To say things have been tempestuous amongst libertarians as of late might be a bit of an understatement. It seems like all the recent headlines have been about issues libertarians disagree vehemently with one another on. Race, gender, gay marriage, abortion, use of force, discrimination, it’s been quite a year. With Donald Trump and the invasion of Europe thrusting immigration to the forefront of political discussion – followed by a deadly terrorist attack in Paris, raids throughout Europe, and escalating military conflict in Syria – unity amongst libertarians is nowhere on the radar.

Try as one might to dismiss the opinions of those he disagrees with as wholly illegitimate, the fact of the matter is, there exists plenty of room for reasoned debate on all these issues. It doesn’t usually pan out that way, but it is theoretically possible, at least.

Unfortunately, there runs throughout these and other discussions a very unreasonable notion. Particularly on the left, there exists an attempt to apply pristine libertarian philosophy to State action, and a willingness to accept mass death and destruction amongst the innocent as some kind of just punishment for prior State action.

Leftist: “I propose policy X, because muh NAP!”

Realist: “That would result in disastrous consequence Y!”

Leftist: “Serves them right for doing Z!”

This might be fine for an intellectual exercise, it might make for great fun in a debate amongst radicals, but it is not a strategy for achieving liberty. If libertarians are going to weigh in on State policy decisions, they would be wise to take the consequences of policy into consideration, instead of psychotically attempting to get the State to abide by the non-aggression principle one step at a time.

This presents itself most evidently in the immigration discussion. It is certainly true that governments have no legitimate claims to property, so far as the libertarian perspective on property rights is concerned. So, if one runs with this they might conclude that property which government lays claim to, is a common space which cannot be protected or restricted in any manner. Thus is born the short sighted view that libertarianism requires one to be an advocate of open borders, no matter what other State policies are ongoing at the time. They will often go on to apply inherently anti-libertarian ideals of equality to this as well, asserting that whoever crosses that border is entitled to everything the domestic population is legally entitled to, such as welfare, education, voting rights, and protection against discrimination.

The fact that lawbreaking foreigners from socialist, communist, and theocratic civilizations will vote for candidates and policies wholly destructive to liberty matters not. Democracy is illegitimate, so consequences be damned. The fact that they will in large part find themselves on the welfare rolls matters not. The welfare State ought not exist, so to them it is of no consequence how detrimental their burden is to the economy. If they steal, assault, rape, murder, and blow up buildings, to them this is just a consequence of gun control and the inefficiency of the State monopoly on crime prevention. If the core demographic of libertarianism (white males) is bred and bled out of existence in the process, that serves their racist privileged asses right for whatever perceived historic injustice dead people committed hundreds of years ago.

The above circumstances won’t just prevent or delay the success of libertarianism, it will make certain the idea fades from human consciousness and ceases to be so much as a topic of discussion. None of that matters to the left.

Bodies are still being counted after terrorist attacks rang out in Paris tonight, some stories have the death toll exceeding 120. I’ll let the news outlets sort out the details on what actually happened, but from the limited information available I can say this. Anybody who is acting surprised must have had their head in the sand for the last few months.

If I wanted to completely destroy a civilization, I could not have come up with a better formula than that which is being applied all over Europe, and increasingly being imposed on the United States. What politicians are doing to their own countries right now in Europe, is literally worse than what the United States did to Iraq and Afghanistan. At least those countries are beginning to recover, if Western Civilizations don’t get their heads on straight, we will not. If this is not an intentional effort to bring Western Civilization crashing to its extinction, then the kindest thing you can say about it, is that the people engaged in this are incredibly stupid.

Let’s start off as all tyrannies do, by disarming the populace. Gun ownership is not outright banned in France. It is considerably less restrictive than the UK, as it turns out. But if you want to carry a firearm in public, you’re either a government agent or a criminal. I’m no expert on French law, but here’s what The Truth About Guns had to say about getting a carry permit in France.

You might as well forget about carrying a firearm for self-defense. That requires an entirely different permit process that makes California concealed-carry look like a cake-walk. Think judges in criminal trials, high-ranking politicians, and people with enough political grease but certainly not your average Jacques.

Apparently France’s strict gun control policies didn’t stop terrorists from busting into the Bataclan theater in Paris, shouting Allahu Akbar and gunning down over 100 people with AK-47s. They sure did stop all those law abiding citizens from shooting back, though.

With our tax cattle rendered sufficiently incapable of defending themselves, let us now begin the process of replacing our white Christian and atheist populace with Arab Muslims. When that doesn’t happen fast enough naturally, let’s start paying “refugees” from war torn third world shitholes to come to France in the form of welfare and housing benefits.

I almost forgot to mention anti-discrimination laws. France, like much of Europe and pretty much any white country (note that anti-discrimination laws are rarely passed in non-white countries, interestingly) has rigorous anti-discrimination laws. The French have an “independent administrative authority” which “has the right to judge all discrimination, direct or indirect, that is prohibited by law or an international agreement to which France is a signatory.” So if the French government adopts immigration policies that are destructive to the well being of their citizens, their citizens literally have zero recourse. They cannot even refuse to do business with the people invading their homeland.

When anyone opposes our gun control agenda, we’ll tell them that they just hate children. We’ll label them terrorists and enemies of the State. When anyone opposes our immigration agenda, we’ll label them racists and fascists and accuse them of trying to prevent underprivileged peoples from seeking a better life.

When this inevitably leads to mass murder, we’ll tell people not to jump to conclusions. Just because a coordinated attack across multiple locations was carried out by people screaming “...

Some time back I announced that a Roku channel was available for you to listen to Radical Agenda as well as my Essays Read Aloud podcast. In case you’re not familiar, Roku is a streaming media device that hooks up to your TV. It makes watching and listening to streaming media like Netflix and Hulu very simple, and over 10 million of them had been sold as of September 2014. If you’re at all familiar with Glenn Beck’s network “The Blaze” that’s how they got started.

Since then I’ve added a number of other features which I’ll outline in a moment, but that’s not the big news.

Radical Agenda Roku Channel

Roku has what is known as “Private Channels” and “Public Channels”. I originally published the channel privately because it was still somewhat experimental at the time, and errors can get you expelled from the Roku “Channel Market” which is where Public Channels go. After extensive testing and adding of features, I submitted the channel for approval last month, and after a little bit of troubleshooting, it has been approved.

Now Roku users who have never heard of us or our ideas can find the channel in the Roku channel market, under the comedy section. You can also add it via your web browser here, or by using the vanity code “RA”. Sure, we’re talking about very serious topics, but we do try to make it entertaining, and I’ve always thought comedy would be a great way to mass market liberty. Well, now we’re doing it and we are off to a spectacular start.

In just two days since being published, before I even made this announcement, the channel has seen over 330 installs and has a solid 5 star rating (Compare this to just 35 installs for the private channel in its entire existence). We are still currently listed in the “New” category as well as the comedy section.

If you have a Roku box, please install the channel from the channel market. If you had already installed the private channel, still please install the public one. You can delete the old channel, as they are more or less identical. The private channel will continue to work, though. Also, please give the channel a 5 star rating. You can do this by finding it on your home screen and hitting the asterisk button on your remote. That will help more people find it, similarly to how Facebook likes and YouTube thumbs up works.

Features

The channel is all audio for now. I’ll work on adding video in the near future. As always, you can get the latest episode of Radical Agenda, as well as my Essays Read Aloud podcast on the channel.

I have added the Radical Agenda Radio Network as well. This is a 24/7 audio stream which right now plays mostly reruns of Radical Agenda and the Essays Read Aloud podcast, when the show airs live, I interrupt the playlist and stream the live edition of the show this way. This feed is also available on the website, and on the TuneIn app for smartphone.

Under the “More Shows” Section, I have also provided a way for you to listen to a number of other great content, including;

* The LRN.fm Live Stream

* Freedomain Radio

* The Tom Woods Show

* TheRightStuff.biz

* The Alex Jones Show

* The Scott Horton Show

* Free Talk Live

* The Schiff Report

* Hardcore History

* The Joe Rogan Experience

* The Corbett Report

Tumblr is the 6th most popular social network on the planet, right behind Google+. It is typically thought of as the social network of choice for the furthest fringes of left wing social justice fanatics. Users identify as transgender, transethnic, otherkin, gender fluid, non-binary, and all manner of bizarre pseudo-identities and wail frantically at any “problematic” comment by “shitlords” who doubt the legitimacy of their deep in the rabbit hole ideologies. It is where the phrase “die cis scum” originated, and has been echoed by transgender people wishing death to all those not confused about their gender.

Too Timid for Tumblr?

Because of these and other things, Tumblr has become the subject of much mockery. Communities like “Shit Tumblr Says” on Facebook (59,829 Likes), and “Tumblr In Action” on reddit (252,987 transethnic otherkin) have attracted huge audiences centered entirely around making fun of these idiots.

Facebook, which bans users for anything from comparing Obama or police to Hitler, to mocking Che Guevara, to making fun of Zimbabwe hyperinflation, is just too hard core and offensive for these sheltered fragile little minds. They far prefer the comfort of the internet’s nether regions where they can receive the confirmation bias necessary to continue in their delusions undistracted.

But even Tumblr has become, for some, not quite enough of a rainbow room safe space. They needed something softer, and fluffier. A place where moderators would ban “Nazis” and anyone who “harassed” anyone for any reason at all. The safest of safe spaces. They needed the Pillow Fort of social networks.

So that’s exactly what two Tumblr users set out to create. Users vaguestblogging and juliabaritz recently announced PillowFort.io. They say they want to create a social blogging platform combining features of Tumblr and LiveJournal to “create a place where fans and creators alike can share their work, create a community of their own, and do so in a positive and safe environment.

A number of people have contacted me about a piece recently penned by Jeffrey Tucker on marijuana. Titled “Pot is Gross” at LifeZette.com, Jeff expresses his aesthetic distaste for the drug, and for characteristics common amongst its users.

My readers brought it to my attention repeatedly, under the assumption that I would gleefully attack him for his stance, as I have in a number of other cases. I have to say though, that I think this is his finest work since his departure from the Mises Institute. I don’t smoke pot, I don’t like pot, and the libertarian obsession with marijuana, and drugs in general, is a huge detriment to our goals, in my opinion.

Living in New Hampshire, and surrounded by libertarian activists in much of my social activity, I am perpetually exposed to pot. For many of them, being stoned is a way of life – even as they look down their noses at alcohol or tobacco use. Potheads are the snobs of the drug culture.

They tout its mind expanding powers, as they sit dimly rehashing hippie nonsense as though it were profound and spontaneous intellectual discovery. Vague references to “quantum physics” fill in the blanks in discussions of topics they clearly do not understand. They say how it is so much better than alcohol and tobacco because it is “natural” seeming to forget that “natural” plants have seeds. The marijuana being smoked by today’s potheads more resembles a Monsanto bioweapon than the dull colored “regs” I used to smoke as a teenager. It’s all a conspiracy by the alcohol industry, or was it the paper industry, or the timber industry, let’s just blame the “corporations, maaaan”. Oh, how much better the world would be, they say, if everybody smoked pot, we could all hold hands like a bunch of faggots and sing fuckin Kumbaya. Pot will end the wars, pot will end the violence, pot will end the State itself.

If only their delusions were true…

For many pothead free staters, the discovery of a place and social circle where their drug of choice is not only tolerated but celebrated, is the defining characteristic of liberty. It matters not that the federal government is an existential and ever expanding threat to the safety and happiness of all mankind. All that matters is pot, promiscuity, and gay marriage.

Libertarians cheered enthusiastically as marijuana was legalized in Washington and Colorado, even as it was heavily taxed and became a huge revenue source for state governments. Colorado followed up by passing sweeping gun control legislation as well. Congratulations, hippie, your drug habit just bought the cops more bullets to put through your skulls when you disobey some other edict of the legislature. No doubt there was a great overlap between those libertarians, and the ones who celebrated the Supreme Court ramming gay marriage down the throats of all 50 states, by changing their Facebook profile photos to rainbows.

Gun control advocates like to spout off numbers to support policies. But by the numbers, it makes more sense to be a racist than a gun control advocate.

 

Even as a staunch gun enthusiast and opponent of any and all gun regulations, I have to admit it. America has a very serious problem with gun violence. 11,208 of the 16,121 homicides committed in 2013 were committed using firearms, according to the CDC. That is a rather glaring figure which gun control advocates understandably find difficult to ignore. 

Much talk has been made of “common sense” gun safety laws, and perhaps obviously, what counts as common sense depends on who you talk to. Much of the rhetoric has surrounded bans on “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” but in reality, of the 8,855 gun murders recorded in 2012 – a staggering 6,371 were carried out with handguns, according to FBI data. This happened despite all but seven US states requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon (this number was even lower in 2012).

With this in mind, it is silly to talk about restrictions on what types of firearms people can or cannot have. If we are going to say that firearms are the problem, then it makes no sense to focus on the weapons least frequently used in murders. Mass shootings make headlines and everybody cries “for the children,” but the fact of the matter is thousands of people are dying at the hands of the most basic weapons available. If we’re going to focus on guns, let’s focus on them in a realistic way.

Now, if government serves any legitimate purpose at all – that purpose ought to be to protect us from criminal violence. It should do so in a way that is minimally invasive, and maximally effective. It should provide the greatest good, to the greatest number. That’s what democracy is all about.

If we look up what cities have the highest murder rates in the United States, we rapidly notice a pattern developing.

* East St. Louis, IL stands out as the highest per capita murder rate in the United States, despite having some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

* It also stands out as 97.74% black.

* Camden, NJ stands out as the second highest per capita murder rate in the United States, despite having extraordinarily strict gun laws.

* It also stands out as 48.1% black, and 47.0% Latino.

* Gary, IN stands out as the third highest per capita murder rate in the United States, despite requiring a license to carry a c...

In the wake of a mass shooting that left ten people dead at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, media is pouring over the social media presence of 26 year old Chris Harper Mercer trying to understand what drove him to commit the crime. Unsurprisingly, these outlets tend to reach their conclusions based on whatever biases they held prior to the shooting.

President Obama predictably blames guns. Liberals found him identifying himself as a “conservative, Republican” on one dating profile, and decided to run with that narrative. Christians focus on the fact that he reportedly targeted Christians. The classic go-to of “blame whitey” was quite popular, before we found out the shooter was half black, but even this fact doesn’t deter some from continuing to blame the white half. He expressed admiration for Vester Flanagan, so others are blaming the black half. In some places he used the screen name Ironcross45, alluding to a Nazi military badge – and from this they conclude he “idolized” Nazis. He used the name “Lithium_Love” on other profiles, so you can expect to see talk of mental illness and psychotropic drugging. His MySpace profile contained IRA imagery, so they conclude he supported the IRA. Since one of his two MySpace friends was a Muslim who had posted jihadist imagery, some try to blame Islam. When Molyneux inevitably releases a video, he will surely point out that his parents were divorced. And of course, no violent crime can be committed without blaming the entire male gender.

Clearly, this list of ideations holds more than a few contradictions. Conservative Republicans don’t tend to favor National Socialism, execute Christians, or befriend jihadists. Black men don’t tend to favor white supremacy. The IRA is unlikely to be on board with a global Islamic Caliphate. People who despise organized religion rarely tend to favor Catholic militias. Arguments over which half of his racial identity committed the crime are just too stupid to take seriously, and the same can be said for blaming half the world’s population.

It would seem the world is taking

With Donald Trump at the forefront of the Republican presidential primary, and “refugees” pouring into Europe in record breaking numbers, immigration is a hot topic as of late. Reactions range from advocating giant walls be built, to amnesty, subsidy, citizenship, and voting rights. Whenever that great a chasm exists, there must be great controversy, and wherever such controversy exists, I must wade.

For a libertarian, the answer may at first seem quite obvious, open borders. Governments have this nasty habit of building walls to keep people in, far more than to keep them out. Arbitrary geopolitical boundaries seem quite senseless, when drawn by criminal enterprises calling themselves nation States. Governments obtain everything they have from coercive violence, and thus have no legitimate claim to control what are commonly considered public spaces. We will decide for ourselves who comes onto our property, thank you very much.

A practical and strategic problem then presents itself. If one is working toward building a more libertarian society, the importation of millions of communists, socialists, and religious fanatics – many of whom think the State should impose the will of their deity on the society – does not advance their purposes. Increased burdens on welfare rolls mean higher taxes. Increased crime means a greater police presence. Depressed wages means more people looking to government for solutions. Changing demographics in the age of political correctness means racial tension.

But the (good) libertarian will tend to put principle first, no doubt. If welfare rolls are burdened, abolish welfare. If a police presence is repressive, restrain or privatize the police. If wages are low, hire people. If racial tensions flare, abolish anti-discrimination laws. Met with the political realization that none of these things are going to happen, he may choose to allow the suffering and self righteously blame the State, or he may try to find a more practical solution to a problem that is happening immediately.

But let’s rewind a bit and analyze why people migrate in the first place. Growing up under the boot of the modern State, this can be difficult, but try to picture a free market world. People tend to be grouped together in various places throughout the globe. They have varying cultures, practices, and ethnic backgrounds much like they do now. Those cultures and practices lead to certain outcomes, some of which are more prosperous than others.

In one particular area, wages are very high. Even the lowest skilled worker is able to feed a family by working only 40 hours a week. In a market economy, this is a market signal that workers are in high demand in that area. With that signal sent, workers migrate to the area to fill the void. Wages fall until it no longer makes economic sense to travel to the area. Wages then stabilize. This is what healthy immigration looks like. Migration only occurs to meet a legitimate market demand, and once the demand is met, it ceases. There is no massive shift in demographics, the migrants integrate with the culture of the society, and everybody is happy.

But what if wages are very high, and (real) unemployment in the area is at 15%? This phenomenon can only occur under the boot of the State. This happens because of minimum wage laws, welfare subsidies, and other perverse economic incentives. Migrants respond to the market signal of high wages. They migrate, and some find jobs, and others do not. Those who do not find jobs end up on welfare rolls. Wages do not fall, and the market signal telling migrants to keep coming remains broadcasted to the world. More and more migrants come, the job market is saturated, they end up on the welfare rolls, and or involved in crime,

I remember when I was very young, a boy no older than 7 I figure, I went into my parent’s bedroom and began playing with my mother’s things. By the time I got caught, I was wearing lipstick, costume jewelry, and high heels. My parents screamed at me and sent me to my room. They told me I was a boy and should not be dressing up like a girl. I remember being very angry and sad about this.

My next door neighbors had a daughter a little older than me. I remember thinking she was so cool. She and her friends had these stick on earrings and they let me and my brother have some. This wasn’t even a thing about femininity, but rather I recall some of the 80’s bad guy characters on TV having their ears pierced and I thought it might make me look tough. But again, my parents said “You’re a boy, boys don’t wear earrings” and demanded I stop. I defied them, and they said “If you don’t stop, we’ll make you wear a dress to school and all the other boys will make fun of you”. I told them “I don’t care, I’ll wear a dress to school” at which point they confiscated the earrings and sent me to my room once again. Once again, I was very angry and very sad.

I sometimes envied girls. Most of my cousins were girls, and they had cooler toys than me. At the time I didn’t realize that this was because they had more money. I thought it would be cool if I could be a girl. But alas, I could not be a girl. Parental scoldings or none, I was sentenced to life in a male body.

It’s a good thing I was a child of the 80’s. While I certainly have my disagreements with how my parents handled a lot of things in my childhood and beyond, this was one of their better decisions. Boys need to be taught by their fathers how to be men. Girls need to be taught by their mothers how to be women. My father wasn’t the best of role models, but he taught me to work, he taught me that a man sometimes had to fight, he taught me that a man often had to put his emotions aside and do what was necessary. Today, I’m happy with my body. Not as happy as I was 15 years ago, but all things considered it has served me well. I am proud to be a man.

I dread the thought that a child today might do the same silly things I did as a child, and wind up like 3 year old “Jackie” whom I saw in a recent piece from NPR. “Jackie” begins life as a boy named Jack. One day Jack’s parents are dropping Jack’s sister off at school, and this happens.

“Jackie just looked really, really sad; sadder than a 3 1/2-year-old should look,” Carter says. “This weight that looked like it weighed more than she did, something she had to say and I didn’t know what that was.

“So I asked. I said, ‘Jackie, are you sad that you’re not going to school today?’ And Jackie was really quiet and put her head down and said ‘No, I’m sad because I’m a boy.’ ”

Carter was taken aback. Her youngest had been wearing her big sister’s dresses regularly and enjoyed donning pink boots. But this was new.

Carter wanted to confirm. “You’re really not happy being a boy?” she asked.

“I thought a little bit longer and I said, ‘Well, are you happy being you?’ And that made Jackie smile,” she says. “And I felt like for that moment, that was all that really mattered. That was ‘The Day.’ “

“The Day” referenced, is the day they decided to raise their son as their daughter. Just like that, a 3 year old says “I’m sad because I’m a boy” and his parents sentence him to a life as a transgendered person.

I have an important public service announcement for everyone who changed their Facebook and other profile photos to a rainbow recently. Absent some massive desire for more color in your life, you probably did this to celebrate the United States Supreme Court magically creating a constitutional “right” to a marriage license for gay people. Didn’t you?

I suppose you think this makes you quite tolerant, and forward thinking, but it doesn’t. I imagine you think you’re advancing freedom, but you’re not. You probably feel really good about yourself for helping gay people gain acceptance in society, but that’s not even remotely close to what you’re actually doing.

By making this display, you have done nothing but tell the world that you are a useful idiot. You have made yourself the tool of the anti-human left wing fanatics who are working overtime to bring mankind to his extinction. You are displaying support for judicial activism, expansion of government power, and the forced revocation of actual rights like freedom of association, and you have done so for nothing more than someone’s desire to get fucked in the ass. 

Were the court to strike down marriage licenses as an interference with contracts, I would celebrate with you. Were a legislature to repeal all laws pertaining to marriage, I would join your parade. Despite what these despots would have you believe, an opposition to government involving itself in more people’s sex lives is not an indicator that one hates gay people. I am entirely uninterested in the sex lives of complete strangers, and I think the government should hold the same position. Any person or group should be able to enter into any contract they see fit, and call it anything they want. Any person or group should be able to do whatever they want sexually without fear of government violence. Were the court to recognize these obvious truths, this would be a cause for celebration, but that’s not what they did.

The court decided that the constitution, despite lacking any language saying so, promises everybody a “right” to a “license” to marry. That statement on its face should set your reason thermometer to absolute zero from the start.

Firstly, a “license” is an indicator that you do not have a “right” to do something. Licenses are a thing government issues, specifically to prevent someone from doing something, until they get government permission to so do. They are, by their very definition, a constriction on rights, a limiter of freedom. To license a thing is to outlaw it, and to then grant one permission to break that law. To say that you are fighting for gay “rights” by seeking to have licenses issued to them, is not just a complete failure to understand rights, it is a complete failure to understand rudimentary English.

Secondly, while I don’t have much use for constitutions these days, if a government is going to exist, it helps if it has some basic rules to follow. Despite the bizarre reasoning the court used to justify its decision, there is nothing in the US constitution which defines, mentions, or guarantees marriages. Absent an amendment, marriage is a thing the Federal Government has no role in whatsoever. So to the extent any government entity is to be involved, it is a matter for state and local governments to handle.

If the Supreme Court has any purpose to interfere with state and local laws, it is to strike down laws which are in contradiction to the constitution. This cannot be said of state marriage laws, since marriage appears nowhere in the constitution. The court has allowed ever greater restrictions on guns, and ever lessening restrictions on searches and seizures, even though striking down such encroachments on ...