[Adolescent Firearm-Related Deaths Fast Facts]

Adolescent Firearm-Related Deaths Fast Facts

• In 2021, there were 10,048 injury-related deaths (individuals between the ages <1-17). 2,590 of those deaths involved firearms.
• 62% of child injury-related deaths included mechanisms other than firearms in 2021.
• Firearms accounted for less than 25% of all injury-related juvenile deaths in 2021.
• 1,590 adolescents nationwide committed suicide in 2021. Of those, 790 suicides involved firearms.
• There were 2,220 homicides among the <1-17 age group in 2021. Firearms were suspected in 1,503 of those homicides.
• There were 161 more adolescent homicides (all methods) in 2021 than in 2020.
• There were 93 school shootings in the 2020-2021 school year. Of those, 7 adolescents were killed inside the school during school hours.



It should be emphasized that it is illegal for an individual <1-17 to possess a handgun in 49 states, however, 30 states allow minors to possess long guns for hunting and recreational activities with parental consent. That being said, rifles and shotguns were used in .04% of all homicides in all age groups in 2021.

Key Methodology & Terminology Relating to Adolescents & Firearms

It is important to note the key methodology used to evaluate and define the terminology when discussing adolescents and firearms. The adolescent age group is often defined as ages <1-17, <1-19, and <1-24. The following research focuses on ages <1-17. Firearm-related deaths include injuries resulting from firearms. This includes suicide, homicide, unintentional deaths, legal intervention, and undetermined deaths. School shootings include all firearm-related incidents and school property. Including bullets fired off campus.

Firearm-Related Homicides & Adolescents

• 17-year-olds account for the majority of all adolescent homicides with 541 total in 2021 and 514 were firearm-related.
• 16-year-olds account for the second-highest amount of homicides in 2021. There were 358 firearm-related homicides of 382 total.
• 551 of 2,220 homicides were non-firearm-related deaths in 2021.
• There were 2,220 adolescent homicides in 2021:
• 1,001 Black American juveniles and 380 White American juveniles were murdered with a firearm.
• 60% of all adolescent firearm-related homicides were black youth and 23% of all firearm-related youth homicides were white.
• 930 individuals under the age of 18 were arrested for homicide in 2020 - 58% of all juveniles arrested for homicide in 2020 were black and 40% were white.



Firearm-Related Suicides & Adolescents

• Adolescent suicide deaths also increased by 62% in a ten-year period from 2010-2020.
• In 2021, 733 children died of suffocation-related suicides. 795 children died of firearm-related suicides. A total of 1,590 children (ages <1-17) committed suicide.
• Children between the ages 10-14 were more likely to die from suffocation-related suicide (53.7%) than firearms (38.6%).
• In 2020, 1,516 children committed suicide with 687 firearm-related deaths.
2018 saw a higher number of adolescent suicides with 1,680 total, but only 696 firearm-related.

The question we’re all asking is, “How can we save children from gun violence?” Whether you’re pro-gun or pro-gun control, we can all agree that adolescent firearm deaths are tragic; no child should succumb to an untimely end, especially because injury-related deaths are often entirely avoidable.

While we don’t have all the answers to stop adolescent firearm deaths, we can shed some light on the reality of what America’s youth are facing today. For example, the older a child gets, the more likely they are to participate in high-risk lifestyles, and therefore become a homicide statistic. There were a total of 2,220 adolescent homicides in 2021 (all methods).

In 2021, the vast majority of adolescent homicides occurred in the seventeen-year age group (541 seventeen-year-olds were murdered in 2021, with 514 of those murdered with a firearm). Next, 16-year-olds accounted for 382 homicides in the adolescent group with 358 firearm-related deaths.

While children aren’t always the perpetrators in these horrific homicides, there were 930 individuals under the age of 18 arrested for homicide in 2020.



Unintentional Firearm-Related Deaths & Adolescents

• An estimated 4.6 million homes have children and loaded unlocked firearms. There were 48 unintentional juvenile firearm-related deaths in 2021 (.00001% of adolescents with access to a firearm in the home).
• There were 5,746 total unintentional deaths in 2020. 21 of those were firearms-related.



Adolescent Firearm-Related Deaths - Wrap Up

• In 2021, there were 2,590 firearm-related deaths between the ages of <1-17, compared to 2,758 vehicle-related deaths (including pedestrian and all automobile-related injuries).
• Of the 2,220 adolescent homicides in 2021, 1,552 were firearms-related (<1-17 years of age).
• The age group included 1,590 suicides in 2021, with 795 involving firearms compared to 1,679 suicides in 2020 with 721 involving firearms.
• There were 8,818 Assault By Other Firearm Discharges between 2018-2021. Of those assaults, 4,626 were adults between 18-19 years old.



Adolescent Homicide Offenders

• The highest year for juvenile homicide offenders with firearms was 1994 with 2,271 arrests (during the Assault Weapon ban). The lowest year in two decades was 2014 with 498 juvenile offenders.
• It is illegal in all 50 states for a minor to possess a concealed firearm outside of hunting or recreational activities and/or without custodial consent.
• Juveniles committed 11,792 firearm-related homicides during the 1994-2004 Assault weapons ban. The rate remained the same in the decade after the Assault Weapons ban with 11,796 arrested for firearm-related homicides (2005-2023).
• 75% of all juvenile offenders were between the ages of 16 and 17 (2020).
• 42.6% of all juvenile homicides were crimes that involved an adult and juvenile offender (2020).

One burning question that must be addressed is, “How does gun control legislation affect adolescents?” Unfortunately, one of the most sweeping federal laws restricting firearm access did relatively little to keep adolescents from obtaining and using firearms.

More than 11,000 juveniles were arrested during the time period when the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. Similarly, more than 11,000 minors also committed firearm-related homicides in the decade after the ban.

While some states allow minors to possess long guns, all states have restrictions on minors, including sales, conceal carry, firearm type (i.e. only Alaska allows minors to possess handguns), and transfer of firearms to a minor. Federal law prohibits the private sale of handguns to those under 21 years of age. Even more relaxed states prohibit the private sale or transfer of firearms to a minor without parent or guardian consent.

Nationally, long guns are used in less than .4% of homicides (rifles and shotguns). Similar to the rates of adolescent victimhood, propensity for adolescent offenders increase with age and include extreme racial disparities. 75% of all juvenile homicide offenders were age 16-17 in 2020, and 58% were black youth with 23% white youth following.

Lastly, 42% of homicide victims murdered by an adolescent, involved an adult during the commission of the crime.

Assessing Tangible Threats to America’s Children

Both the philosophical and societal implications of America’s gun debate nearly always lead to heated discourse; protecting the future of this great nation. That future is, of course, the most innocent and vulnerable American citizens, our youth.

The evidence is indisputable; hundreds of American children die every year due to violence, avoidable accidents, and suicide. Whether it's the firearms, the bleach under the counters, or innocently backing out of a driveway, all factors require ponderance.

In assessing preventable childhood deaths, especially as it relates to firearms, safety and awareness are a parent’s most powerful weapon. While it’s common knowledge to teach a toddler not to touch a hot stove, American parents need to teach the same lessons to the same age group about guns.

Similarly, today’s youth is committing violent crimes at higher rates than fifty years ago. Whereas it was once commonplace for a child to spend time hunting in the woods; learning about the value of life, that a bullet cannot be unfired, is that a reason we see more adolescent offenders today? Do the lifelong lessons that come from hunting responsibly and ethically teach our youth to value life while simultaneously respecting the power of a firearm?

The solution to adolescent injury-related deaths isn’t simple. It isn’t removing one tool to save a handful of lives. It’s a multi-faceted problem that will require a renewed vision of causation and prevention.

While America’s children continue to succumb to suicide, they too continue to succumb to violence ranging from blunt force trauma to gunshot wounds and strangulation. Albeit, the overall statistics of injury-related deaths equate to .0000013% of the adolescent population, there were 10,048 preventable deaths in 2021.

Adolescents & Firearms: America’s Most Inflated Crisis originally appeared on Ammo.com

Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don’t.
– Ayn Rand

I first picked up a copy of Atlas Shrugged so I could destroy it at a book barbecue hosted by my local chapter of the Starbucks barista union. I wound up hanging onto it because I love video games and wanted to post a photo of the cover to r/bioshock. (I had 8.7 million karma at the time.)

I had always been told that the book is long-winded and boring by my liberal arts college professors. (They should know.) But I was already hooked after reading the first sentence: “Who is John Galt?” Perhaps this “John Galt” character would prove central to the plot later on. I resolved to find out.

But strange things started happening to me as I followed Dagny Taggart around on her adventures. I began to doubt whether the government bureaucrats’ efforts to throttle innovation and industry were really for the public good. Could such dull and dishonest people truly only be looking out for their own interests? I kept reading. I needed answers.

After I had finished what felt like 3,000 pages of John Galt’s legendary monologue, I saw everything clearly for the first time in my life. I quit my job at Starbucks, deleted my Reddit account, and dropped out of liberal arts college. I developed a new line of NFTs themed around Objectivism, made $180 million in two days, and then used that money to fund my newly discovered purpose in life: sabotaging copper mines.

Thank you, Ayn Rand!

Check out the Who Is John Galt Collection by Libertas Bella!

Do you know what the worst part of the Plandemic was? It wasn’t the politicians, who will invent any grievance and exploit any crisis so long as it expands their power and lines their pockets. That kind of behavior is to be expected from politicians – especially those currently infesting the swamp.

No. The worst part of the whole ridiculous affair was how a certain subset of people reacted to it. Those spineless cretins weren’t content to submit to inhuman demands made by lunatics who hate them. They wanted to force you to do the same! They enthusiastically volunteered as rats in a medical experiment, but couldn’t stand the thought of you staying safely behind on the other side of the glass.

Don’t let the mask-kissers’ demonstration go in vain. Never forget how many people wanted to turn you into a second class citizen just because you aren’t a slave to alarmism. Remember how smugly they would gloat if you died of the kung fu bat flu. Don’t forgive them for begging the tyrants to create a police state.

But most of all, ridicule them with the help of the best in the business: the one and only Ben Garrison! America’s last unafraid editorial cartoonist penned “The Masks Speak” so you can show midwit leftist bootlickers that you know what’s really on their minds.

Check out The Masks Speak collection on Libertas Bella!

It wasn’t enough for Ron Paul to dedicate his life to defending American liberty. The old bean went beyond the call of duty by giving us Dr. Rand Paul as well.

It’s oddly fitting that an ophthalmologist would help our country stay focused on what actually matters. As a libertarian conservative senator, Dr. Paul has fought for limiting the powers of one of the most vile things ever to exist: the American government.

Dr. Paul is an advocate for low taxes, which is good because we like our money and don’t want the government to have it. He is for reduced government spending, which has made him rather unpopular among Americans who passionately believe that forever wars, domestic spying and the Pentagon’s $22 million lobster tail budget are the only things separating us from … honestly, we don’t know what the hell they believe. We don’t subject ourselves to mainstream propaganda. Just like his dear old dad, Dr. Paul is a fierce opponent of the Federal Reserve’s vice-like grip on our country’s money supply and interest rates. Dr. Paul actually wants – get this – a free market! He’s also one of very few politicians with the stones to admit that he can’t understand why anyone would need three bathrooms. We need more men like that in office.

You may have arrived at this webpage with mixed or ambivalent feelings about Dr. Paul. Now that you’ve read all that stuff we wrote, you’re no doubt his biggest supporter. Prove it by ordering this piece of high-quality merchandise. Declare your (completely platonic) love for Dr. Paul to the world!

Check out the Rand Paul collection by Libertas Bella!

We figured that our boy would take an incredible mug shot. But man, were we ever unprepared for this.

Donald Trump’s expression is aimed at two groups. The first are the reprobates, the scoundrels, the traitors who have perverted this once great nation into their personal money laundering scheme. At them Trump directs a steely gaze of pure defiance – a promise that no amount of persecution can deter his righteous fury. It is derisive contempt for the Deep State and its vile cronies who know their days are numbered.

The second are the people – the patriots, who will never abandon our hero however stridently the Democrats and their Fake News Media puppets squawk their fictitious grievances. By demonizing their greatest enemy, they only galvanize our resolve to support the true President of the United States … and perhaps one day exact true justice on the mendacious cadaver currently putting stains on the Oval Office upholstery. Trump’s determined visage underscores what real Americans have known all along: that freedom and liberty only belong to those who will stand up and fight for them.

Trump mug shot merchandise is currently about as rare as air molecules. But only Libertas Bella offers this piece of American history as interpreted by Ben Garrison (the world’s greatest editorial cartoonist according to everyone whose opinion actually matters). Don’t miss your chance to show your support for the 45th – and soon the 47th – president.

Check out Ben Garrison's Donald Trump Mug Shot Collection on Libertas Bella!

Once upon a time, in a land far away, possibly Poughkeepsie, NY but who’s to say, there lived two shepherds.
 
The first shepherd supposed his job was easy. He saw that his sheep were apparently designed to do whatever sheep must do in order to be sheep. Beyond occasional shearing, coyote dispatching, and guidance to pastures jam-packed with interesting new forage, he contented himself to just let his sheep be.
 
The second shepherd’s approach was quite different. Instead of appreciating his sheep for their innate ovine faculties, he saw them as a resource, and thus fine-tuned his shepherding practices to maximize wool production exclusively. He would monitor his sheep’s behavior around the clock; pacify them through threat or cajolery, depending on which better suited the circumstances; shear them ruthlessly every spring; and casually conduct shady business dealings with shepherds of foreign pastures.
 
The second shepherd grew so wealthy and powerful that he was invited to do weird stuff with celebrities on a private tropical island. But his sheep, if given their druthers, would rather graze freely under the good shepherd’s guidance.
 
If you’ve ever read a better political allegory involving livestock, we’d love to hear about it.
 
You, of course, are not a sheep. You’re the kind of freethinker who reads product descriptions on the internet, which is why we don’t have to explain this clever design by The Burning Platform.

Don't get fleeced! Check out the Sheeple Evolution collection at Libertas Bella!

Ludwig von Mises had a rare talent. When too many social philosophers were championing rationalism over empiricism and vice versa, Mises employed both in full force. It’s how he devised an intricate theory of economics based on one guiding principle: people want things, and will do what they can to get them.
 
Once he had taken that credence to its logical conclusion, Mises became a staunch advocate for free-market capitalism and letting people use their lives, land and property however they see fit. To Mises, the government’s only legitimate purpose is to defend its citizens and their property. That is because he recognized socialism for one of its chief failings: government bureaucrats’ total inability – and nonexistent motivation – to estimate rational prices for goods.
 
Unless something drastically changes, we’ll one day regard Mises as the same sort of oracle Orwell was. For you see, many people want things they cannot deserve. And when they are extraordinarily evil, they’ll violate any individual right that obstructs their efforts to get them. As bureaucrats increasingly justify, legitimize and exercise creative new ways of siphoning wealth from the citizenry, they push the world ever nearer to the brink of a socialist sunset.
 
A Ukrainian immigrant born in the 19th century taught us the most fundamental truth of the market: every attempt to control it is an attempt to control people.

Check out the full collection on Libertas Bella!

My name is Mx. Felicia Freeman-Hadid-Blutarsky. I’m a professor of women’s studies at Barnard College, and my pronouns are indecipherable without the aid of a Turing machine. I’ve recently published a new book titled Men: Worse Than Hitler?, which presents a rational argument in favor of grinding all men into a fine paste that will be used to lubricate the wheels on plus-sized POCs’ Rascal™ mobility scooters.
 
I’ve been promoting my book on all the mainstream news outlets: NPR, PBS, The Village Voice, People's World, and Trader Joe’s Fearless Flyer. I was apprehensive about appearing on Fox News, which I understand is run by people who are too racist to join the Ku Klux Klan, but felt reassured when I saw a photo of the … man … who would interview me. He wears a bow tie just like Louis Farrakhan, so I figured he couldn’t be that bad.
 
I thought the interview was going great. But halfway through explaining why NASA should build a rocket ship large enough to contain all men and then shoot it into the sun, that man asked me a question I had never heard before: “Why?” He then made this inscrutable expression – eyebrows lowered, mouth slightly agape – and for the first time in my life I questioned my beliefs. It was the worst thing I have ever experienced – even worse than when I attended the premiere of An Inconvenient Truth while I was tripping on mushrooms.
 
I’m here to tell you not to buy Tucker Carlson merchandise. If you do, then so help me Goddess, I will get so triggered that you will never hear the end of it.

Don't get Tucked – check out our gear!

[Left Libertarians’ Unique Views]

Can libertarians be of the Left?

Many would laugh at such a question. After all, libertarianism tends to be a fervently pro-free market ideology. But all ideologies have their shades of grey. With libertarianism being no exception to the trend.

The left libertarian tradition is one that champions equality and social justice under the framework of a free-market economy. The leftist libertarian political economy stresses a separation of economy and state while championing mutual ownership of resources in a voluntary manner.

Left Libertarians’ Unique Views

A strong skepticism of the prevailing mixed economy defines what is a left libertarian.

Their beliefs on ownership are particularly nuanced. Natural resources such as land, oil, and trees can be subject to collective ownership. While left libertarians respect private property more than most of the prominent forces on the left, they do not fully eschew collective forms of property ownership.

Voluntary co-operatives, communes, and other worker-driven arrangements can be used to empower workers and allow them to enjoy material benefits without having to face capitalist exploitation.

Going back to natural resources, individuals in a leftist libertarian order can still use the aforementioned commonly-owned goods. But there’s a catch: The use of such resources can only occur after society grants these individuals permission. In order to gain permission, individuals must make a payment to society at large.

The Intellectual Basis for Left Libertarian Economic Thought

Such logic is inspired by the thought of 19th century economist Henry George, who pushed for a land tax. George’s views on property rights were somewhat unique by United States standards, which tended to be more rooted in classical liberalism or free-market conservatism. In contrast, George saw land as a commonly-held resource and could not be held exclusively by an individual.

This conception of land ownership stood in contrast to the views of John Locke, who believed that land could be privately owned and homesteaded by individuals. Lockean views of private property tend to be more prevalent among Republicans, right-wing libertarians, and other classical liberal adjacent movements.

The Overlap and Differences Between Leftist Libertarians and Anti-Property Movements

Left-wing libertarians have a lot in common with collectivist and Marxist views on private property, at least in a conceptual sense. Although the similarities have limits. Advocates of collectivism on the authoritarian left are more likely to use state power to achieve their ends at the expense of individual freedom.

At the end of the day, left libertarians come in all shapes. They don’t generally dismiss the insights of Marxism and incorporate some of the anti-property beliefs of the renowned left anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Proudhon is widely viewed as the father of the political philosophy of anarchism and is famous for his quip “property is theft.”

Like libertarian socialists, the libertarians of the left go beyond concepts of self-ownership and stress the need for voluntary institutions that close inequality gaps. Left-wing libertarians sympathize with economic redistribution of resources, albeit in a voluntary manner to correct disparities in inequality.

American philosopher Gary Chartier is a prominent anarchist who blends certain facets of libertarian thought with an anarchist agenda to create a stateless society. Chartier’s brand of anarchism doesn’t take a statist approach to addressing the question of allocating resources, but his vision for a stateless society remains rather unique.

Continue reading Left Libertarian: A Tradition That Champions Equality and Social Justice on Libertas Bella

[The Etymology and Origins of Agorism]

Can black markets lead to a libertarian society?

According to agorists, interactions in black markets and grey markets can lay the groundwork for a nonviolent revolution against the present-day administrative state.

Agorism refers to a political philosophy that advocates for the use of counter-economics and similar ideas to create a libertarian society based on voluntary exchanges and associations.

The Etymology and Origins of Agorism

American libertarian philosopher Samuel Edward Konkin III coined the term agorism. To understand the principles that define agorism, we must look towards the ancients.

The word is derived from the Ancient Greek word (Ancient Greek:  ἀγoρά), which refers to an open space where people can assemble and engage in commerce at in a polis— the Ancient Greek word for city-state (πόλις).

Konkin admired free markets and was part of the budding libertarian movement of the 1970s. His sympathies for libertarianism and anarchism made him a natural opponent of the modern-day state. SEK3 was particularly inspired by the works of the Ausrian School economist Ludwig von Mises and his acolytes who pushed for free markets.

The Debates Within the Libertarian Movement on Strategy

In addition to creating a political movement, Konkin gained fame for coining the term “minarchism”, which refers to a form of libertarianism that advocates for a minimal state.

Konkin was functionally an anarchist in his approach to the state. He viewed the state as an immoral entity that not only stifled economic progress but also transgressed on basic human liberties.

In the libertarian movement’s embryonic stage, there were constant debates about how liberty should be ultimately secured. Some libertarian figures advocated for traditional political methods to advance these ideas. The Libertarian Party was viewed as the primary vehicle for effecting change in the traditional political sphere.

There were other libertarians who agreed that the political route was the only way for their ideas to become politically relevant. But they held one caveat: Libertarians should run in the Republican Party. They reasoned that the GOP had libertarian factions within it and a mainstream party with its resources could propel those ideas to new heights.

Others focused on educational means of spreading their message through think tanks, educational institutions, and general culture. Certain schools of libertarianism inspired by Friedrich A. Hayek’s Intellectuals and Socialism, firmly believed that the diffusion of ideas is paramount towards generating change.

Why Ideological Splits Still Matter

There were obvious ideological splits among libertarians as well. There were minarchists, who believed in a minimal state, and the anarchists, who opposed the concept of a state. The latter were more averse to traditional activism, while the former was not afraid to participate in party politics and take part in mainstream academia.

Anti-state individuals have been allured by the unique nature of agorism. What excited them about this free-market philosophy was how it offered a unique opportunity for them to put their principles in action. By carrying the agorist flag, these individuals see market interactions as vehicles of societal liberation from state coercion

The Konkin vs. Rothbard Debate on How to Achieve Liberty

Konkin rose to prominence around the same time as Murray Rothbard, the leading exponent of anarcho-capitalism of that time, became the intellectual pillar for libertarianism.

Apart from his radicalism, Rothbard was known for his political eccentricism. Rothbard was willing to forge alliances with both the Old Right and the New Left. The free-market stalwart was a political junkie through and through. He was fascinated by the intrigue of 20th century politics in America.

Rothbard advocated for conventional political action to advance libertarian ideas. He was initially a strong supporter of the Libertarian Party and saw political parties as vehicles to realize substantial political reforms in the United States. Konkin, by contrast, was not a fan of party politics.

The founder of agorism was of the view that playing in the direct politics game only perpetuates statism. Konkin’s political philosophy focused on direct action in the real world and avoided the political arena altogether.

Continue reading Agorism: The Revolutionary Philosophy of Counter-Economics on Libertas Bella

[The Etymology of Paleolibertarianism]

No political movement is a monolith. Political movements have their own sub-sects and factions within them. Libertarianism has been no exception to this rule. One variety of libertarianism that stands out is paleolibertarianism.

The paleolibertarian strand of libertarianism fuses traditional cultural values and philosophical values with the standard libertarian antipathy of government intervention into private affairs.

The Etymology of Paleolibertarianism

Paleolibertarian thought emerged out of a well-established classical liberal tradition that put private property and market activity on a pedestal. The “paleo” qualifier is used due to how the paleo libertarian ideology has its origins in classical right-wing thought.

19th century classical liberalism and the Old Right largely influenced paleos. British historian Lord Acton is among the most prominent intellectual role models for paleos due to his opposition to centralized state power. This tradition of pro-small government views would be maintained by the Old Right in the first half of the 20th century. It became known for its opposition to the centralized managerial state and the missionary foreign policy the U.S. adopted since World War I.

Several politicians such as Howard Buffett and Senator Robert Taft  and writers such as Garet Garret and Albert Jay Nock espoused these principles. Paleos would later champion the aforementioned figures’ ideas.

Many proto-libertarian pundits and theorists started to gain notoriety during the New Deal. Although she was no libertarian, the Objectivist author Ayn Rand would also be a major source of inspiration for many paleos. Her free market beliefs made her popular across the majority of libertarian sects.

The Rothbard/Rockwell Duo

Figures such as the historian Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, were instrumental in developing this segment of libertarianism. Both men were influenced by the Austrian school of economics and were actively involved in the advocacy  of anarcho-capitalism.

Their compilation of essays in the Rothbard-Rockwell report became the main guide for spreading Rothbard’s message of free markets, private property, and traditional western culture in the 1990s. Although the paleo movement is not exclusively anarcho-capitalist, its undeniable that pro-capitalist strains of anarchism have largely shaped its overall ideology.

The Schisms Within Libertarianism

The libertarian movement experienced a significant rise in the 1970s and quickly witnessed the Libertarian Party emerge as America’s leading third party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, helped form the Cato Institute along with Murray Rothbard in 1977 –– signaling a promising new age for libertarians. However, it was not able to keep itself together for very long. Infighting due to disagreements on strategy and philosophical differences caused the movement to fissure. One of the most infamous splits was the Koch-Rothbard split in the 1980s.

In large part due to differences regarding libertarian strategy, Rothbard began to clash with his fellow Cato board members and eventually criticized the 1980s Libertarian Party presidential ticket of Ed Clark and David Koch for not taking radical stances on the issue of taxation. This led to Rothbard’s expulsion from the Cato Institute in 1981

From there, Rothbard teamed up with Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul’s former Chief of Staff, to form the Mises Institute. Even after Rothbard’s death in 1995, the paleo sect continued to remain a force within libertarianism. Rockwell’s website, which was founded in 1999, has been the hub of paleolibertarian discourse. It features notable writers such as Karen de Coster, Thomas DiLorenzo, and Tom Woods, among others.

The Paleo’s Break From Conservatism

The Cold War temporarily united libertarianism with conservatism through the “fusionist” movement, which coalesced around the issue of preserving a market-based economy and resisting a totalitarian state. However, once the Soviet Union collapsed, this alliance started to gradually collapse.

Many libertarians became skeptical of the Right’s interventionist streak that came about with the rise of the neoconservatives. Additionally, conservative’s inability to roll back the administrative state made libertarians realize that this movement was not following through with its rhetoric. In light of this, a number of  libertarians became convinced that aligning themselves with the acceptable Right and neocon adjacent groups was no longer a fruitful strategy.

Continue reading Paleolibertarian: Understand the Basics of the Paleolibertarian Strand of Libertarianism on Libertas Bella

[Who and What Is a Statist]

Statism is nothing more than gang rule. A statist dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country.”
– Ayn Rand, War and Peace, The Objectivist Newsletter, Oct 1962

What is statism? Merriam-Webster defines it as the “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.”

In essence, statism is the belief that the state or government, regardless of its size or the amount of control it exerts over its subjects, is legitimate to at least some extent. In practice, a government becomes more statist as it exercises increasing control over the economy.

While libertarians often use the word “statism” to brand any state control they deem authoritarian and antithetical to the free market, a statist doesn’t necessarily endorse despotism, fascism, socialism, conservatism, or any other “ism.”

A statist may merely believe that some form of minimal government is necessary to provide society with a safety net, protections against theft and breach of contract, a court system, or other functions with which the free market doesn’t naturally concern itself. Even the most laissez-faire economist is unlikely to condemn the concept of a town fire department as a threat to civil society.

In contrast, anti-statism is the essence of pure anarchism. An anti-statist would assert that all state power and political power are illegitimate as well as an affront to liberty. They would argue that everything which people need to thrive and coexist peaceably could be provided by the private sector.

Who and What Is a Statist

Statists commonly believe that the government must play a central role in the means of production. They may reason that the private sector is unable to function within a vacuum of government influence; perhaps it will violate the rights of the citizenry, or pose a threat to the hegemony of the state itself.

Economic planning, a common facet of socialism in which the government actively decides how resources will be allocated among its citizenry, is a common feature of statism. Subsidies, which are sums of money granted by the state to help an industry or certain businesses, are also common in statism.

As explained above, a statist might technically only want a government which offers a police department and a guy with a shovel who is paid to fill in potholes. The title of “statist” is more frequently reserved for someone (typically a politician) who believes the government should have more legal power over its citizens and influence in business.

The individual is no longer their own master under statism – at least not entirely. Rather, they are subject to a system that purports to serve a higher goal. Whether that goal is the advancement of a race, religion, ideal, or even the expansion of the state’s borders is ultimately up to the whims of the ruling elites (typically politicians).

Examples of Statism

The rather loose definition of statism means it applies to several forms of government. Socialism, communism, national socialism, feudalism, fascism, tribalism, apartheid, theocracy, and even democracy are all examples of statism.

At face value, these systems share little in common, but they all seek to direct how their citizens’ collective efforts are spent. The goal of communism is common ownership of all things; thus the product of a citizen’s labor goes in part or in whole toward the good of all (or in practice the good of the political elite).

The goal of feudalism is ultimately to benefit the king; thus the serf tilling the field pays rent to their vassal who in turn provides military aid to the crown. The goal of theocracy is to benefit God; because God has little use for gold, which He can make as easily as snapping His fingers, the church benevolently accumulates it on His behalf.

Technically speaking, every American politician is a statist. Although he is very much in favor of limiting government interference in private life to the greatest extent possible, Ron Paul’s political view that the “proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else” includes several state-run services.

As American politics become more left-leaning, so too do they frequently become more statist. Hilary Clinton’s 2016 platform included imposing a tax on high-frequency trading and direct government intervention in the free market.

Bernie Sanders’ pledge to transform America’s energy system into 100 percent renewable energy, although environmentalist in tone, would needless to say have required massive bureaucratic intervention. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s promise to illegalize capitalism while forcing all white, cis males to wear bomb collars is arguably just a tiny bit statist as well.

Final Thoughts

In her essay War and Peace, Ayn Rand wrote “The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.”

Statism exists wherever government exists – it is the degree to which statism is exercised which makes it reprehensible or not. But if one accepts that a person is a free and rational creature, whose sole obligation is unto themself, then any agency which forces them to behave a certain way or spend the product of their labor toward the advancement of any goal which they have not voluntarily accepted as their own is necessarily unjust.

What is statism? In essence, it is whenever any authority exerts control over your life. But doing away with statism entirely would quite possibly require the elimination of the entire world population minus one.

Statist: The Definition of How Government Rules Through Economy originally appeared on Libertas Bella

[What is a Libertarian Socialist?]

Are libertarianism and socialism diametrically opposed? The libertarian socialist would say no.

The political philosophy of libertarian socialism categorically rejects state interference in social affairs and instead proposes the abolition of authoritarian institutions that inhibit freedom and justice.

The rejection of state socialism and the current mixed economy define libertarian socialism. Instead, the libertarian socialism project calls for decentralized institutions that use direct democracy or voluntary associations to break up centralized institutions and institutions captured by rent-seeking capitalists.

What is a Libertarian Socialist?

The libertarian socialist believes in a free society, where individuals do not have to worry about being coerced by corporations or oppressive states. The political philosophy is focused on freedom and the individual’s quest to break free from institutions that shackle human thought and creativity.

Unlike their state socialist counterparts, libertarian socialists do not push central planning, state-owned enterprises, or outright nationalization. However, they do not reject the idea of collective ownership of property. The ability for free individuals to determine their own property-holding arrangements is crucial for socialist libertarians.

If people band together and collectivize the ownership of private property ona voluntary basis, this is perfectly in line with these precepts. There are numerous cases where private property is acquired through dubious means and is used by elites to cement their economic status and lord over the working classes.

A social libertarian stresses the importance of defending civil liberties, which made them staunch opponents of totalitarian socialist regimes throughout the 20th century. Since Vladimir Lenin successfully led the Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, Communism and its socialist cousins have been directly associated with totalitarianism.

What Is a Libertarian Socialist Approach to Governance?

Libertarians of all stripes never approved of one-party states. Communist regimes and totalitarian socialist adjacent political movements were marked by such arrangements. Ironically, these regimes banned many dissident socialist parties, which validated the initial libertarian socialist skepticism towards these kinds of regimes.

Instead, libertarians with socialist inclinations favored voluntary associations, economic democracy, and local governance. One of the contradictions they spotted with regards to 20th century communist experiments was how wealth inequality still persisted thanks to the concentration of power in the state.

This was a sign of how centralized political structures can allow for massive wealth and power consolidation. Which is why political decentralization is key for ensuring equality of political and economic opportunities. In sum, states have a tendency of centralizing and creating benefits for parasitic individuals, thus requiring a new way forward.

Unlike conventional free-marketers, libertarian socialists are concerned about economic inequality. A society marked by wealth inequality is oppressive and socially unstable. By phasing out the state, individuals would be free to live up to their economic potential now that they’re no longer shackled by the state’s laws and regulations.

Similarly, being free from excessive corporate power allows for people to chart their own economic paths free from sub-optimal employment arrangements. Additionally, individuals and communities would then be afforded the opportunity to set up economic institutions that provide real value to consumers while providing dignified work.

Although market interactions would be respected, many socialist libertarians called into question a number of economic assumptions and offered alternatives at the local level to address certain inequalities and worrisome social problems that corporate capitalism generally brought about.

Origin of Libertarian Socialism

It’s often forgotten that the word ”libertarian” had a different meaning in the 19th century. Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and other forms of left-leaning anarchist movements of that century were often described as libertarians. These movements thoroughly opposed the state, as well as dominant business entities.

This stands in contrast to modern libertarianism, which focused more on economic freedoms and private property. This 20th century philosophy of liberty drew more from classical liberalism and generally held market activity in a much higher regard. There was much stronger emphasis on individualism and respect for private property.

In the 19th century, advocates of private property and free markets would generally be categorized as liberals. Broadly speaking, libertarian describes a pro-liberty outlook on politics, while socialism describes an economic system where wealth is distributed on a more equal basis.

Libertarian socialists try to fuse these concepts together to form a unique philosophy. Liberalism would be critiqued from a socialist perspective, while state socialism would be critiqued from a libertarian perspective. The goal was to create a new way of dealing with the problems of industrialization while protecting individual freedoms.

This unique philosophy tried to make political discussion more nuanced by recognizing the merits of both socialist and liberal thought. Political discourse tends to get stale at times, and often what’s needed is to recognize that certain competing political schools have valid points that can be combined to form news ways of thinking.

The rapid industrialization of the 19th century caught many people by surprise and required novel strategies to address its many unforeseen consequences. Socialist libertarians firmly believed they had the right answers to the many problems present during the industrial era.

Continue reading Libertarian Socialism: Does It Make Sense and How Does It Work? on Libertas Bella

[Understanding the Philosophy of Anarcho Capitalism]

Anarcho Capitalism refers to the philosophy that calls for the abolition of centralized states. In its stead, the state will be replaced by a system of private property which will be maintained by private institutions and civil society.

Anarcho-capitalism is truly radical in the sense that it strikes at the root of societal problems and attempts to offer solutions to these problems through market forces. Given the philosophy’s relatively young age, anarcho-capitalist thought merits a proper analysis in order for novices to fully comprehend it.

Understanding the Philosophy of Anarcho Capitalism

The concepts of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle largely define anarcho capitalism. Individuals have full control of their lives and can pursue their own goals as long as they do not transgress on other people’s rights. The non-aggression principle makes it clear that individuals cannot encroach on the person or property of any other individual.

The initiation of force against others is categorically rejected under this philosophy’s precepts. This does not only apply between regular individuals but also between the relationship of the individual and state.

The state itself is viewed as a coercive institution that is centered on said aggression through its practice of taxation and monopoly on violence. In addition, state activities such as economic and social regulation, prohibitions, and other forms of government intervention in people’s private affairs are categorically rejected by proponents of this philosophy.

The History of Anarcho Capitalist Thought

For starters, the word anarchy has a stereotypical perception of being associated with radical leftist political movements in most Western nations. However, the perception of anarchy as a leftist movement is warranted given its history.

Most strands of anarchism, above all, the European variants, tend to have origins on the Left. There is still a broad consensus among anarchists sects on issues of state authority, which they generally eschew.

Luminaries such as Peter Kropotkin, Joseph-Pierre Proudhon, and Mikhail Bakunin led the way in giving anarchism a coherent vision for people to follow during the nineteenth century.

The anarchism of 19th century European radicals viewed private property in a negative light and were skeptical of capitalism. In many respects, these groups were adjacent to the ascendant Marxist movement that grew concurrently with classical anarchist thought.

Some movements within the anarchist sphere had a revolutionary bent and were willing to engage in acts of political violence. Numerous statesmen such as Russian Tsar Alexander II and American president William McKinnley were assassinated by anarchists.

The impact of these assassinations firmly ingrained in Westerners’ minds the idea that anarchism was associated with violence, thus requiring states to put tabs on these movements.

However, the entry of anarcho-capitalism in the 1900s gave anarchism a new twist by not dismissing capitalism outright. In fact, the average anarcho-capitalist embraced the market and saw it as a tool to fight against the state. By taking a look at the roots of this subsect of anarchism, we can get an idea of how free-market anarchism came about.

Early European Figures of Anarchist Thought

Across the pond, existed some precursors to American-style anarcho-capitalism. Etienne de la Boétie (1530-1563), a French judge, was an early proponent of anarchist thought.

In his work, the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, he advocated for civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. Mr. libertarian himself, Murray N. Rothbard praised de la Boétie’s work for its emphasis on civil disobedience against unjust state actions.

The French intellectual Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) played an unheralded role during his career making the case for capitalism.

His political theory of liberty was spelled out in his magnum opus, The Law, in which he made the case for a laissez-faire economy and viewed the use of state power in economic affairs as an immoral act.

Although he was a minarchist, Bastiat was one of the 19th century’s strongest proponents of individual rights and an inspiration for Austrian economists such Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek in the subsequent century. Bastiat’s The Law remains an influential introductory text for pro-capitalist adherents.

Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), a Belgian political theorist, was another European figure who gave a unique spin to the anarchist movement. De Molinari was one of the most notable pre-Rothbardian anarchist figures who blended anarchism with capitalist thought.

In his work, the Production of Security, de Molinari made the case for private defense and property rights and railed against state monopolies. Modern anarchist figures such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe have lauded de Molinari’s work for being ahead of its time in pushing for anarchism with capitalistic features.

The German philosopher Max Stirner also contributed to developing anarchist thought in Europe. Stirner was renowned for his emphasis on individualism and is seen as the father of modern individualist anarchism. His magnum opus, The Ego and Its Own is filled with anti-authoritarian and individualist themes that have been passed on to succeeding generations of anarchists.

Although not an anarchist per se, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer was known for his firm advocacy of capitalist principles in the latter half of the 1800s. Murray Rothbard described Spencer’s Social Statics as “the greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written.”

Continue reading Anarcho Capitalism: A Definition and Guide on Why It Matters on Libertas Bella

[What Is a Classical Liberal?]

What is classical liberalism?

And what does it mean to be a classically liberal? 

Classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of individual liberty, property rights, and rule of law that dominated the West from the late 1700s until the mid-1900s.

As history shows, however, words can take new meanings over time. The word liberalism has been in the English lexicon for centuries, but its definition has changed over the course of the 20th century.

In fact, the changes have been so significant that political scientists have to qualify liberalism prior to the twentieth century as classical liberalism. By contrast, they have to refer to its modern variant as liberalism.

Since most people generally understand what liberalism means according to how it is used in America, the classical liberalism definition becomes even more intriguing due to its gradual disuse in everyday speech.

For the sake of preserving classical liberal ideas and the concepts that shape its definition, let’s take a deep dive into the definition of classical liberalism, the philosophy’s history, and how it developed in previous centuries.

What Is a Classical Liberal?

A classical liberal is someone who advocates for private property, economic freedom, the rule of law, free trade, and a republican style of government that protects free speech and freedom of association.

As the late libertarian historian Ralph Raico noted in a piece for American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, “Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism.” Raico continued by observing why classic liberalism must be qualified:

The qualifying ‘classical’ is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals.

Due to the embrace of a more activist state, the classic liberals of yesterday would be left scratching their heads at how the classical liberal definition has changed. As is the nature of all political evolutions, which generally see terms and political practices transform form over time.

Classical Liberal Economics

Classical liberal economics tends to be laissez-faire. This characterization holds true when comparing old liberalism to contemporary liberalism.

Although classical liberals do not go as far as libertarians do when it comes to free-market adherence, they still maintain a healthy skepticism towards the government managing economic affairs.

The works of Scottish economist Adam Smith are the fundamental pillars of classical liberal economics and have served as inspirations for libertarianism and anti-state conservatism in subsequent generations

Continue reading Classical Liberalism: A Guide on Its Definition and How It Came to Be on Thought Grenades, the blog on Libertas Bella

[What are “Negative Rights”?]

What are “Negative Rights”?

We all have rights as human beings in the United States. We have the right to attend school, go to college, work to obtain money, own property, and defend ourselves, but where do these rights start to infringe on others’ freedom?

Negative rights define our freedoms and our right to have something without interference from outside forces.

To define negative rights in the simplest manner, it’s one person’s right not to have another person interfere with their own liberties.

Negative Rights Definition

To define negative rights in the simplest manner, it’s one person’s right not to have another person interfere with their own liberties. These rights entitle a person to certain things in life and merely ask that no one interferes with their right to have and enjoy those things.

If someone has a negative right, it means they have the right to freely do something or obtain something how they choose without any interference from outside forces. They are free from the interference of another person or a group of people.

Generally, in Libertarian values, this involves a person’s individual right to something without interference from the government.

Another way to look at negative human rights is that it’s a person’s right not to be subjected to another action. Negative rights don’t only have to focus on obtaining goods and services, but it also applies to the fact that one person cannot force another person to do something because that would infringe on their liberties.

If we compare positive and negative rights, there becomes a foggy distinction, but one thing that’s clear is that the two often contradict themselves. Many people view positive rights as a violation of negative rights.

For example, everyone has the right to a public defender if they get arrested. It’s a positive right for the person being arrested, but the problem is that infringes on someone else’s negative right to choose who they defend, and it also creates issues when scarcity is involved.

Suppose there are 50 people who need public defenders and only five lawyers. In that case, chances are not everyone will receive the same treatment, which will infringe upon the individuals positive rights to an attorney if they cannot afford one themselves.

Most basic rights that we take for granted each day fall into one of these categories, and the American Bill of Rights classifies what an entitlement is, what’s a civil right, and what’s liberty?

When we define negative rights, we start to see more of these come into play in our daily lives. There is often confusion over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to have healthcare, property rights, and other inalienable freedoms.

It’s important to understand that most of these are not negative rights; they’re positive rights but with those come the negative right to ensure that no one interferes with your rights. The non-interference factor creates a negative right, and we’ll break it down into some examples in the following section.

Continue reading Negative Rights: A Definitive Guide on What They Are on Libertas Bella

[What are “Positive Rights”?]

What are “Positive Rights”?

There is much talk regarding “rights” and how they relate to freedom and liberty. If you’re wondering, “what are positive rights,” and why should I care? We’ll explain what they are and some of the fundamental issues that many people have with this ideology.

Positive Rights Definition

A positive right is one that requires others (namely the government) to provide you with either a good or service. They do so by taking away another individuals’ rights.

Positive right issues start to arise when these infringe on the fundamental human rights of others by requiring them to put forth something in exchange for others to receive that right.

We’ll get into some concrete examples of this in the following section and how this contrasts from Libertarian beliefs.

When you try to define positive rights, it essentially means the “freedom” to have something that you didn’t necessarily have to work for or do anything to achieve it. At its core, it is a “right,” and it’s something that neither the federal or state government can take away from you.

But, there’s also confusion because these rights are granted to you by the government, and they almost always involve stepping on the toes of someone else’s civil rights in the process.

French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau said it better than anyone we could think of; he stated that a strong government makes you free, and submitting to that government is better for the greater good. When you think about it, it sounds as if this ideology “forces you to be free.”

If we have to be forced into freedom, are we really free at all? The constitution and bill of rights give us our entitlements and political rights but does this create a free society or more reliance on the federal government?

Our constitutional rights as human beings are to have the freedom to do as we please as long as it doesn’t compromise others inalienable rights. This is where non-interference laws and the legal system come into play.

So when we look at our “positive rights,” are they even rights or are they simply ways for the government to control us in the name of the “greater good”?

We believe that it’s important to realize how incompatible this thought process is. You cannot have both the right to freedom and limitations as to how free you can be. There are no in-betweens, but yet the government wants you to believe that you’re free while still requiring you to:

• Attend specific schools
• Pay money for goods and services that don’t benefit you (taxes)
• Take immunizations against your will
• Follow regulations that infringe on your liberty

We could go on and on about all the positive rights that actually take freedom away from you, but these may not be positive rights at all. Our current society is built on negative rights because any positive right you have, has a limitation, a requirement, and a way that the government can come in and take it from you.

Examples of Positive Rights

Where issues arise is when we start to talk about how positive rights contradict negative rights, and the two are incompatible because one always steps on the toes of the other.

For example, social welfare is a positive right. We, as American citizens of the United States, have the positive right to receive state and federal welfare benefits if we’re unable to care for ourselves and our family.

What is often forgotten is the fact that people all over the country are required to pay taxes to pay for these programs even though they’re not benefiting from them. So, in turn, the positive right of social welfare impacts the negative right of not requiring us to hand our money over to the government.

If we break it down to the most basic level, where do our positive rights end, and our negative rights begin? Under what conditions does a positive action about something we “should” do become a negative action about something we “shouldn’t” do?

Political Philosopher Isaiah Berlin discussed this in a popular lecture titled “Two Concepts of Liberty.” He said:

If negative liberty is concerned with the freedom to pursue one’s interests according to one’s own free will and without “interference from external bodies,” then positive liberty takes up the “degree to which individuals or groups” are able to “act autonomously” in the first place.

So, let’s break this down.

Continue reading Positive Rights: The Definition of Them and Why They Matter on Thought Grenades, the blog on Libertas Bella

[What is a Minarchist?]

What is a Minarchist?

A Minarchist is someone who believes that the state should only exist for the purpose of maintaining law and order. Minarchism is a Libertarian political philosophy where the state’s only function is protecting individuals from theft, breach of contract, fraud, and aggression.

The government would still maintain the military, police, courts, fire departments, prisons, and legislatures, but the state would have no ability to interfere with the capitalist interactions and transactions of the people.

These states are referred to as “Night-watchman states.” One of the biggest supporters of this philosophy was Robert Nozick and he talked about it in his book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.”

Minarchists believe that this standby approach to the economy will result in improved economic prosperity compared to the current system. Essentially, the word “minarchist” means “minimal statism” or “minimal state.”

They want as little interference as possible other than to protect the contracts between two private individuals. They want the government and state to act as a checks and balances system rather than enforcement of the system.

This method of governing is most popular with Libertarianism of the United States and the right-libertarian political philosophy. That said, it’s also been popular with libertarian socialists and other leftists.

Some of them believe that a minimal welfare state is appropriate only when social safety nets are put in place for the working class. They believe that eliminating welfare programs would only make sense if you also eliminate capitalism. Some more extreme leftists believe that it would be better to repeal corporate welfare rather than social welfare for underprivileged and poor people.

Minarchism Definition

The minarchism definition means “minimal government intervention.” The main thing to remember is that people with this ideology believe that the government still has its role in society, but they need to take a step back and let the people transact as they please.

Many confuse minarchists with Anarchists who believe that the government has no role and should not have any purpose in maintaining checks and balances. Anarchists believe that you should be responsible for defending your property, enforcing your own laws, and backing up your own contracts with as much or as little force as necessary.

Ideology and Philosophy of a Minarchist

Many minarchists justify that a state still has its role in providing logical consequences for aggression. Some believe that it’s impossible to have any form of society without a state because the optional enforcement of laws makes for an unviable political system.

They’re saying that when you take away the state, you’re basically saying that the people should be responsible for defending themselves and everything they work hard for. This thinking would obviously not work in 99% of situations where there are many people unable to defend and protect themselves on their own.

Another issue is the privatization of defense and courts. Most minarchists believe that privatizing law enforcement, military, and courts would create a bias that would unevenly represent those who are capable of paying more for their protection.

Of course, there is a lot of skepticism over whether or not that happens in government already because a political system built on total government control has the potential for bias as well. Most minarchists believe that a night-watchman state can develop a political system that respects individual rights.

Taxation is another big issue addressed by minarchists and libertarians alike. Some support taxation because they believe it’s a necessary evil to prevent “free riders.” Others strongly oppose it and think that it’s wrong for the people to have to pay for government funding in a free society.

Ayn Rand is one of the most notable opponents of taxation, but she also believes that the removal of tax should occur gradually so as not to cripple the economic society. This also brings up the issue of whether or not a minarchy would require the people to pay tax or fees for the services provided.

When you call for a tow truck to tow your car, you have to pay for that service; it’s not a human right. In a capitalist democracy, police, firefighters, courts, and legislature are rights available to citizens provided that they pay the necessary tax to receive those rights.

It’s a grey area as to whether or not the minarchist state would pay for these services on a case-to-case basis and how they would enforce these rules.

Continue reading Minarchist: A Definition of the Night-Watchman State on Thought Grenades, the blog on Libertas Bella

The goal of socialism is communism.

That’s Vladimir Lenin’s famed “socialism leads to communism quote,” a good one to preface any list of socialism quotes. Marxists usually regard socialism as the stepping stone to communism, a state of utopia in which the government controls everything its citizens say and do. Any socialists who don’t believe this are obliviously doing the Marxists’ work for them.

How does socialism breed communism? Well, once the government is in charge of redistributing wealth, it becomes increasingly picky about just who can have any. Party officials, whose work is paramount to the continued operations of the state, have little to worry about. You, on the other hand, will have to work harder and get by on less once the government controls the coveted means of production. Did you think all those evil millionaires would stick around to volunteer their services? No, they’re now residing in other countries (or serving their country as party officials).

Somehow replacing all the people who create wealth with inexperienced bureaucrats manages to dampen an economy. Thus rendered unproductive, a socialist government must hound down more wealth in the only place it can find any: you. Your money may not be confiscated outright, but rising taxes will do the job well enough. Your property taxes may increase to a point where renting a room in a state-owned housing complex becomes more affordable. Or your land may just become government property. What right have you really got to own it anyway? Aren’t you aware that others are worse off than you?

And whatever you do, do not criticize this new state of affairs. There won’t be a crumb in store for anyone who opposes the march to utopia.

One day you might wonder how this all came to be. The government promised to make everyone equally rich, but it wound up taking control of everything to make everyone equally poor – with the aforementioned exception of the people pulling the strings. But at least the bulletproof limousine glass industry is thriving.

The inevitable descent into communism aside, if you’ve ever wondered why socialism doesn’t work, quotes like these will put you on the right track.

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”
– Winston Churchill

“The American Constitution declares ‘All men are born equal.’ The British Socialist Party add: ‘All men must be kept equal.'”
– Winston Churchill

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
– Winston Churchill

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
– Margaret Thatcher

“Socialists cry “Power to the people,’ and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean – power over people, power to the State.”
– Margaret Thatcher

“In practice, socialism didn’t work. But socialism could never have worked because it is based on false premises about human psychology and society, and gross ignorance of human economy.”
– David Horowitz

“If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.”
– Friedrich A. Hayek

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”
– Ayn Rand

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
– Ayn Rand

“We are now moving towards complete collectivism or socialism, a system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody.”
– Ayn Rand

“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
– Thomas Sowell

“‘Socialism is a wonderful idea.’ It is only as a reality that it has been disastrous. Among people of every race, color, and creed, all around the world, socialism has led to hunger in countries that used to have surplus food to export.”
– Thomas Sowell

“Inflation makes the extension of socialism possible by providing the financial chaos in which it flourishes. The fact is that socialism and inflation are cause and effect, they feed on each other!”
– Henry Hazlitt

“Government-to-government foreign aid promotes statism, centralized planning, socialism, dependence, pauperization, inefficiency, and waste. It prolongs the poverty it is designed to cure. Voluntary private investment in private enterprise, on the other hand, promotes capitalism, production, independence, and self-reliance.”
– Henry Hazlitt

“The essential notion of a socialist society is fundamentally force. If the government is the master, you ultimately have to order people what to do. Whenever you try to do good with somebody else’s money, you are committed to using force.”
– Milton Friedman

“If we buy into the notion that somehow property rights are less important, or are in conflict with, human or civil rights, we give the socialists a freer hand to attack our property.”
– Walter E. Williams

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
– Norman Thomas

“The Socialist Party will no longer be running a candidate for president. The Democratic Party is leading this country to Socialism much faster than we could ever hope to.”
– Norman Thomas

“Now, back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But, he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”
– Ronald Reagan

“Socialism is workable only in Heaven where it isn’t needed, and in Hell where they’ve got it.”
– Cecil Palmer

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
– Adolph Hitler

“Socialism has no moral justification whatsoever; poor people are not morally superior to rich people, nor are they owed anything by rich people simply because of their lack of success.”
– Ben Shapiro

“When people are desperate or wealthy, they turn to socialism; only when they have no other alternative do they embrace the free market. After all, lies about guaranteed security are far more seductive than lectures about personal responsibility.”
– Ben Shapiro

“Socialism violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness. Discussions of income inequality, after all, aren’t about prosperity but about petty spite. Why should you care how much money I make, so long as you are happy?”
– Ben Shapiro

“The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau.”
– Ludwig von Mises

“Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build, it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created.”
– Ludwig von Mises

“A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.”
– Ludwig von Mises

“The reason this country continues its drift toward socialism and big nanny government is because too many people vote in the expectation of getting something for nothing, not because they have a concern for what is good for the country.”
– Lyn Nofziger

“Liberalism is really piecemeal socialism, and socialism always attacks three basic social institutions: religion, the family, and private property. Religion, because it offers a rival authority to the state; the family, because it means a rival loyalty to the state; and property, because it means material independence of the state.”
– Joseph Sobran

“When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.”
– Adrian Rogers

“A socialist is somebody who doesn’t have anything, and is ready to divide it up equally among everybody.”
– George Bernard Shaw

“The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.”
– Pope John Paul II

“The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level.”
– Norman Mailer

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”
– Vladimir Lenin

As we conclude our collection of anti-socialism quotes, there’s one Harry Truman socialism quote we’d like to close with:

Socialism is a scareword they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

In essence, Truman tried to frame our rejection of socialism as misanthropy. We’d like to counter with one more of Hazlitt’s quotes:

Once all the consequences of any act or policy are taken into account, the opportunity costs of government action to change economic outcomes always exceed the benefits.

We agree that anything the government does to us comes at a greater overall cost than if it had just left us all well enough alone. To address each of Truman’s points, we reject the assertion that people become better off once government bureaucrats control their nation’s utilities. We are also unequivocally opposed to redistribution of wealth by force. Bank deposit insurance? Great idea, so long as the banks can’t bribe politicians to label their failure the result of “mismanagement” and thus make deposit insurance inapplicable. And labor unions, which are antithetical to freedom of association, compel inefficiency for the sake of “saving jobs,” keep criminal cops on the street, and put incompetent teachers on the dole, can all go straight to hell where socialism works.

Socialism Quotes for People Who Hate Socialism originally appeared on LibertasBella.com

[That is a positive right.]

The difference between negative vs positive rights is that one requires action while the other requires inaction. Negative rights are the requirements of someone else not to interfere in your ability to obtain something. Positive rights are a requirement of someone else to provide you with something.

You may hear negative rights referred to as “liberties,” and that’s because they are basic human and civil rights stating that no one can interfere with our right to obtain something through trade or bartering.

Positive rights are often called “entitlements” because they are things that someone must provide to us, whether we’ve earned them or not. We don’t have to do anything to obtain positive rights; they’re granted to us.

A great example would be a person’s individual right to purchase something from a store. Some might think this is a positive right, but it’s actually a negative right. You have the right to go to the store and purchase a meal, provided you can pay for that meal. As a result, it’s your negative right to ensure that no one interferes with that.

Other negative rights are:

• Freedom of religion
• Freedom of speech
• Property rights

If you go there with money to pay for the meal, provide that money to the clerk, then the store worker must provide you with that meal.

A positive right refers to something that must be provided to you. For example, when you’re arrested, the police officer says:

“You have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you.”

That is a positive right.

You have the right to an attorney whether you can afford one or not; they’re required to provide that to you. That would be an entitlement. Even though you’ve done something wrong (allegedly), they are required to provide you with an attorney, which is a positive right.

There are many social and economic positive rights, as well. Housing, public education, national security, health care, social security, and certain standards of living are all positive rights. The government is required to provide you with these, even if you’re unable to provide them for yourself.

When we compare positive vs. negative rights, the negative right is not to be subjected to an action of another person. Meaning, you cannot coerce someone into providing you with something. A negative right only exists until someone negates it. You cannot force someone to provide something to you; your negative rights only exist as long as you can provide something yourself; it is not an entitlement but rather a liberty.

Positive rights, on the other hand, are subject to another person or group performing the action. To have a positive right, someone else must perform an action that is offering something to the situation. Where a negative right is requiring the person not to perform, a positive right requires them to perform.

Look at it this way:

A negative right forbids someone from committing and action against your rights.
A positive right obligates someone to act in accordance with your rights.

The distinction of positive and negative rights is practiced most prominently by Libertarians who believe that you can only create positive duties through the use of a contract. Many Liberal Democracies believe in negative rights, but they don’t all support positive rights. Regardless of each belief system, positive rights are usually guaranteed through laws.

Continue reading Negative vs. Positive Rights: Fundamentals and Criticisms on libertasbella.com