Woman Wants To Make It A Crime For MEN To Lie To Get Sex [PODCAST]

May 27, 2015

NEW JERSEY - Mischele Lewis is a suburban mom and activist who's pushing legislation to make it a crime for men to lie in order to get sex. Lewis wants the police to arrest men if they lie about things like having children, or living in a beautiful home when they really are just camping in their parents basement. One has to wonder if there would be any men left outside of prison if the bill were to pass. 

From Philly.com

I know this is going to make some readers livid, but stay with me: Introduced late last year by Assemblyman Troy Singleton, D-Burlington, the bill would make "sexual assault by fraud" a punishable offense. The bill defines it as "an act of sexual penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he is someone he is not."

"I think it's important because trying to deceive anyone for the purpose of sexual gratification is just wrong," Lewis told me last week as we sat on her front porch in Florence Township, N.J. "Every person has the right to knowing consent. And before they consent to be intimate with anybody, they should absolutely know 100 percent who it is that they are being intimate with.

"Whether it's as simple as . . . they slip off their wedding ring and then they engage in a relationship with someone, but the man or woman has no idea that the person they are with is married," she added. "Lying to someone else for any reason is never OK, whether it be [for] a job, a relationship, criminal history, parental history, marital history . . .. When did we become a society that thinks it's completely acceptable to lie to other people on a daily basis and think that's morally OK?

Of course, the law that is proposed is very specific, in that it only targets males through the wording of "sexual penetration," unless you're into pegging, in which case perhaps a woman might be charged if she lied in order to engage in such base activities. 

And what about all the lies that women engage in? Those push-up bras? The "Myspace Angles" that make them look 100 pounds thinner? I can't tell you how many times I've showed up on a date with what I thought would be a cute chick, who turned out to be a chunky monkey. Should I be able to call the police on these porcine prevaricators?

Today's episode of the Freedom Report discusses what happens when someone wants the law to save them from their stupid decisions. Subscribe to us on iTunes, and leave us a 5-star review! 

00:0000:00

Why Do Girls Have A Right To Genital Integrity, But Not Boys? [PODCAST]

May 26, 2015

The mother of a four-year-old son, Heather Hironomus, tearfully signed an order allowing for the circumcision of her boy, so that she could be released from prison. The event has stirred a national debate about the necessity of circumcision, and the question of whether all children should be allowed the right to bodily integrity.

Hironomus was imprisoned after she fled with her son, attempting to avoid the fulfillment of an agreement with the boy's father that would see him circumcised. She's now taken center stage on the issue, with anti-circumcision activists rallying to her cause, raising $50,000 in legal bills to defend her son, Chase Hironomus. The father wishes to circumcise the boy so that he looks like him.

RELATED: 7 Legal Rights And Privileges Afforded Only To Women

Currently, the laws in the United States protect girls from the practice of female genital mutilation, but not boys. While some studies argue that there are health benefits to circumcising boys, such arguments would never be allowed as evidence if applied to girls. The arguments that a reduction in the number of STD's for the removal of foreskin would be roundly pilloried if applied to the female sex. So why is there a societal double standard?

Today's episode of the Freedom Report podcast takes a look at this divisive issue, and asks why do girls have special rights that boys don't share?

00:0000:00

Rand Paul’s Epic Filibuster Assaults Big Government Spy Program [PODCAST]

May 21, 2015

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky took to the floor yesterday to mount an epic filibuster in defense of civil liberties. Paul's 11 hour speech ended just before midnight, and placed him center stage in the debate against the NSA's unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping programs.

Paul was joined in his filibuster by some Democrats who helped him maintain his voice by asking him questions. Paul was able to drink water and eat some candies to maintain his strength, while fellow presidential contenders Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz looked on.

Paul's filibuster was chided by some, who argued that his speech was not actually holding up the renewals of key portions of the PATRIOT ACT. But for the senator's supporters, it was an important stand against the NSA's powers to collect phone records of American citizens.

The House of Representatives passed legislation that would end the warrantless surveillance, and President Obama stated his intent to sign such legislation if it reached his desk. But Paul's greatest obstacles to achieving such a measure would ironically come from one of his best friends and allies, the senior senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell.

McConnell plainly wants to reauthorize the government to continue the program, and his powerful role as senate majority leader will give him wide latitude to block any attempts at reform. Will McConnell and Paul go head-t0-head in the coming weeks? Only time will tell.

Today's episode of the Freedom Report podcast welcomes a new guest host and intern for The Libertarian Republic, Laura Meyers. Please give her a warm welcome to the show by subscribing to The Freedom Report on iTunes, and leaving us a 5-star, and positive written review.

00:0000:00

Will The Future Be A Techno-Libertarian Utopia? [PODCAST]

May 20, 2015

Today's Freedom Report podcast takes a look at the future of technology and its impact on liberty. Will Elon Musk's solar city project with Tesla give mankind the boost we need to get off this rock? Or are his plans doomed to fail due to solar energy subsidies that bolster his industry?

And what about our food supply? Anti-GMO activists around the world are preparing to march against Monsanto this weekend, but what would life on our planet be like if we didn't have the modern genetic engineering techniques that we use to sustain our healthy populations?

Also, how can libertarians best protect our radical belief in the primacy of the individual if we are surrounded by socialists? Max Borders, editor of The Freeman magazine and director of content for the Foundation for Economic Education joins the Freedom Report to discuss the "Ultimate Exit," or the plan behind the flight from civilization.

Max Borders' latest project is the culmination of these discussions at an upcoming conference in Austin, Texas called "Voice and Exit," where entrepreneurs and techn0-optimists such as himself will gather to discuss the future of human flourishing. Listen in on today's show for a sneak preview of what you can expect from these radical optimists.

00:0000:00

This Girl Just Trolled The Entire Internet By Acting Like A Stupid Liberal [PODCAST]

May 18, 2015
June Lapine - AKA Shoe0nhead
June Lapine - AKA Shoe0nhead

The Libertarian Republic writer June Lapine posted a joke anti-capitalist meme to the Internet... but the Internet didn't know Shoe!

Lapine, AKA Shoe0nhead, a critic of extremist feminism, posted a photograph of herself last week that was a parody of anti-capitalist liberals who whine about capitalism from the comfort of their $600 iPhones. 

Shoe's troll went mega-viral, with most people believing that she was being serious. But who can blame them really? According to Skeptic's Dictionary, Poe's Law states that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. Truly anti-capitalist weirdos and economic illiterate leftists made June's satire hard, but not impossible, to spot. 

And since it wasn't impossible, doesn't this just make old Mark Twain's adage even more true; that a lie can run around the world twice before the truth can put on its... Shoe? 

Prominent conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet shared the meme, without any indication that he knew it was satire. And while it's not quite certain whether or not he saw it as such, he later admitted he did, his credulous truther fans certainly were hornswoggled by it. Heck, even a fellow writer at The Libertarian Republic was taken in by the prank. So what sort of responsibility do we have to let people know that we're making a joke, if any? 

This episode of the Freedom Report podcast is sure to make you laugh, cry, and make you think twice before sharing the latest meme. Oh who are we kidding, we know you're gonna share that stupid sh*t anyway. 

00:0000:00

Anarcho-Capitalists: Useful Idiots For Social Justice [PODCAST]

May 12, 2015

Screen Shot 2015-05-12 at 3.37.08 PM"Libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that's internal to private power concentrations."
-Noam Chomsky

"Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."
-Ayn Rand

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-Frederic Bastiat

"At the Last Judgment, libertarianism may find itself reduced to a minority of one, and its name will be not Legion, but Rothbard."
-Russell Kirk

Venture into the wilds of any libertarian message board, or the comments section on any libertarian article, or any of a lovely variety of subreddits or Twitter feeds, and you inevitably encounter quite possibly the most unfortunate figure ever witnessed in political discourse: The anarcho-capitalist.

These human whirligigs of confusion perpetually pirouette between discussions, trying desperately to live in some undefinable area of the political spectrum. They are at once a refutation and a vindication of the horseshoe theory of politics -- that the extreme Right and the extreme Left end up in the same place; a refutation because neither the extreme Right nor the extreme Left wants anything to do with them, but a vindication because they seem to end up in those sad places all the same. Theirs is an existence marked by endless conspiracy theories, utopian delusions, and rags soiled by the reading of the latest Lew Rockwell blog posts.

For a mercifully long period of time, they have been irrelevant. However, in the present age, they have become a menace to the liberty movement, mostly by virtue of their ghoulishly enthusiastic willingness to apologize for, and make alliances with, the web-grown species of Left-wing fascism known as "Social Justice." But this is not a surprise. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a Trojan horse for Left-wing anarchism, and those that believe in it are either too deluded to see this, or too beyond reason to care. As to the form Left-wing anarchism takes, it can only be described as, with apologies to Thomas Hobbes, bellum Tumblrum contra omnes.

In short, anarcho-capitalism is stupid, delusional, crypto-Leftist garbage.

Oh yeah, you thought Austin's listicle was bad? It was gentle. He at least believed in this nonsense at one point, and saw the light. You'll find no such charity here.  Anarcho-capitalism is rotten down to its warped bones. It is optically suicidal, congenitally toxic, and philosophically incoherent. At its best, it is nothing but a confused defense of subsidiarity. At its worst, it is sophistry designed to permit fascism of every variety. What is more, it has been tried, and we have seen the outcome, in the real world, or as close as anyone will let this bloodyminded worldview get.

It is about this last point that I'll spend most of my time, but we should touch on the first few briefly just as groundwork. First, there is the philosophy's optics problem. No point wasting time: Anarcho-capitalism is the best friend of the entire clickbait-driven Left, which constantly tries to tar libertarianism as an unreasonable, fringe ideology. It is to every Gawker, Salon, or Daily Show writer what the Scarecrow was to Dorothy Gale: A brainless strawman useful only as a crutch for venturing deeper into their personal fever dream.

And what about its intellectual roots? Well, you can't talk about anarcho-capitalism without properly naming its original exponent as Murray Rothbard. Now, as anyone who knows the career of Murray Rothbard will remember, Rothbard began life as a Lockean libertarian before transitioning into being a Maoist in the 60's, and finally into an ally of David Duke and white nationalists in the 80's and 90's. In other words, he transformed from a reddit user to a Tumblr user into a Stormfront user. If he were to be brought up on the "Stormfront or SJW" subreddit, he's one of the few people for whom you could make a case for "both." This is anarcho-capitalists' hero?

Then there's its philosophy. This will take a little more time to unpack, so bear with me. First of all, anarchism itself is difficult to envision as a plausible system of political organization. C.S. Lewis, in his book "The Great Divorce," describes Hell as an endless grey town where the houses get further and further apart as the individual souls living in each house get more and more determined to avoid each other. This is probably the most convincing picture of a purely anarchist society yet described. However, this sort of solitary confinement would scarcely work in a world with limited space, or with scarcity in general, since people inevitably will have to encroach on each others' land or goods in order to survive. And the trouble is that the instant multiple people end up living and cooperating together, some form of dispute resolution has to kick in, whether it's simple violence or a complex court system. Even an individual family has some sort of concept of authority, or at least of proper procedure by which disputes are resolved.

This is where the "confused defense of subsidiarity" comes in. If anarcho-capitalism means simply "every family a kingdom, with their own homestead and weapons," then it's really just an extreme form of minarchism where the individual states are no larger than family units -- a form of government, yes, but one so close to the people it's almost invisible. And if that's what you want, fine. There are problems with it, but fine. At least it's not trying to argue for a world with no state at all.

Now, I already know some anarcho-capitalists are going to be racing for their keyboards now. I can practically read the emails now. "THAT'S NOT A STATE YOU FASCIST THAT'S JUST A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION!" "FUCK OFF NEOCON SCUM GO BACK TO THE GOP!"

To which I say, okay, so you say it's not a state? Why not? Most anarcho-capitalism, Rothbard's included, seems to rely on a definition of a state as an entity that has a "monopoly on force/coercion/violence." But that doesn't help us, because then we get to the next question: What is force? I ask because according to some people, it's only physical violence (and physical violence that you initiate, for that matter, because these same people often think self-defense is okay), but for others -- like, say, Cathy Reisenwitz, or John Stuart Mill -- it includes more indirect forms of persuasion like shaming or even the passive power of majority opinion.

And you know what? I think Reisenwitz and Mill have a point.

Unless you want to argue, a la Jeremy Bentham, that there's some cardinal utility function that proves a lost limb is worse than a lost reputation (something that no economist or philosopher accepts anymore, btw), then you have to accept that for some people, having a gun pointed at their head might be preferable to having their Twitter besieged by hashtag activists. Which means that in a world of people with diverse preferences and interests, force/coercion/whatever can include pretty much any form of suasion on the face of the earth. In short, the hole in anarcho-capitalist thought through which you can drive a Phoenix Durango car full of asphyxiated sociologists is the concept of force.

And that's really as far as the philosophical conversation needs to go. You don't even have to talk about the insane ideal state offered by some anarcho-capitalists, where people can purchase armies-for-hire, and rights are sold to the highest bidder -- in other words, the world in which people under the thumb of any organized crime organization actually live. You don't even have to talk about the utopian idea that everyone could be induced to agree with the non-aggression principle (which, by the way, is a prerequisite for a humane anarcho-capitalist state). People have to agree on what aggression is before they can agree not to do it, and that's just as hard of a concept to sell everyone on, if not a harder one.

Now, I know what the next line of attack is going to be. "I bet you love the welfare state and want everyone to live in Mao's China!" No. In my ideal world, the state would be made up of a standing army, a standing police force, a nuclear weapons cache (with appropriately secured launch codes), and a printing press for money because yes, I am totally a Friedmanite. You could fit the people required to run that into one small government building. I want a government as lean and mean as it can get while still being capable of enforcing its peoples' rights.

But you know who's totally cool with living in Mao's China, but on a smaller scale than China itself? Anarcho-capitalists.

You know what that dystopia is called? Twitter.

[divider]Bombs Over Hashtags[/divider]

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of attending an event called #GGinDC at Local 16. The hashtag stood for "#Gamergate in DC," and as you might expect from an event dedicated to that particular hashtag, controversy wasn't far behind. Specifically, we were the subject of an utterly spurious bomb threat.

Let me say that again: A bomb threat. Over a hashtag. Welcome to anarchism, or to give it its proper name, welcome to pure mob rule.

Actually, that's not fair. The police were at least summoned in our case. In an anarchist world (especially an anarcho-capitalist one), they could've been bribed not to show up. And an actual bomb could've been planted and exploded. And there would have been no legal recourse for anyone in attendance. At all.

But let that pass for the moment, and let's focus on the hashtag thing. If 2014 familiarized us with anything, it was the horrific practice of Twitter shaming that undid the careers of such otherwise innocent people as Justine Sacco. The inimitable British journalist Jon Ronson even wrote an excellent book on the phenomenon and its frightening consequences.

I mention this because Twitter is one of the closest things to anarchism that we have in real life. Think about it. Twitter feeds are, in their own funny way, sort of every user's independent virtual kingdom. They can write what they want, retweet what they want, follow who they want, and yes, block and mute who they want. If they wish, they can make alliances with other people either publicly or through direct messages, and can call on their aid to defend themselves or attack other users for perceived misdeeds. They don't even have to use their real names if they don't want, and if they don't, there's a pretty liberatory level of privacy involved. It is one of the most voluntary systems of social interaction yet conceived.

And it is a paradise for Social Justice Warriors. Why? Because they know how to organize their followers and other allies into mass shaming campaigns that, if they were ever carried over into real life, would make the Salem Witch Trials look gentle. Fortunately, that will never happen, because one of the great features of Twitter is that you can log off. But imagine a world where you couldn't. Where everything worked the way it does on Twitter. Where someone might refuse to sell you food because of something you said, or just because they didn't want to be targeted by the same roaming bands of persecutors who went after you. Where you might be tossed out of your home if you rent it, or someone might actually hire a private army to try and kill you because you "triggered" them. I hope at least one idiot will tell me I'm just not ready for freedom, because if you think a world that allows this kind of constant fear of retaliation counts as a free world, then f--k you.

Oh, but I know what comes next. "So start your own community where people won't do that to you, statist!" Let's set aside the enormous amounts of resources and practical difficulties involved in that, and assume it's possible. In fact, assume it's just as possible to found your own community in anarcho-capitalist paradise as it is to found a new message board. Here's a thought: Walk onto any message board and see how long it takes you to find someone trying to wreck the community in the name of their pet political cause.

The great controversies over political correctness haven't occurred because of an outright, open invasion. They've occurred because infiltrators have tried to disrupt preexisting communities that were supposed to be built to keep those sorts of infiltrators out. Atheism+? Sexism in gaming? Metalgate? The Center for a Stateless Society? The Hawkeye Initiative? All movements/organizations led by Social Justice ideologues trying to infiltrate other communities and bend them to their will. Hell, you want a real life example? Look at how Colorado turned blue after a bunch of liberals realized it had a nicer economy than their states and moved there. Or look at the Rotherham scandal in Britain. Except make both worse, because there would be no state to resort to for anything even approaching equal justice when the invaders come. This is what anarchy looks like. This is why your purely "voluntary communities" will never be safe.

Now, of course, I know that the anarcho-capitalists are going to say, "No, you don't understand, this isn't crazy left-wing anarchy. This is anarcho-capitalism! The market will solve these problems." Okay, chuckles. You think the law of economics can stop Social Justice Warriors? The laws of economics are freaking child's play. These are people who can run around convincing segments of society to treat them like actual animals just because they wear ears and a tail, and claim they were born in the wrong species. These are people who say "f--k you" to the laws of linguistics and invent new pronouns out of whole cloth, and actually get sizable communities to treat people who refuse to use them like they're the problem. The laws of economics are supposed to stop them? The laws of biology can't do that, and biology is a much harder science than economics.

Sure, you might hire an army to keep them out for a while. But what happens when Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, the #FullCommunism people, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and every other Leftist pools their collective Patreons and hires an army of their own? Who says they'll even need one? Have you seen the kind of things desperate people will do when they think their condition is someone else's fault? It makes Rapture look nice, and if you don't believe me, just walk down a street in Baltimore.

Social Justice is successful because it caters to the lowest denominator and tells them that anyone who dares to look down on them needs to have a gag stuffed in their mouth. And yes, I said "lowest denominator," not "lowest common denominator." These people have no floor on who they will appeal to. And if you think that message doesn't have a market for it, you must not have been reading Salon or watching MSNBC. In fact, if you want to know why anarcho-capitalism will inevitably devolve into Leftist anarchist mob rule, here's a simple exercise: Look at the traffic numbers for LewRockwell.com and compare them with the traffic numbers for Gawker. Now imagine every one of those unique visitors has a gun and ask yourself, which army wins?

Fortunately, we in the United States have a government that can preserve individualism, and often does, even when it makes the special snowflakes melt. It's not perfect, not by a long shot, and we have a duty to fix that, but these idle, unproductive fantasies about anarcho-capitalism are simply excuses for the cranksdemagogues, and the habitually confused within the liberty movement to get airtime for their own neuroses. It is no accident that the people most attached to it are the ones most enthusiastic about torching the Constitution -- they'd rather live in a world governed by the rules of a Youtube comments section than by a document designed to protect the elevated few against the petulant hordes.

The plural of libertarian is not Tumblr. And as a movement devoted to individual will, rather than the will of all, we should bring down the banhammer, and send these hopeless trolls scurrying back to their safe spaces.

Oh, and by the way? There are anarcho-capitalists who defend those, too.

Nnqkg

00:0000:00

Here’s Why Progressives Are Hypocrites About Everything [PODCAST]

May 11, 2015

LA Times Points Out That Progressives Are Libertarians of Convenience

A new column from the LA Times tears into progressives for being hypocrites, calling them "Libertarians of onvenience" when it comes to government regulations. 

Aaron Ren penned a column describing how urban progressives decry regulation when it comes to food trucks or marijuana, but think that Wal-Mart and cigarettes should be regulated out of existence. They love Uber and Lyft, but ban plastic bags. Libertarians of Convenience lack a baseline understanding of how all regulations are fundamentally at odds with liberty. 

Liberals will counter with the argument that they only want to regulate industries that are obviously bad for people, but that is turned on its face by the reality that they seek to deregulate the raw milk industry, which hospitalizes approximately 100 a year, and sickens nearly 1,000. 

And look at e-cigarettes, for example. Liberals want them as tightly regulated as regular cigarettes, even though there is no scientific link to cancer. It doesn't matter. Libertarians of convenience lack a fully realized understanding of economic freedom, and thus are hypocrites, regulating the industries they see as uncool, and deregulating whatever is their fad of the week. 

Today's episode of the Freedom Report podcast takes aim at these progressive hypocrites, and points out that these accusations do often describe many conservative's beliefs on regulation as well. 

00:0000:00

Teacher Suspended After Showing Video About How Attitudes Towards Homosexuals Have Changed [PODCAST]

May 6, 2015

Full disclosure, I am a former students at RPHS, graduating in 1999 and was a student ofKen Simon's.

PECULIAR, MO - Raymore-Peculiar High School teacherKen Simon, 70, is out of a job after showing his senior class a video from 1959 which taught people to avoid strangers because they might be homosexuals. Simon, interviewed byThe Libertarian Republic, describes the permanent suspension as a bullying tactic from an administration which has been trying to push him out for a long time, ostensibly because of his age.

The video in question was a "Boys Beware" PSA, and was created by theIngelwood, Calif., Police Department, for training purposes. The filmtalks about homosexuals as pedophiles.

Jimmy played baseball all afternoon and didnt feel like walking home so he decided to thumb a ride, the film explains. You see, Ralphs a homosexual, a person who demands an intimate relationship with members of their own sex, but by now Jimmy felt a fondness for Ralph and they continued to go places together.'

Simon showed the video in a class that was designed to teach students about law enforcement, and the changing attitudes towards homosexuality. A police department that created such a PSA today would probably be shut down from protests in no time.

Screen Shot 2015-05-06 at 11.56.26 AM
Ken Simon

I did say right when I started, lets look at this and see how things have changes since 1959, Simon said.

Simon says the real agenda behind this doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality, though. He arguesthat the school principal had it out for him, and describes a confrontation three years ago. PrincipalSteven Millercalled him into the office and harshly criticized him, suggesting that he had "nothing to offer the school."

Simon also received a note threatening that he would be terminated in 30 days if he did not improve. This note was handed to him in front of his students, causing him to break down crying in front of the class. While it may be illegal to terminate someone due to their age, Simon believes that this is exactly what's happening. Simon says that other teachers told him he was given the law enforcement class specifically because it was designed for him to fail. The principal wanted him out, and was looking for any excuse he could find.

With two weeks of classes left to go, Simon is banned from attending graduation, and has been cut off from the school's email accounts so that he can speak to other teachers. He plans to protest by appearing at the final day of school's classes and sitting outside with a sign to the students saying "Happy Graduation." Simon is retiring this year, but he says it wasn't really by choice. He claims that Principal Steven Miller wanted him out and found any excuse he could to eject him.

Students, alumni, and friends who want to support Ken Simon aresigning a petition here at Change.org.As of now there are 2,482 signatures, with a goal of 5,000.

Donna McDonald, who signed the petition and whose children were taught by Simonsaid to Fox 4that, Everyone who knows him knows how wonderful he is. If there were more teachers like him, it would be a better place, she said. We have to stand behind our teachers.

The heads of the school can be contacted at the information below.

Steven Miller, Principal, (816) 892-1402
steven.miller@raypec.org

Kristina Martin, Associate Principal, (816) 892-1406
kristina.martin@raypec.org

Mark Cook, Assistant Principal, (816) 892-1407
mark.cook@raypec.org

Jerry Edson, Assistant Principal, (816) 892-1555
jerry.edson@raypec.org

Jeanne Kuhlman, Assistant Principal, (816) 892-1552
jeanne.kuhlman@raypec.org

"Boys Beware" PSA

00:0000:00

What Is A Minarchist? An Intro To The Night Watchman State [PODCAST]

May 5, 2015

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come. -Vow of the Night's Watch

Today's episode of the Freedom Report podcast delves into the philosophical underpinnings of the philosophy of minarchy. Most people would probably have a basic idea of what it might mean to be an anarchist, but how do you think people would react if you told them you were a minarchist? They'd probably scratch their heads and ask, "what's that?"

A minarchist state, or a "night watchman" state, is a term to describe a sect of libertarianism which advocates for a minimal government, dedicated solely to the protection of individual rights. In this libertarian republic, there would be constrained government power, minimal spending, and minimal levels of intervention.

The name "minarchist" originated out of the anarchist movement, and was coined by anarchist philosopher Samuel Edward Konkin III. The ideas were popularized in the 60's and 70's by Robert Nozick, whose seminal work "Anarchy, State, & Utopia" attempted to explain what a minarchist form of government would look like.

Nozick believed that full anarchy, such as that defended by Konkin or Murray Rothbard, was a utopian ideal that could not, and should not exist. Why? Because to be a full anarchist is to believe that the non-aggression principle is optional, and that an anarchocapitalist system will eventually develop institutions having the same effect as a state.

Nozick's nightwatchman state would have just enough power to prevent the violation of individual rights.

Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons’ rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection. — Robert Nozick

Today's Freedom Report goes into detail about the type of philosophy that we at The Libertarian Republic believe should be the ideal. If you've ever felt alienated by anarchist's dreams of utopia, or that the big government philosophy of conservatism and liberalism are defunct, then this podcast is for you.

Subscribe on iTunes

 

00:0000:00