about us
  news from other sites
 Libertarian Theory
  Austrian School
  Business Cycles
  Gold Standard
  Private education
  Greenhouse effects
  Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide
  Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs
  Cryogen suspension
  Food and Medicine /Right to choose your own
  Health Care
 International Relations
  Development Help
  Europe and EU /Uniting Europe without the Union
  Secession Right
  War on Terrorism
  Gun Rights
  Human Rights /Emancipation
  Property Rights
  Self Defence
  Speech Freedom
  Values and Norms
 Rights, Justice
  Punishment and restitution
  War on Drugs
  Social security
  Internet Freedom
  Privacy and Encryption
 Repression and Police State
  Database State
Today: Thu, September 29 2016  -  Last modified: April, 26 2007
 Libertarian Theory
06 January 2016
The Formlessness of Progressivism
by Yonathan Anselem
 sub-topic» Socialism/Communism

Pitching a wish list of other people’s property naturally requires a total deformation of the English language. The left has recently adopted many vague, imprecise, but passionate words into their lexicon.

“Equality,” “social justice,” “appropriation,” “racism,” “climate justice,” “micro-aggressions,” and many other terms referencing broad, nebulous concepts are now battle cries for stuff.

In practice, being “for” something like social justice means to be for just about anything and against just about anything! Do any two people have the same idea about what social justice means?

12 August 2015
by Kent McManigal
 sub-topic» Socialism/Communism

Democrats, Republicans, and anyone else who believes "society" is a thing superior to the individual is a socialist.

If you believe in "laws", "national borders", "public schools", "taxes", "gun control", marriage licensing, drivers licenses, or any other nonsense which violates Rightful Liberty, you are a socialist of some sort.

Statism equals socialism. And it is slavery by another name.

25 November 2014
On Authority
by Friedrich Engels
 sub-topic» Socialism/Communism

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?