c), no state required.

    T3XASOUTLAW: You contract with the owners dude. The owners can hire a board. Split stocks, even have a 3rd party free market registrar to keep track of who owns what percent of what business. No entity required. Again you are stuck in statist paradigm. Nothing you think of today in the financial sector would look as it does today. The stock market and money sector is fucked with statism.

    Skyler: The corporation is shorthand for the owners, collectively. It would be ridiculous to list all owners and shareholders on every contract the company makes. Your claims are absurd.

    T3XASOUTLAW: Perhaps but that’s why you have a board handle the day to day and a registrar that you can pick from. 100 shares to sell, board decides with a vote to add new members, owners sign off. So many options when the state isn’t involved.

    Phew. That was a long one, and came down to an unwillingness to see that his entire case was semantic, defining “corporation” with unnecessary statist privilege built-in. I have no reasons to believe that companies won’t be incorporated contractually for all of the purposes discussed above.

  • Parents May Not Force Other People’s Kids to Wear Masks

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    This is a rather heated conversation from about a month ago on reddit. The original post was linking to a discord for parents who want mask mandates in schools here in Salt Lake City. I responded, “If you want your kid to wear a mask, have him wear a mask. otherwise mind your own business.” The following (and more) ensued.

    azucarleta: Next you people will be railing against hand washing. I mean this shouldn’t be all that surprising, these are the same people against sex ed.

    Why not say the kids who won’t wear masks can stay home? That would also fulfil your childish ethics. A system in which some schools mandate all the kids who will not wear masks and a different school that mandates all the kids who must wear masks. That also would be compatible with your childish ethics. But nah You’re just a Trumper who thinks he’s philosophical and cool but you’re just an ugly Trumper.

    Skyler: You don’t know me. Stop pretending you do. It makes you a liar.

    azucarleta: You are redditting in your own name, as if you believe yourself to be someone who deserves and ought to “make a name for himself.” You author — under this same name — a number of blogs that espouse the philosophy of voluntarism.

    And yet you want to force via state power kids to go to schools in which not everyone is wearing a mask, even though those who wish for everyone to wear a mask have a rational basis for that desire (it’s called germ theory, and it’s the same logic behind universal handwashing ffs).

    Why the hell haven’t you contemplated a more voluntary solution than simply the Trump party line? Stop pretending.

    Skyler: Are you fucking kidding me? If you believe I want to force anyone to school, you obviously don’t know me. Try again. Stop lying.

    Here’s the solution: if you want to wear a mask, or want your kids to wear a mask, do it. End of solution. It’s your prerogative to protect yourself and your kids. No one else’s.

    azucarleta: You’re not reckoning with the point I am making. Or are you poorly doing so?

    Are you suggesting that workers at a school — either a majority or consensus, take your pick — should be able to voluntarily decide among themselves they work at a Mask Mandate school, and then everyone else can voluntarily decide whether they want to go into that school knowing that it is a Mask Mandate school? Because that’s a far cry — and a far more radical and sophisticated position — than what your top-level comment suggests.

    Your top-level comment is the covid-mask equivalent of “let them eat cake.” It’s not helpful, and it reveals not only callousness but your cluelessness. I feel like I understand the philosophy you claim to promote more than you do.

    edit: in short, you’re a voluntarist until things get mucky and would make people whisper about you at church, at which point you revert to Trumpism (but maintain your position has been consistently voluntariest all along, comically). I wonder if you are cunning about this or ignorant to your own shiftiness.

    Skyler: The problem here is the existence of government, non-private schools, all of which should be abolished. Government schools are by their nature political schools, and so the decisions they make are political. Disagreements abound in politics and have a way of getting messy. I abhor politics, and government schools. Privatize everything. Then the owner makes the decision and everyone else is either welcomed, or not. Simple. That’s the voluntaryist solution.

    Saying that some workers can decide what other workers have to do does not mean they are being “voluntary”. Governments shouldn’t be making this decision (or any decision) since governments (states) should not exist. They create conflict. All government should do, if they are to exist, is protect property rights and liberty. That’s it. That’s their only proper role. Anything beyond this is tyranny.

    Find a school that allows masks, and instruct your child to wear a mask. Or better yet, keep your child out of compulsory forms of miseducation. Nobody needs to force anyone else to do anything. Everyone can protect themselves without anyone else’s cooperation. Demanding that others wear masks or get vaccinated proves that it’s not about safety, but control. Fuck off.

    azucarleta: You’ve not explained why you are not advocating for a system in which pro-mask people go to school A, and anti-mask people go to school B. As a matter of public health, I’m not really sure that would even help much, however it’s a lot more practically voluntary than your “let them eat cake” position.

    And you’re kind of the least helpful, most annoying kind of philosopher/radical. One who says essentially, “well I haven’t anything useful to add because frankly y’all everything we see is poisoned fruit of a poison tree!” A more intellectual anarchist knows their philosophy is a moral philosophy, not a political one, and can be applied even in the least hospitable of situations. No matter the context, one can always find a way to be more cooperative, and less hierarchical/authoritarian/coercive. You just don’t seem to be that kind of anarchist; by my way of scoring, that makes you an anarchist not at all. Which is fine, I think pretty much everyone radical, liberal, moderate or extremist knows that “anarcho-capitalists” are just extremist capitalists without any anarchism in sight lol.

    Skyler: I’m not sure why you think “everyone choose for themselves” is “hierarchical/authoritarian/coercive”. It’s the opposite, and a very good solution.

    Please, tell me, how is voluntary choice “hierarchical/authoritarian/coercive”? Use logic.

    azucarleta: Please stay moored to the issue at hand. We, at the moment, have a system of compulsory education. You may oppose that regime (as do I), but it is what it is today and for the foreseeable future, it’s the context we in the commentariat must reckon with if we are being serious about real-world solutions and not simply philosophically masturbating. I certainly hope, but sort of doubt, we agree so far.

    So long as we presume compulsory education will continue indefinitely (if you can’t do that you’re a radical child) we must turn now to the next big piece of context, an infectious pandemic.

    Why would someone committed to voluntarism not acknowledge that allowing people to voluntarily sort themselves is preferable to forcing polarized opposing sides to coalesce around one pole or the other? Your insistence that polarized people must coalesce in schools in which universal mask wearing is not a feature — and that no school functioning as a magnet for like-minded folks may have a universal mask wearing code — is functioning as an authoritarian/coercive force, given the context of compulsory education. Your position is not allowing people who want universal mask wearing to group together and have a school or system of schools in which mask wearing is universal.

    Skyler: You’re telling a voluntaryist that one or two people is going to get shot in the head. That’s the reality, and I must choose.

    No, I don’t have to choose. It’s everybody’s own prerogative to choose for themselves what risks they want to take. If they deem that school without a mask mandate is too risky for them, then it’s their prerogative to stay home or to keep their kids home.

    Everyone may choose for themselves, but no one may choose for others. It’s not difficult or complex, and it works.

    azucarleta: Again I accuse you of being ignorant of the muckiness or being aware of it but pretending it doesn’t exist in order to espouse the Trump party line while maintaining you’re not a party man.

    Why shouldn’t it be those who refuse to wear a mask who have to stay home? Why shouldn’t we recognize that mask wearing is just as benign but also as helpful as hand-washing and as a result create rules around it that teach kids good practice? Why do you believe those who wish to not wear a mask get all the schools and those who wish to have universal mask wearing get zero schools? How do you justify that knowing that education is compulsory, taxpaying is compulsory, and that universal mask wearing is an extremely popular position?

    Skyler: Because one side is using aggression, and the other is not. Think about it.

    azucarleta: You’re such a lightweight dude. The state will collect my taxes at gunpoint should I be foolish enough to try to refuse to pay. The state will take my child to school by force if I am foolish enough to decide to not educate them to the state standard. Both of these will be done very agGresSIvelY. That is the undebated unyielding reality of our current context, pandemic or no pandemic.

    And in that context of an infectious pandemic you wish for zero of the schools that people are aggressively forced to pay for and attend to have universal mask wearing as a policy. Why shouldn’t the government be more complex and offer policy A to people who want policy A, and offer policy B, at different facilities, for people who want policy b? Wouldn’t that be less coercive and more voluntary for those subject to the whole scheme?

    Skyler: Look at the mental gymnastics over a fucking mask mandate.

    People do the exact same mental gymnastics to justify banning marijuana, banning alcohol, banning speech, banning protest, banning guns, banning homosexuality, banning any and everything they dislike. And oh yes, even banning masks.

    Mind your own business.

    azucarleta: Where my taxes go and where the state forces my children to go is my fucking business dimwit.

    Delete your accounts.

    Skyler: So because you’re a victim, that gives you the right to use aggression against other victims?

    azucarleta: I see this point of course but you see I think the simplest solution** is to tell those who won’t wear masks that they may do online or home schooling only, and that in person school relies on appropriate precautions. You see, you have unchecked “default settings” that for you define who is being aggressive. I find luddites who insist on being in public shared spaces in a pandemic without taking precautions to be negligent and showing unwarranted disregard for public safety. Call it aggressive to keep you out of school, but personally I find it quite aggressive that you would force your way in. Your use of “Aggressive” here is unchecked entitlement, defined by personal values, relational, meaningless. It simply begs the question really.

    **But I think we can do much better than simple solutions.

    Skyler: “public safety”: the clarion call of tyrants large and small everywhere. good luck with that.

    azucarleta: you seem to be dodging this question: Why shouldn’t there be a set of Universal Mask schools for workers and families who prefer that, parallel to Mask Anarchy schools for people who prefer that? After all, this is probably going to be going on for years, why not start self sorting for the long haul? It’s a real question, not some gotcha.

    Why shouldn’t the government cater to both and let people self-sort? Why must one solution be chosen and everyone forced to it? Isn’t it less coercive if the government tries to cater to polarized people rather than forcing them to coalesce?

    Skyler: Why don’t we bypass the state entirely and let everyone fund the schools of their choice? Less aggression all around, everyone wins.

    azucarleta: I don’t know why it’s such a problematic question that you would dodge answering it at least 3 times, but that makes me more curious. Your distracting theoretical question here is fine, but I want to set it aside for now. I’ll ask again and would you please: Why shouldn’t the government provide Universal Mask schools in the community commensurate with the level of interest there is for Universal Mask schools among faculty, staff and students? Isn’t it a bit, um, authoritarian to insist that one solution must be the solution?

    It’s a real question because kids and workers with health complications — who maybe can’t even get vaccinated — would really prefer to attend work and school with the double-mask double-vax type of people, and not the types whose parents got drinks after the Garth Brooks concert entirely unmasked and unvaxed. Why not let people voluntarily associate/find their tribe? Why should the Mask Anarchy tribe’s way of doing things be the way everyone is forced to do it in every public school statewide?

    Skyler: I’ve answered it very clearly, you just don’t like my answer.

    I’m against mask mandates and I’m against anti-mask mandates. Everybody should be free to choose if and how many masks they want to wear. And everybody should be free to choose who they will allow on to their property.

    azucarleta: Oh, that’s your answer? You should show your work, so I know you’re giving an answer. How did you come to that conclusion given your supposed “anarchist” leanings? You’re/your position is/would be basically making it impossible for people to associate only with those who they choose to associate. You’re making it impossible for people to freely dis-associate from people who won’t mask and vax and shit, and how can you justify that imposition when germ theory explains exactly why their desire is rational and not just some empty hate? With whom I associate is no longer voluntary in the least, should/when your view rules the day.

    To help me understand: So if a charter school wishes to impose a mask mandate, is that ok with you? More importantly, could a charter be established around the idea of Universal Masks (and vax for those eligible) as its foundational establishing principle?

    Skyler: Depends on whether or not my child attends said charter school. I am free to agitate either way. I am not free to pull out my gun and use aggression to get what I want, or to advocate for the state to do likewise. If I don’t get what I want, I can either live with it, or pull my kid out. Or better, give my kid the choice for themselves (as I do as an unschooling father with a middle child “trying” school for the first time at 11yo).

    You’re making it impossible for people to freely dis-associate from people who won’t mask and vax and shit

    This is demonstrably false. Mine is the only way for everyone to associate or disassociate with whomever they please. The problem, as always, is something I give zero support to: public services and public property. Privatize everything.

    Voluntaryism is simple: don’t hurt people, don’t take their stuff, don’t ask permission, and mind your own business. Obviously the state is a thorn, nay, a tusk, in society’s side and forces neighbor to hate, to attack neighbor. Disgusting, isn’t it?

  • On Property Rights II

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    The “Who had it first?property rights convention solves the artificially created conflicts surrounding so-called “intellectual property” eg. copyrights and patents. Ideas only exist embedded in real, physical items, starting with our brains. Your attempt to control my brain or my property forces us to ask the question, “Who had it first?” My brain first belonged to me, not you. If I use my brain to think about an idea you originated, that’s really none of your business. My brain does not belong to you. If I use my mouth to sing a song you originated, with or without the exchange of money, that’s also none of your business. My mouth does not belong to you, and neither does my customer’s money. If I use my property to implement an invention you originated, that’s also none of your business. My property configured any way I please does not belong to you. The “Who had it first?” property rights convention is totally incompatible with a property rights convention that asks, “Who thought about it first?” Ideas, patterns of information, thoughts, can be used by everyone simultaneously, always embedded in real, physical items that cannot. “Who had it first?” is the key. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Property Rights

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Property rights aren’t a difficult concept to grasp. All it comes down to is, “Who had it first?” It’s the very same question we ask children when they’re fighting over a toy. Answering this question is usually not difficult, but sometimes the best we can do is to answer it relativistically, “Between those who are in conflict over the item, who had it first?” If a third party enters the conflict then it’s simply a matter of determining among the three parties, “Who had it first?” After the matter is settled and some time passes, if a new party disputes ownership of the item then all we have to ask is, “Who had it first?” I’ve yet to hear a single valid counter-argument to a “Who had it first?” property rights convention that was not without unsurmountable problems that always entailed property insecurity, and chaos. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • Defamation is Not Aggression, Ergo, Not a Crime

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Tom Wood’s is absolutely correct when he laments that today’s young libertarian is just not studying the classics, the theorists that came before. Here’s one recent anecdote of someone who can’t even properly define aggression in the libertarian sense, which mistake confuses him into believe that defamation is a crime which should be legally prohibited. Judge for yourself. u/Sui_ci_de (who calls himself a “LaVeyan Ancap”) began with: “He’s talking about slander (and libel), not free speech.”

    Skyler: Libel and slander are free speech. Defamation is not a crime under libertarian theory because you don’t own your reputation, which only exists in the minds of other people.

    Sui: Wrong – https://donotpay.com/learn/slander-vs-freedom-of-speech/ + You don’t get to define what is and isn’t a crime under libertarian theory. Have a good day.

    Skyler: The entire basis of the claim is centered around reputation. If reputation is unowned then damaging reputation is not an act of aggression. Only acts of aggression (uninvited force) are crimes under libertarian theory because only acts of aggression may be responded to with force. The same mistake is made when people claim that ideas are property and that copying an idea (piracy) is a crime. It’s not.

    Sui: Intangible assets exist, that shit’s basic economics. Duckduckgo “good will” if you have to be convinced of even that, i’m not going lower than this.


    n. Hostile or destructive behavior or attitudes.

    It’s acting on that, not with a physical assault, but it’s still acting on aggression. He’s fully entitled to respond in kind/equal force.

    Silly comparison. Piracy doesn’t remove anything, it merely copies and potentially lowers the chance of a purchase (although in reality it often has the opposite result, if the intellectual property’s worth the requested amount at least). Attacking someone’s character/personhood and trying to demonize them into some predefined enemy class/otherwise dehumanize them is removing something. It’s an attack, just like falsely accusing someone of something horrible like pedophilia is an attack. There is measurable harm caused through defamation.

    Skyler: Nobody’s saying that it’s not a shitty thing to do, but it’s not aggression in the libertarian sense, an uninvited physically forceful act, a physical trespass. You haven’t demonstrated that it is, and so you may not respond to it with physical force or else you become the aggressor. Respond in whatever way you can except with physical force, and you’re fine.

    “Harm” is not and cannot be the standard. Convincing my girlfriend to leave me and be with you harms me. Painting your house a vomit texture harms me. Calling me a bad name harms me. None of these are aggression, so therefore none of these are crimes.

    Sui: Find a unified definition of aggression “in the libertarian sense”. I’ll wait. In the meantime i’ll stick with the dictionary definition. The intent is to cause harm, if it causes harm it’s an act of aggression. It doesn’t need to be a physical action, only the results need to be so they can be proven.

    “Calling me a bad name harms me.” Aw petal, I had no idea you were so delicate! I’ll just leave you to your safe space and coloring crayons, ok?


    The intent is to cause harm, if it causes harm it’s an act of aggression. It doesn’t need to be a physical action, only the results need to be so they can be proven.

    It doesn’t matter what you call it, what matters is that the response is proportionate to the action. Responding to non-violence with violence (or non-force with force) is disproportionate. By your logic, I may punch (or murder?) anybody who calls me a poo-poo face and hurts my feelings. Simply put, you are wrong. Aggression, according to every libertarian theorist I’ve ever read, is an uninvited act of physical force against person or property. Defamation does not qualify as an uninvited act of physical force against person or property, and so may not be responded to with the like (which is what prohibition laws do). It would be disproportionate.

    You are committing a fallacy of equivocation by defining aggression in a way that doesn’t allow for retaliatory force and then claiming that defamation (or name-calling, or breaking hearts, etc.) is aggression and should be prohibited by law (force) as a crime. You are wrong.


    Responding to non-violence with violence (or non-force with force) is disproportionate


    Aggression, according to every libertarian theorist I’ve ever read, is an uninvited act of physical force against person or property.

    Citations (you’ve actually expanded how many citations are necessary by exaggerating the claim) required.

    You are committing a fallacy of equivocation by defining aggression in a way…

    I didn’t define it, I don’t write dictionary definitions.

    You are wrong.

    Sure. Sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS CAN REALLY HARM ME, OK GUIS PLEASE STOP OR I’LL TELL MY MOMMY.

    Exaggerated for lulz, but you provided the joke so thanks 🙂


    Sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS CAN REALLY HARM ME, OK GUIS PLEASE STOP OR I’LL TELL MY MOMMY.

    You betray your position with this sarcasm. You know that words (speech, like defamation) are not aggression, and can’t hurt you in the same sense that a fist to your mouth can hurt you. You’ve lost.

    Citations (you’ve actually expanded how many citations are necessary by exaggerating the claim) required.

    You’ve obviously never read any libertarian theorists, like Rothbard, Block, Kinsella, Hoppe, Richman, Read, Long, et cetera, or else you’d realize how completely wrong you are about what aggression is. Some company’s dictionary is irrelevant when libertarian theory defines aggression and then uses it as defined. Pick up any introductory book on libertarianism and you’ll find the libertarian definition of aggression, which is fundamental to all libertarian theory. Here are some examples:








    I didn’t define it, I don’t write dictionary definitions.

    You are assuming definitions every time you speak and write, and when your argument switches definitions, it’s an equivocation fallacy: https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Equivocation.html

    Sui: You equated something that falls under free speech, insults, with something that doesn’t fall under free speech, defamation. How cute!

    If me saying that your previous statement of being harmed by words is funny to me is somehow me losing, then your previous statement of being harmed by words is a clear surrender.

    Mine doesn’t state words can never cause harm, merely insults hurting your fee fees do not. And they don’t cause tangible and physical harm.

    Defamation does cause tangible and physical harm though.

    Your position is mutually exclusive from words ever doing harm however, yet you’ve already claimed that you think they can. Oopsie! I wasn’t going to take the cheap win before tbh, but as you’ve tried it when it didn’t even apply.. Live cheap die cheap, you forfeit by your own standards. If they can even be called that.

    GG little fella. You surrendered, in a round about way, it’s over.

    What’s left, bunch of links that don’t matter as you forfeited… Another fallacy, another assertion of me using a fallacy, which don’t matter. As you forfeited.


    Defamation does cause tangible and physical harm though.

    Define “harm”. Being insulted is “harm”. Losing your girlfriend to a rival is “harm”. Losing value on your house because of an asshole neighbor is “harm”, but none of those are “harm” in the aggression sense. You have failed to make the case that defamation is aggression. You don’t even seem to know what aggression is, in a libertarian sense (the only sense that matters as it concerns politics and law). You can pretend to have “won” all you want. You’ve behaved irrational so far, so keep at it. I’m sure it will serve you well.

    It’s a shame that this person is so confused on basic definitions under libertarian (and anarcho-capitalist) theory. Yes, I think Tom Woods is correct, not enough reading and critical thinking of the giants that came before us.

  • Intellectual Property is Trash and Should Be Abolished

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Had a chat recently with reddit user u/samhw about “intellectual property”. The original post stated:

    TIL that Apple Records, the record company created by The Beatles in 1968, has had many legal battles with Apple Inc over the years. It started with trademark infringement in 1978 and later because Apple Records claimed Apple Inc violated an agreement to stay out of the music business. Link: https://ultimateclassicrock.com/apple-corp-apple-computers-second-settlement/

    My first comment was: “Intellectual property is trash. Should be abolished. #noip” to which he replied and this conversation ensued:

    samhw: I think this is a legitimate debate that’s worth having, but you need to make an actual argument for it.

    Skyler: I’ll do you better: https://c4sif.org/wrongaboutip/

    samhw: Haha, no, a very long blog post from someone who believes the same as you isn’t an argument. What’s your rationale? I’m not saying it needs to be novel, I’m just saying infodumps aren’t really respectful of other people’s time.

    Skyler: My argument is that intellectual property violates real property rights. The purpose of property rights is to minimize conflict over scarce resources. Ideas are just patterns of information and by their very nature are non-scarce. The purpose of intellectual property, rather, and historically is to give producers monopoly protections, not to protect property.

    samhw: How does it ‘violate real property rights’? I don’t understand how the remainder of your comment substantiates that claim, if indeed it’s meant to.

    Skyler: You are correct I never really explained that point. Intellectual property rights create what’s called a negative servitude over the use of your real property. Things like easements or servitudes are usually agreed to explicitly through contract, but in the case of intellectual property they are created by fiat by the state (a taking), transferring some control over your real property to the holders of intellectual property rights. Real property is scarce, meaning only one person can use it at a time, but ideas are non-scarce, everybody can use it all at once simultaneously. Hence the need for the state to use it’s apparatus of aggression (police, monopoly courts, prisons) to grant monopoly protections over ideas. IP entails greater and greater aggressive state intrusions into privacy and scope if it is to protect these monopolies universally.

    Read: https://mises.org/library/goods-scarce-and-nonscarce

    Do yourself a favor and spend time with this. I can’t do your homework for you.

    samhw: This doesn’t explain how IP rights ‘violate’ real property rights. It simply explains how they don’t operate the same way as real property rights.

    Skyler: Your patent and copyright allows you some control over my scarce real property in the form of a negative servitude. By government fiat, I no longer have exclusive right of control over my property. I’m not allowed to arrange it as I see fit. You have taken part of it from me. Hence IP violates property rights. One is supreme over the other.

    samhw: For starters, how do you mean that it allows me control over your real property?

    Skyler: Your IP gives you the right to tell me how I can’t use my property. Again, real property is scarce, only one person can use it at once. Your control supersedes my control.

    samhw: I’m sorry, you’re just saying it again. I was asking how it constrains how you use your property? Can you give an example or elaborate in some way?

    Skyler: Well I can’t arrange my raw materials in a way that supposedly infringes on your patent, or I can’t arrange my raw materials in a way that copies your creative work. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting this, I’m speaking pretty plain English. Intellectual property gives rights to other people over real property. There’s no valid reason why I can’t copy something that somebody else originated if I find it useful to do so using my own real property.

    samhw: You can’t ‘arrange your raw materials’ in a way that creates and detonates a bomb either, lol. Somehow those laws still don’t violate your property rights – maybe because the right to your property doesn’t guarantee the right to create entirely new stuff from it without breaking any law. I didn’t realise that was your point because it’s … well, quite a reach.


    You can’t ‘arrange your raw materials’ in a way that creates and detonates a bomb either, lol. Somehow those laws still don’t violate your property rights

    Of course they do. Let’s not bring in assumptions and presumptions about what this or that government says about property, IP or not. All of that is totally irrelevant to a conversation on principles.

    The reason that IP violates real property rights is because real property is scarce. I can’t use your real property because it would interfere with your use of your real property. Me copying an idea does not interfere with your use of the same idea. But your enforcement of IP does interfere with my use of my real property. Hence the violation of property rights.

    Ideas cannot be subject to claims of ownership because they are non-scarce and may used by everyone simultaneously and universally. Scare resources can (and must) be subject to claims of ownership because they are scarce, and scarcity creates the potential for conflict (two or more people trying to use the same thing at the same time). Property rights prevent conflict by assigning ownership over scarce resources. “IP rights” create conflict by re-assigning ownership (theft) over scarce resources. These are antithetical concepts.

    If you want to take about what this or that government says about how people may use their real property (including their bodies), we can, but in every case where the use does not threaten an innocent person, that government is also violating property rights because they are interfering with someone’s use of their scarce property, including when they enforce IP.

    I feel I educated this person on the anti-IP argument, but I have no idea if I changed their mind. Probably not, but I believe they’re better off knowing the other side of the debate. Maybe in time they’ll come around. People often do.

  • On Qualified Immunity II

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Most people are (rightly) held responsible for their destructive actions toward other people or their property. If I damage you in some way, accidentally or intentionally, I am held liable and forced to make amends, be it retribution against me or restitution for you. If I demanded immunity from this liability, I would quite correctly be considered an asshole (or for our friends across the pond, a cunt). Yet, their are people in our society that demand such immunity. Those people are police officers, prosecutors, and other government bureaucrats. When they damage other people, so long as it’s pursuant to their jobs, they are granted immunity for liability. They may wreak havoc and destruction against other people or their property without being held responsible for their actions. Anybody who demands or accepts this immunity is an asshole. The saying is true: All Cops (and prosecutors and bureaucrats) Are Bastards. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Critical Race Theory

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    As if I needed another reason to keep my children out of government schools, Critical Race Theory seems to be creeping up everywhere. I could be wrong, but everything I’ve seen and read about Critical Race Theory (and Woke-ism) leads me to believe that at it is fundamentally about making so-called “White” people feel ashamed of the color of their skin. Yes, I think that’s right. Imagine a program designed to make Black people feel ashamed of the color of their skin… perhaps a program that disapprovingly highlights crimes and vices committed by Black people and aimed primarily at making Black people, adults and children, view their skin color as a major contributing factor to these very bad behaviors and their devastating consequences on society. Wouldn’t we reasonable, and rightly, categorize such a program as racist? Judging people or making them feel ashamed due to either their skin color or genetic ancestry is one of the primary weapons of White Supremacists. Those espousing Critical Race Theory are essentially conceding to White Supremacists the superiority of their emphasis on “race” and what it says about individuals. Disgusting, if you ask me, and that’s today’s two cents.

  • On George Floyd and Derek Chauvin

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    The Derek Chauvin trial was an example of authoritarian in-fighting. Had “the system” actually been interested in justice, George Floyd would never have had a broken home, childhood trauma, and drug addiction problem, the police would never have responded to an allegation of a counterfeit $20 bill, Derek Chauvin would never have violently interfered with George Floyd’s life that day, society would never have been coercively handcuffed from keeping the peace and preventing riots and the destruction of many a small business and private property, and Chauvin’s guilty verdict would never mean that other people are coerced to pay for decades of incarceration. Just about every step of the way, authoritarianism set society up to fail, and for justice to be totally sucked out of the airlock. But as we all must know, authoritarians aren’t really concerned about justice, but in lining their own pockets from the blood and sweat of the rest of us. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Socialism II

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    David Friedman had another debate on capitalism and socialism last month, this one with Ben Burgis. They didn’t really cover any new ground, and the discussion period was a total disaster; viewer beware. However, Friedman leveled the poignant question to Burgis on what would happen to he and his friends if they practiced capitalism (one of them hiring the others for a wage) under his socialist system. Predictably, Burgis kept dodging the question. If Burgis would have conceded that they’d be left alone, then his entire system falls apart. Capitalism, no doubt, would spread like a virus as more people than not would prefer present consumption to future consumption. There just wouldn’t be enough scrimpers and savers to make for business builders. Too many would prefer to be paid an immediate flat wage now and forego company equity. And guess what… that’s totally fine! We’re all different, and we have different time preferences, and at different periods of our lives. Capitalism allows for such dynamism, socialism does not. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Racism

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    I just read a fantastic essay from 2017 on racism at Slate Star Codex titled, “Against Murderism“. I highly recommend it and was intellectually tickled by how it ended. The too long; didn’t read conclusion was: even when real racism is present, it’s still likely just a branch, and understanding the root issue is far more important if we are to ever solve any real problems and avoid civil war. In other words, crying “Racism!” is low-IQ and lazy, and says nothing about the real problems that plague society, and humanity. I’m probably guilty in a similar fashion by decrying “Authoritarianism!” all the time, as even that is a branch relative to the, ostensibly, root problem of hitting and traumatizing children. And that’s today’s two cents.