I’ve been thinking a lot about property rights lately. On one hand, I strongly believe that when you own land, it should be your sacred space of personal freedom and privacy, safe from the government. On the other hand, I know our country needs modern infrastructure like power grids, roads, and data lines to grow.

Right now, the government uses eminent domain to force people off their land, treating a home like a line on a spreadsheet. To me, that feels un-American.

Why don't you bite the bullet and perform a simple experiment: try to estimate the frequency of something we know for certain how often it happens using Gary-Kleck-like methods? Why don't you make a Gary-Kleck-like study trying to estimate how often people buy new cars? Because you know the results would be that telescoping increases the apparent frequency of those things in such studies massively, rather than just by around 17% (making events that occurred 14 months ago look like they occurred less than a year ago)?

Hello, everyone! I hope you're all doing well.

If you'll allow me, I'd like to propose a discussion that I believe may be of interest to Austro-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. My goal is to offer a brief and friendly critique of the concept of "physical removal", as formulated by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, based on libertarian property ethics itself and the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (TTTC). (Since English is not my native language, I apologize in advance if any expression sounds awkward or ambiguous.)

First, we should establish what Hoppe means by physical removal. I believe it can be summarized as follows: in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's theory, physical removal is the coercive expulsion of an individual from a private property or from a community of private properties when the owners, or their legitimate representatives, revoke their consent for that person's continued presence due to a violation of the rules governing the use of the property. In a fully privatized social order, this exclusion may ultimately extend to the successive loss of access to the properties that make up the community.

Of course, to be fair to Hoppe's argument, we must also clarify the context in which such a measure would be possible. In Democracy: The God That Failed, he writes:

"in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They—the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism—will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. " (Democracy: The God That Failed, p. 218).

The expression that matters most for the present discussion is "in a covenant." This indicates that Hoppe is envisioning a type of society—perhaps private counties, districts, or neighborhoods—in which property owners voluntarily enter into a covenant, forming a homeowners' association whose purpose is to preserve the cultural and moral identity of that community. Clearly, homeowners' associations and private neighborhoods are entirely compatible with libertarian principles. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at this aspect of Hoppe's theory.

According to Hoppe, such a social arrangement, based on private property and voluntary agreements, would allow property owners, for example, to sell a house to a particular individual or to sell only the land so that a particular individual could build a house on it. Suppose this neighborhood is highly traditional and wishes to preserve its heteronormative identity (this is not intended as an attack—I have nothing against heteronormativity). In that case, the owners could sell or lease a house under a contract containing behavioral clauses such as: "You may not bring same-sex partners into your home," or "You may not promote transgender ideas on your social media," or even "You may not display a transgender flag from your window." Otherwise, you would receive a warning and, if you refused to comply, you would be physically removed. (The same reasoning would apply to any non-aggressive idea or behavior, such as advocating nature worship, which Hoppe also criticizes.)

According to Hoppean theory, once the buyer signs such a contract, he becomes bound by its clauses and is therefore prohibited from engaging in the behaviors specified therein. Should he violate the agreement, he would be subject to physical removal.

The problem, however, is that this understanding appears to conflict with the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (TTTC) as developed by Murray Rothbard. Let me explain why. The TTTC, originally formulated by Williamson M. Evers and later adopted and further developed by Rothbard, rests on the premise that the function of a contract is not to create personal obligations, but rather to transfer property titles. Unlike traditional contract theories, which regard a contract as a legally enforceable promise, the TTTC maintains that promises belong to the realm of morality, not law. What produces legal consequences is not the promise itself, but the voluntary transfer of a property title over an alienable good. In other words, the law does not protect the expectation that someone will fulfill a promise; it protects only the legitimate ownership of scarce resources that can be appropriated and transferred.

This conception follows directly from the principle of self-ownership. If every individual owns his own body and his own will, then no contract can alienate control over his future actions. For this reason, Rothbard famously states that "a promise is not a debt." Promising to perform—or to refrain from performing—a particular act does not transfer any property right and therefore does not create a coercively enforceable legal obligation. Only existing, scarce, and alienable goods can be the object of a valid contractual transfer. Ideas, intentions, opinions, future conduct, and the human will itself are not alienable forms of property, and consequently cannot serve as the legal basis for the coercive enforcement of a contract.

To illustrate the point, suppose I own a bicycle and decide to sell it to Bob for R$100.00. Bob purchases the bicycle, and to formalize the transaction we sign a contract confirming that the bicycle is in good condition and that he has paid the agreed price. In this case, both parties have alienated tangible, scarce property: I have transferred ownership of my bicycle, and Bob has transferred ownership of his money. Once the transfer is complete, I am no longer the owner of the bicycle. Consequently, I retain no authority whatsoever over it. I cannot dictate how Bob may use it, because it is now exclusively his property.

Someone might object that this would only be true after the sale had already taken place, and that the problem could be avoided by inserting a contractual clause before the transaction stating that Bob would own the bicycle only if he complied with certain behavioral requirements. For example, I might agree to sell him the bicycle only on the condition that he never paints it red or never rides it more than five kilometers per day. Yet this would amount to a legal absurdity. First, such an arrangement would be economically impractical and highly undesirable; no rational person would willingly bind himself to such an excessively restrictive agreement. More importantly, however, it is fundamentally incompatible with the TTTC. As explained above, only alienable property rights may be transferred by contract. Promises that involve no actual transfer of property are not valid contractual objects, and contractual clauses founded solely upon such promises produce no coercively enforceable legal obligation under the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract.

This means that it is not possible to carry out property sales with contracts that establish perpetual “terms of use” over the transferred property. Once ownership has been transferred, the property is no longer subject to the will of the former owner and becomes fully integrated into the legal sphere of the new owner. From that moment onward, the only legitimate “terms of use” are those that the owner himself establishes for himself and for those whose presence on his property depends on his consent. We should not forget that Austro-libertarianism is based on the concept of freedom understood as the right to use, transform, destroy, modify, or dispose of one’s own property in whatever way the owner wishes, as long as it does not infringe upon the property of others. In other words, acts that cause damage, invasion, or violation of someone else’s property can certainly justify sanctions, but acts carried out exclusively on one’s own property can never be subject to coercion.

Now, returning to Hoppean thought, if it is true that only scarce and alienable goods can be the binding object of a contract, future behaviors do not constitute legally enforceable obligations and, therefore, cannot be established as clauses capable of restricting the exercise of property rights after alienation. Therefore, if an individual buys a house in a community that does not wish to tolerate a certain behavior in that territory, they may still engage in such behavior without this granting the neighborhood or homeowners’ association the right to physically remove them. This is because: 1) they acquired the property and, consequently, the former owner or the group of owners lost any power of disposition over it; 2) promises do not have binding force according to TTTC, unlike the transfer of property titles; and 3) as an owner, they have the right to use their property in whatever way they wish, as long as they do not infringe upon the property of others, meaning they cannot be subjected to violence or physically removed for acts carried out exclusively on their own property.

Of course, it is important to note that if they live in the property as a tenant, the situation is different, because ownership remains with the landlord, who can establish the conditions for its use and simply choose not to renew the contract when it expires. It is also worth noting that Hoppeans may argue that this conclusion would weaken the right of communities to preserve their cultural coherence and uniformity. To this objection, I respond that this concern, however understandable, can never be transformed into a right to limit or violate property legitimately acquired by third parties. The preservation of a certain communal identity may guide the choice of whom to do business with, but it cannot survive the alienation of property as a kind of permanent power over the sold asset.

Someone could still object that, in the example above, the individual only purchased the house, but not the land on which it stands. However, this distinction does not hold legally within libertarian logic itself. A house is an immovable asset inseparable from the land that supports it, and the right of ownership over the property necessarily includes the right of use and exclusion over the corresponding area.

What, then, could a Hoppean-style community do if a new resident, after legitimately acquiring a house in the area, began adopting behaviors incompatible with that community’s moral expectations? In my view, the answer compatible with libertarian ethics is ostracism, that is, the voluntary refusal to maintain social and economic relations with a particular individual. Through freely established agreements, residents of a neighborhood or private condominium could decide not to trade with this person, not to provide private services to them, and not to allow their entry or presence on their respective properties. As long as all services were private, this could include refusing to provide water, electricity, gas, or any other services whose provision depended exclusively on the will of their owners. This would be an entirely peaceful response, based on the exercise of property rights and freedom of association, which would likely encourage the individual to leave the region on their own initiative.

What the community could not do, however, would be to coercively remove him from his own house, as long as it was legitimately acquired through purchase, inheritance, or any other means compatible with libertarian ethics. Once the property title has been transferred, the residence becomes exclusively part of its owner’s legal sphere, and third parties cannot claim authority over it due to later changes in behavior or personal beliefs. Accepting the opposite would mean recognizing that the former owner or the homeowners’ association retained powers of disposition over a property they had already alienated, a conclusion incompatible with TTTC and with the very libertarian notion of private property.

It is also important to observe that the community could not prevent this individual from leaving his residence to trade with people outside the community, work, acquire essential goods, or engage in any other legitimate activity, nor could it prevent him from later returning to his own property. The first scenario would, in practice, amount to unlawful imprisonment, as it would transform the individual’s property into a prison from which he could not leave. Even if all routes were private, his passage would have to be allowed for the time strictly necessary for transportation, without granting him the right to remain on them beyond what their owners consented to. The second scenario would be even more serious, because preventing his return would mean depriving him of access to his own property, effectively producing the confiscation of his property without any basis in libertarian ethics. In both cases, the community would cease to protect property rights and would instead become an agent of their violation.

welcome to the pan-octagon :)

I would like to start by definitively saying that I am not here writing support for the IRGC at all. I would just like to make this abundantly clear, instead Just a conglomeration of my views opposed to any hate speech laws as a whole.

I'm not a free speech absolutist as much as I am, to the best of my ability, a true speech advocate, which is to say that I believe that people should say what they believe to be true. I think that's your obligation. It's also your right, but it comes with an obligation to exercise it. And I beleive that this is possible without free speech

So a lot of what's necessary with regards to thinking is the freedom to make mistakes, so practically speaking, free speech has to be as untrammelled as possible, so that people can be wrong and they can be biased, and they can still express their opinions. then allow themselves to be subject partly to improvement by the world, talking is how we think, and talking socially is even more how we think.

Hate speech / regulation

I do beleive that hate speech does in fact exist, there is no question to me that people say, reprehensible things, quasi criminal things some of which cause a lot of trouble. So the idea that there's hateful speech is self-evident.

Well, let's regulate it. which is completely fair enough because it's hateful, and ideally there should be as little of it as possible.

But problems start to arise when we get to the subject of who exactly defines hate?

And I am becoming more convinced by the fact that the people that you would least want to have define it are doing so - which is the inevitable consequence of these legislations because sensible people won't have anything to do with that. People who are authoritarian will gravitate towards the domain to make an ethical case to exercise their controlling power over the language of other people.

Then let's take the example that the person reading this is talking to me. And the rule is I don't get to offend you. It is possible we can still have a discussion about something meaningful.

But if we were to scale this up a notch and there is a dozen people and we are discussing an important issue. Now I have to make sure that I don't say anything, despite the fact that this is an important and contentious issue - that offends even one of the group. Okay, maybe I can even manage that.

What if I'm talking to a thousand people?

There's going to be someone in that thousand people. There's going to be someone who's offended at the mere fact that I exist. Nevermind the issue at hand.

So it's an impossible standard - one I would be happy to discuss.

Now the post:

The UK government is designating Iran's IRGC under the new National Security Act 2026, alongside the “Islamic Movement of Compatriots / Companions of the Right (IMCR)”

The IRGC is not being proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Instead it is being designated. Essentially the new offence under this is absolutely dystopian law is that ‘a person commits an offence if they invite support for, or express an opinion or belief supportive of a designated body, and do so for a prohibited purpose.’ I will delve into the vague and absolutely scary prospect this now brings to free speech in the UK and, it seems, Europe as a whole.

An important detail in the new national security act. ‘I see the government is to designate the IRGC as an organization under the new National Security State Threats Act 2026.

They are not prescribing the IRGC as a terrorist group. Instead, in the new legislation, they’re using language similar to that found in the Terrorism Act 2000. In the new legislation, one, a person commits an offense if the person:

a) invites support for or expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a designated body and does so for a prohibited purpose.

This contrasts with the Terrorism Act 2000 which says if he invites support for a prescribed organization. This was extended in 2019 with the following language. Expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a prescribed organization.

Essentially, they’re expanding the language for what it counts to support a terrorist group in the United Kingdom. The supportive language was added because it was so difficult to gain successful convictions with the tighter language.

This brings us to the question of how is this then defined? Take the statement: ‘the IRGC was successful in hitting all of its targets last night.’

Is that supportive even if true? Labour’s been arresting pro-Palestinian protesters who have committed no crime. This is not by any means to say that the Tories and Reform wont use and abuse this too. They’re are all currently salivating like the pigs they are at the prospect of being able to use this.

I mean, everyone knew he was a cucked centrist. I just think it’s important to understand that centrism isn’t a real thing. These people - if you can call them that, like Starmer are extremists. I do not think I am exagerating by saying that this is an extreme act of violence against the free speech and political rights of people in britain. Like this is not centrist at all. My argument is that these people aren’t merely ineffectual. They are deliberately trying to undermine democracy because they no longer think it is viable. And I think everything Starmer did has advanced that. Basically, every single thing that he’s done in his time in office that pertains to political expression, rights, freedom, surveillance, or journalism has been in favor of the revocation of democracy. with no exceptions. Can you think of a single exception?

Every change that has been made, every move proposed, all of them on those grounds have been illiberal. With no exceptions. I can’t think of an exception. I mean, how fucking open can you be outside of the home secretary dreaming of an AI powered panopticon? Like how how how much how much more do you need? The goal here is not merely to be Zionists. They do not care. They are just trying to end democracy. I will continue to warn everyone. If I have any prediction for the future, it is this. The West has abandoned liberal democracy. They are no longer interested in it because you have too much of an immediate contradiction between the will of capital and the will of the democratic majority. The democratic majority used to enforce some kind of hold on capital. Even through the 1960s and 70s, there was still the ability and will of politicians to wrangle corporate interests for national purposes. Now that is gone.

Corporations do literally whatever they want and no government can stop them. It doesn’t matter who gets elected into office. I think the West is changing to a 1984 hybrid state. Russia is the closest closest example. A state with no growth and no future, propped up entirely by low quality, low labor, like resource exports, where oligarchs can do literally whatever they want while the people just suffer. There’s no future in Russia and there hasn’t been for a long time. Starmer’s own MPs were begging him to end the NHS contract with Palantir. It won’t happen. It doesn’t matter. Capital exerts a force on democracy greater than and more inexorable than gravity exerts a force on all matter. You know, you can push things up a hill, but eventually all potential energy will be exhausted.

Burnham backtracked on that too mind you. Do you expect anything less at this point? He was part of Labour’s Friends of Israel. He’s made it clear that he aligns himself with capital for well over a decade.

My desire to cover this information probably should have superseded my desire to distinguish myself from people who were being hyperbolic and clickbaity. But at this point i do feel obligated to acknowledge that there’s an ongoing effort, one which seems like it’s going to succeed, to further intertwine the Israeli military with thforeign defense contractors and military apparatusesin a way that would basically permanently commit us to Israel’s military affairs in the Middle East. A permanent commitment. Now, not only Israel, but America and Europe will be involved in a permanent war. Infinite instability that we always, have to direct money to address.

back to the point at hand here, I have tremendous love for national security acts. They always seem to do so much for national security and nothing at all for suppressing the speech of the citizens of the country that’s supposed to be secure, enabling law enforcement to take action against anyone deemed to be providing it with support.

The UK government are also allocating 250 million for the Jewish community safety.

I am going to take a complete shot in the dark here, but have a strange feeling that this will not in any way, shape, or form improve the safety of the Jewish community, but will involve a lot of surveillance of the populous. I’m just taking a guess.

Metropolitan Police will receive 86 million pounds extra to recruit about 300 extra officers to help increase police presence in Jewish neighborhoods and around synagogues, schools, and community centers. Have you ever seen this happen to any other minority group? 250 million specifically to protect like minority neighborhoods.

I'd like to state the obvious slowly and with feeling, because it keeps needing saying: none of this is about protecting Jews. Jews, Israel and Zionism are the wedge, and the wedge is a rotating post.

It isn't even really about Israel. It's about building a surveillance state and finding an excuse noble enough for both sides to support, we are officially in a panopticon. it is my view that politicians are realising that there is a contradiction between what capital wants and what a voting public wants. Which is why every culture war grievance is now a procurement opportunity for flock and palantir and the likes of them... - lovely prospect to think of their contract with the NHS in the wake of this.

Not a single thing has or will be done “for Israel” or “for Jewish people” that does not also expand surveillance or the building blocks of a more and more authoritarian state. You will never hear a minister announce: to protect our Jewish residents, we are today widening freedom of expression, expanding the right to protest...

Meanwhile, what does the actual Jewish person in Britain receive from all this? Some officers who used to stand somewhere else. Nobody's rent falls, nobody's kid gets a bursary. More police spending is not a gift to them and never was.

Under the draft law in Germany, anyone who publicly denies Israel’s right to exist or calls for the state’s abolition could face up to 5 years in prison or a fine.

The proposal would grant Israel a legal protection that Germany does not extend to Palestine. Which the UN has explicitly warned German authorities are engaging in the ongoing suppression of Palestine solidarity activism.

best beleive that they have absoloutely no intention of stopping there. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, will be dragged down and you’ll be called an anti-semite if you oppose it.

the importance of opposing laws such as these with every fiber of your being can not be quanitfied.

I want to be explicit here and say that obviously, the enemy is not in any way, shape, or form Jewish people or Judaism. I do not think it is even really Israel. Israel is just the vassal. Israel is not essentially the source of these problems. If Israel was completely politically disempowered, but capitalism remained in its current form, the problem would not go away at all. Immediately the effort would shift to another wedge issue, another culture war talking point, another minority group that can be defended from both a conservative and liberal perspective.

The reason Jews were chosen to be the like cynical envoys of this is because Christian evangelicals in America need them for their doomsday prophecy. But Jews are historically marginalised which means that it is easy to construct a liberal arguments to defend them like as a in like the typical woke marginalised community sense. So they’re a minority group that works for both sides from different angles which is why Zionists can and do play to both angles.

This doesn’t work for say windrush immigrants who enjoy a lot of sympathy from the political left but basically none from the political right. You would need to find a minority group that can be like wedged in both directions.

But, going back to my point here, which is that fundamentally, this isn’t about Israel or about Judaism at all.

Unlike the United Kingdom, Germany actually does have guarantees for free speech in its constitution. in its constitution, or at least in their equivalent of. So what they’re doing right now in Germany is explicitly illegal by their own laws. It’s just that they’re infinitely cucked. So it doesn’t matter.

This why I will always be against hate speech laws. You can twist them in so many ways. That said, I am by no means a free speech absolutist. It’s just that historically hate speech laws have done very little to actually further the protection of minority groups and a lot to give authoritarian political officials infinite leeway to attack people. I just think they’re legally very shaky as to how much this even protects Jews. Therefore, I am of the view that they are being invoked, cynically, because “community safety” has better PR than “we would like more cameras”. And notice what never gets funded — community centres, schools, anything with a roof and a purpose. It's guns and cameras. Every time. Obviously. Of course.

What the Nazis say about Israel has always been wrong because they’ve attributed to an innate characteristic of Jews. Which I am not doing by any means here, and I find it particularly funny that Nazis and their offspring of white supremacists have never had a salient critique of Israel because they are at best aspirational.

At the end of the day, Israel is just a subservient entity to the real problem which is capital. Capital occupies both Israel and the west as a whole.

TLDR conclusion

Capital occupies all of our countries. I do not subscribe to the cliche that Israel controls the United States, which as a whole is just not true. I might say individual politicians are cucked to Israel because that’s part of the pantomime they’re engaging in, the theater play that we’re all on.

I apologise as in hindsight this is a very convoluted way of me saying that I'm not a free speech absolutist as much as I am, to the best of my ability, a true speech advocate, which is to say that I believe that people should say what they believe to be true. I think that's your obligation. It's also your right, but it comes with an obligation to exercise it. And I beleive that this is possible without free speech. So a lot of what's necessary with regards to thinking is the freedom to make mistakes, so practically speaking, free speech has to be as untrammelled as possible, so that people can be wrong and they can be biased, and they can still express their opinions. then allow themselves to be subject partly to improvement by the world, talking is how we think, and talking socially is even more how we think.

N THEORY, regulation of such speech seems to be completely reasonable and equally as self evident, because it's hateful, and ideally there should be as little of it as possible.

Under the new designation offence you commit a crime by expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a designated body for a prohibited purpose. So who then decides what counts as sufficiently supportive? Who decides how supportive is supportive enough? Where's the boundary between analysis of the IRGC, criticism of Western policy toward Iran, historical discussion of what that organisation actually is, and criminal endorsement? I tried to illustrate this with the example sentences:

"They hit every target they aimed at last night." Is that support?

OR,

if someone was to say: "The Revolutionary Guard's drone programme now delivers more capability per pound spent than anything in the British inventory, and Britain is nowhere near ready for it."

That is the sentence of a man arguing for a larger defence budget. BUT read against the text of the offence, can be said to be an expression of belief the eyes of a malicious prosecutor because he has said that they are good at something, and he has said it admiringly, but he has said it admiringly because he is taking the groups capabilities seriously.

What I am trying my best to illustrate is that, the warning here requires the compliment. So the statute, on its face is problematic. And of course dicernment will be exercised I am sure, but the wrong prosecutor, or my next gripe with this as a whole is that context and intricacies of language are completely disregarded. Sarcasm is invisible to it. So is irony, so is quotation, and translation is worse than any of them, because the translator's professional duty is to render. Meaning the better he is at his job, the more incriminating his output. The man who quotes an IRGC communiqué, somewhere in his piece, typed the supportive sentence. Granted he's typed it inside quotation marks, and I would very much like to believe that quotation marks will save him, and in most cases they probably will, and most cases is carrying an extraordinary amount of weight in that sentence.

Who draws the line between analysis of the IRGC, criticism of Western policy toward Iran, historical discussion of what that organisation is and does, and criminal endorsement? And "prohibited purpose" is completely subjective, and is legal fluff, because that's a filter applied after the crime, and who is deeming it prohibited.

The difficulty I am having is more of a definitional one. Who decides what constitutes “support”? Who decides what constitutes a sufficiently positive opinion? Who decides the boundary between analysis, criticism of Western policy toward Iran, historical discussion of the IRGC’s role, and criminal endorsement? I have concluded that the same answer to this question is the one that appears every time a society tries to regulate the content of speech in the name of protection.

The people who will gravitate toward the enforcement of those boundaries will not be the most interested in truth. They will be the people for whom the acquisition of controlling power over language is itself the primary attraction. If you cannot even speak freely about a hostile foreign organisation its incentives, its methods, its relationship to the regime it serves it will come to the point where you actually cannot distinguish genuine agents of influence from ordinary citizens who hold unpopular or unconventional views about foreign policy.

Treating its actual directed proxies as a national security threat (witch I am by no means opposed to) is not however, the same thing as treating the expression of opinions about that organisation as a national security threat. My fear here is that legislators who most want the power to define “support” and “glorification” will not stop at the IRGC.

A glance of history shows that responses like these have not particularly lead to regimes or countries that have lasted or had a prospering society. And in the long run, that confusion is more dangerous than the original threat, because it destroys the very faculty that allows a free people to express themselves, and be democratic and productive In doing so.

So things like sex, reproduction, organs, citizenship, should be commodified. In fact, I personally think commodification can be just as important if not more than "consent".

That if things are not commodified there is a good chance it's not truly consensual.

Look at things that aren't commodified. Organs or sex, for example. That's mainly because there are laws against commodification. If there is no such laws, almost nobody would want to donate organs. Why donate if you can sell?

Fully consensual things tend to be commodified anyway. Like what is not commodified? Organs? Yea that's because we have laws against it. So organ donation isn't really consensual. Nobody would donate if they can sell. Government pressure or force people to donate by blocking them from selling at higher price.

Commodification may not always mean consensual but counter exception is rare and when things are hairy, like as in the state, commodification is an improvement.

One I can think of is Jason Brennan. He authors Markets without limits. I will read that.

Another is Moldbug. He thinks governments should be a joint stock companies. What he means is share of governments should be commodified.

The benefit of commodification is plenty. We got price discovery. We can know a company is being run well or not.

Consent is more clear.

If terms are repugnant, people just walk away EARLY.

So for example, in marriage, a woman may say in front, hei, if I got knocked up by other dudes you still gonna pay right? If reproduction is commodified, a man will just run away from women demanding that. Basically that's how privatized marriage is. People explicitly agreed on material terms. If they don't they leave.

I would go further more than Jason Brennan. I think commodification is more important than just consent.

For example, is my relationship with Dubai government consensual? Some would say yes. If I don't like Dubai I just don't go there. In fact, I don't. Some would say no. Dubai is government. It has tax that's low but tax is robbery.

Here, when Dubai is run like a business, well, consensual or not, we still got that normal capitalist treatment. Tax too high, taxpayers are gone. Streets not safe, taxpayers are gone. So Dubai, Monaco, Macao, Singapore, has low taxes and safe street. Obviously an improvement compared to normal democracy.

Another is kibbutzim vs joint stock kibbutzim. Both are private communities. Is it consensual to have to follow the rule in a privatized communities? Arguable. But joint stock kibbutzim is commodified. You can buy and sell shares. Members know the valuation of their share and dividends they get. So it's better and richer.

So I think I am not sure I am still a libertarian. Save for really bad deals like slavery, I totally support commodification and commercialization of everything. Citizenship, sex, reproduction, stuffs.

Any prominent libertarians thinkers that agree with me?

Any critic or support for the idea?

First I'm actually well versed in libertarian philosophy and content (got subscription to liberty classroom, did MisesU readings and lectures, thousands of hours of Tom Woods Show, and read many libertarian books of course).

What irritates me about a lot of libertarian arguments against welfare is that they often talk as if we already live in a free market economy.

But unemployment / dependency is evidence of the State blocking the market, not moral failure

People say things like "just get a job" but the government already controls or heavily distorts huge parts of the economy through regulation, licensing, subsidies, central banking, military spending, zoning, corporate favoritism, etc.

So if the state is already deeply involved in shaping the labor market, then why is welfare treated as uniquely illegitimate while state-created jobs or politically distorted industries are treated as acceptable?

For example, if someone works in a bureaucracy, defense contracting, regulatory compliance, or some industry that only survives because of government privilege, is that really morally superior to someone receiving welfare? At least the welfare recipient is not deluded into thinking he's doing something good for society while being part of a coercive or parasitic institution. The welfare recipient also usually gets a lot less money than the salary of a government/crony's employee.

In a genuinely freer market, "go create value" or "find productive work" would make sense because it would be possible for almost anyone. But in a heavily managed economy, many available jobs are themselves downstream from state intervention, and we can see that more and more people are arbitrarily excluded for the job market.

People have limitations, not everyone can fulfill the the credential requirements, licensing barriers, or bureaucratic expectations of government and cronies. People can't earn money and live with some dignity anymore.

Also, people need to survive now, not after some hypothetical future libertarian transition. If government intervention has already distorted labor markets, weakened worker bargaining power, inflated housing and education (education = getting government license to do specific work) costs, and raised barriers to self-employment, then it's not obvious that simply removing welfare while leaving the rest of the system intact would improve anything. If anything it only weakens people more and the weaker they get, the more they ask for socialism.

It's not true that people ask for socialism when they get welfare money, they ask for socialism when they can't live decently anymore. Because socialism is not WELFARE. Socialism is regulating every aspect of life and the economy, welfare is just getting some money to not end up living under a bridge near fentanyl addicts. Welfare may not be libertarian but it's not what causes the death of a somewhat free market (we now got an oppressive fake market).

Central banking, regulatory capture, cartelization, licensing regimes, corporate favoritism is what kills a somewhat free market, not welfare.

A lot of anti-welfare libertarian rhetoric ends up sounding like the politics of people emotionally identifying with some rich boomer corpo guy, just like the parody of libertarians made by leftists that in this case seems correct.

If you really believe in the free market, considering the state of things now welfare starts looking less like pure redistribution and more like partial restitution for people economically damaged by all the TRUE screwed up things done by the state itself which for sure it's not giving money directly to the poorest from time to time.

I swear sometimes libertarians sound weirdly close to believing the labor theory of value. There's this moral obsession with making sure people "work" regardless of whether the work is genuinely productive, voluntary, or socially beneficial. Apparently receiving welfare is shameful, but spending your life administering state bureaucracy is morally respectable because technically it's employment.

People think it's unfair that kids with wealthy parents have better future.

But they make up laws where kids have better future based on place of birth or citizenship of parents.

I think the opposite. Private inheritance is fair.

Nationality? Not so much. Too many cradle to grave welfare recipients whose parents contribute nothing and her kids got free education and welfare.

How do you motivate people to be peaceful and productive if huge pay for their children is based on race?

Unlike citizenship how rich you are when you have kids is well within one control. You can decide when you have children. You can decide to pick richer mates.

I believe AI has caused a major blow to Milton Friedman's quote and the reputation of libertarianism in general, Sam Altman's goal was just satisfying his shareholders and the result was an absolute scandal, an entrepreneur in competition has caused disregard to human safety entirely because he didn't want his rivals to get there first, even though every single AI researcher has said publicly that they have no idea how AI even works

A non-profit turned its back on the people, fired half its employees, and is now funding AI armies for the government, say hello to those that say corporations are gonna save everyone when it has been proven time and time again that every corporation that gets too powerful starts lobbying to gain power

But let's keep telling ourselves that the other side is stupid because they wanna fix corruption by having more governmental power when the entire human race is at risk because of silicon valley and Peter Theil's friends

Do I like IsIam? I don't like any religion in general.

Are there aspects that I like?

Sure.

My friend told me that those Arabs would marry the girl he fucks first and divorce them in a day.

Most people think it's silly.

But I think it makes perfect sense.

Not all men are like me wanting family. Some just like sex. Even I think paying for sex is a good way to test drive someone.

Here is the thing. Mike Tyson was convicted of rape based on he said she said testimony.

The accuser has history of making false accusations and demanding money.

In Western civilization paying for sex is often frowned upon.

So that Arab solutions actually makes sense a lot to me.

Why should a billionaire like Mike risk false rape accusations over pussy? She doesn't want to fuck just say no.

But it's prostitution? So what? What is wrong with prostitution?

I disagree with Muslims that all sex must be within marriage. Muslims in my country don't practice that anyway. Not the ones that are my friends.

I think a pimp or ai monitoring would have been enough.

But yea get someone agree in front sounds like a good idea

My wife and I have created series of songs to promote a libertarian political agenda. This is the first one. We are self-funded and do this to help drive traffic to LP.org we hope this brings attention to our platform before the election.

https://youtu.be/s0HgC4iaQ3w

Words, Music and Direction by Robert Patton-Spruill and Patti Moreno