The Conservation of Coercion

There is a significant degree of ignorance in relation to politico-economic history and political theory here, but the overall understanding is pretty sound. The real answer seems to me to abandon the stupidity of cosmopolitanism altogether, and recognise the innate tribal reality of social life. And surely the point of understanding a multi-institutional setting that the author intuits is that it allows for the potential of exit. Certainly the Papuan example doesn’t show this, but the large movements of people in the Feudal era, particularly before the advents of industrialisation and enclosure, show that exit and movement can facilitate stateless and quasi-state societies that combine high levels of social trust while allowing for a patchwork of institutionalism and exodus. (by the blog author)

by William Wilson Continue reading


Kropotkin, Self-Valorization and the Crisis of Marxism

by Harry Cleaver

Kropotkin, Self-valorization And The Crisis Of Marxism Options
Abstract The collapse of the socialist states and the ongoing crisis of Western capitalism -both brought on by pervasive grassroots opposition- demands a reconsideration of the issue of the transcendance of contemporary society by anarchists and Marxists of all stripes. Such a reconsideration should include a reexamination of the thinking of earlier revolutionaries as well as of their experiences within past social upheavals. Continue reading

Corporatism and Capitalism

Libertarians seem to believe that the semantic debate over capitalism is settled by the use of one term, corporatism. The highly complex nature of capital accumulation, based around different structures that involve both competitive and planned dynamics, is made simple by differentiating between corporatism, a bastardised form of crony capitalism where monopoly dominates and the state’s regulatory apparatuses are at their most coercive, and a pure capitalism, “a world of perfect competition among enterprises who are all market price takers (none has the power or size to shape markets), where no advertising enables producers to shape the desires of consumers, where all workers bargain individually for their wages, and so on”[1]. Continue reading

How Glorious was the “Glorious Revolution”?

by Keir Martland

How Glorious was the “Glorious Revolution”?

I would like to begin by thanking Professor Hoppe and Dr Imre Hoppe for their generosity in inviting me to speak on 2nd September to such an august gathering as the Property and Freedom Society – and at such a young age. The topic of the speech I gave was the so-called Glorious Revolution, although it might as easily have been titled “On Politics and Religion”, so central were these two themes to my own speech. Therefore, at the beginning of this essay I cannot help but recall an anecdote told of G.K. Chesterton. The great man was offered a column by the Illustrated London News Company and he very humbly asked on what he could possibly write for them. Continue reading

Libertarians Shouldn’t Celebrate the Rich

Libertarians, particularly those found in the Libertarian Party or within the major “libertarian” think tanks, always seem determined to glorify the rich as the creators and progenitors of the modern world. Whether it be by celebrating CEOs or defending the stupid, inefficient acts of corporations, many “libertarians” have a firm belief that modern wealth and its subsequent creations are somehow indicative of the magic of market processes and spontaneous order. But on economic and political fronts, this is just simply untrue. The modern rich as they exist predominantly maintain their wealth through networks and systems of rentierism. Continue reading

Decentralize the Military: Why We Need Independent Militias

by Ryan McMaken

Early Americans feared the federal government would overwhelm the states with a large standing army and better-armed military force. To prevent this, many supported a decentralized system of state militias which would provide the bulk of military land forces within the United States. Continue reading

On the Question of Voluntary Governance

In the short-term I’d like to see smaller, more decentralised nation-states that begin to codify the right of secession. Once that is codified, as it has been in more ancient legal codes such as Saxon law, the monopoly of violence which I think defines the state and from which many other monopolies (such as those defined by Benjamin Tucker) flow from can be more easily broken. I think this is best accomplished today simply because state’s cannot crush movements (localist, decentralist, secessionary, etc.) in an age of mass media and 24 hour news without some form of backlash. Already this can be seen in the increasing importance and significance of nationalist and regionalist movements throughout Europe. There is no possibility that the EU could seriously mount more than a political offensive against such movements who are increasing in power. Continue reading

Jeffersonian Governance, Burkean Conservatism, and Anarchism

The conceptions of Jeffersonian governance pride equality before the law, the democratic will of the people tempered by intelligent argumentation and natural societal hierarchies, and a belief in limited, decentralised government. Within this tradition, governance should never truly invade the sensibilities and direction of succeeding generations, and should never supersede the choice of governance that one believes in. From such ideas came the Articles of Confederation, a decentralist set of ideas that gave significant autonomy and rights to the individual states of the Union. Further, Jefferson’s concept of sunset clauses naturally implanted within legislation and law-making[1] the decentralist idea of individual sovereignty and the right of the generation of the living to not be burdened by the collective irresponsibility’s of their ancestors. Continue reading

Precedents for Anarchistic Society

This is effectively the idea of patchwork sovereignty, which is very interesting and already exists colloquially among competing variations of government provision, such as insurance agencies, de facto legal services provider and private police forces. Such patchwork sovereignty can even exist in the context of a collective nationality, as with England in the immediate aftermath of the English Civil War, where multiple different societal and religious contexts flourished side-by-side, only to be crushed by the authoritarianism of Cromwell and his fake Parliament. In Feudal contexts, these panarchistic arrangements were extremely widespread, ranging from the Free Cities and Swiss cantons to the Clan systems of Scotland and Ireland and the decentralist tendencies in English Feudalism predating the rise of the Tudors. All of these are interesting precedents that go alongside Byington’s. (by the blog author)

by Stephen T. Byington Continue reading

A Lament on the Youth of Today

The young of today find themselves in the artificial globalism of the modern world. Traditional identities no longer matter if one has the ability to travel and get cheap rates on their mobile phone. Laughably, despite this, the young are still seen as politically and socially radical in some way. This supposed radicalism of the young has given place to a pathetic acceptance of neoliberal globalisation. At university today, we hear the modern left support staying in the EU (an institution founded on the principles of neoliberalism) and accepting this moronic idea of a “globalised world”, which we must be citizens of. National identity or ethnic tribalism, well these are racist. How about localism and economic independence, well these are isolationist and probably proto-fascistic. Such are the responses of today’s radical youth. Continue reading