Welcome to the Global Liberty Community
Welcome to the Global Liberty Community

Liberty.me membership is now free thanks to a partnership with Free the People!

Here’s my latest animation: How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis. If you enjoy it, social media sharing i

It’s customary in politics to tout a candidate’s experience in government. As a bystander, I’ve never been impress

Many years ago when my son was about three I was chatting about plans for his schooling.  I planned to send my son to p

Most amateur investors who pick stocks significantly underperform the market. 90% of people who pick "winning" stocks d

Update Your Status

  • David Libertas published a new article, Allergic to Government: the EpiPen Monopoly, on the site Libertas 2 minutes ago

    Allergic to governmentMylan is giving capitalism a bad name. They manufacture the most popular epinephrine auto-injector called EpiPen. This is a device They made news by quadrupling the retail price. Patients are supposed to carry [Read story]
  • Jeff Berwick published a new article, Ademo Freeman of Cop Block: Watching the Watchers, on the site Anarchast 1 hour, 5 minutes ago

    299 thumbAnarchast Ep.304 Jeff interviews Ademo Freeman co-founder of Cop Block along with Pete Ayre, topics include: the origins of Cop Block, the rapid growth of Cop Block, speaking truth to power, call flood [Read story]
  • Marchella posted an update 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

    Wow, look at all the free-market capitalism! /sarc off

    [Read more]

    • So buying food to donate to good banks to make it more expensive so it’s harder to buy. Doesn’t bother smacking head just hangs it.

  • Richard Masta posted an update 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

    Some schmuck who supports Kelly Ayotte for her Senate re-run knocked on our door today and she tells him: “we don’t care much for voting in this house.”

  • Ken Jons-un posted an update in the group Liberty.Meme 1 hour, 49 minutes ago

  • Zachary replied to the topic YouTube Gun Channels in the forum Firearms 2 hours ago

    Back to suggest:

    Forgotten Weapons (Erudite discussion of historically significant weapons)

    LifeSizePotato (Gorgeous, high-res videos of distinctive firearms)

    Lucky Gunner Ammo (Defensive firearm use, with an emphasis on concealed…[Read more]

  • Rick Rule replied to the topic Cost of Capital in the forum Natural Resource Company Studies and Valuation 3 hours, 1 minute ago

    Wonderful post especially your conclusion. We will never get it right, the search for perfection in this case is a form of procrastination, but we can understand the probabilities better than our competition, if only because they are lazy, and inept.


    Note also that discount rates are subject to internal debates, even within Sprott. Best to…[Read more]

  • Bruce Koerber posted an update 3 hours, 3 minutes ago

    The road to serfdom is a poor alternative to navigating the bumps of economic freedom.

  • Carlos Adrianza just joined Liberty.me 3 hours, 14 minutes ago

  • Jeffrey Easley just joined Liberty.me 4 hours, 2 minutes ago

  • Matthew Reece‘s article Black Lives Matter Versus Libertarian Revolution has a new comment 4 hours, 31 minutes ago

    milwaukeeriotsSince the beginning of the Black Lives Matter movement, libertarians have had strong differences concerning how to engage with it. On one hand, libertarians would agree that many laws whose enforcement results in [Read story]
    • “Anti-police violence advocated by BLM leaders proceeds from the realization that police are an obstacle to degenerate and criminal behavior which they would like to see removed, and that this will not happen by peaceful means.”

      No, it demonstrates that someone like you who goes fishing at right-wing websites to find confirmation for your racial prejudices can certainly find it.

    • Mr. Reece is not being racist here, he is just pointing out that the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.

    • I didn’t use the term racist …i used the term racial prejudices. There is a difference.

    • @dl1337 Not an argument.

    • Neither is collecting anecdotal evidence from right wing web sites…something generally referred to as committing the anecdotal fallacy

    • @dl1337 Repeating baseless accusations does not make them true, or any less retarded.

    • (i) categorizing the linked websites as right wing is not a baseless accusation. It is an accurate characterization.

      (ii) anecdotal evidence curried from said web sites to arrive at this generalized conclusion:

      “Anti-police violence advocated by BLM leaders proceeds from the realization that police are an obstacle to degenerate and criminal behavior which they would like to see removed, and that this will not happen by peaceful means.”

      You are saying BLM is merely a protest against police obstacles to unfettered criminal behavior.

      That is called an anecdotal logical fallacy, which, in this instance, is the use of anecdotal testimony from a sample population to make a generalized claim about the entire sample. A claim that comports w/ your own prejudices that you have made clear more than a few times on this forum.

      Now what does your dubbing of “retarded” generally refer to? Someone with a reading comprehension above 6th grade level?

    • @dl1337 I am not saying BLM is merely a protest against police obstacles to unfettered criminal behavior. That is effectively what several leaders of BLM are using it for. There are plenty of good people in the rank and file who do not agree with the rioting and attacks on police, but Robert Conquest’s third law is at work here. Like many other organizations, BLM’s actions are best explained by assuming it is controlled by a cabal of the enemies of its stated purpose.

    • @dl1337 Looks like the objective of black lives matter is working!!! Half-truths meant to cause confusion and emotional anger against each other that forwards their agenda, that we need more state control to manage the chaos! Ingenious!

      If black lives really mattered, wouldn’t they me marching in Chicago where a 100+ a day are being shot and killed? That would make the killing ratio something like a few thousand to one. Oh wait…they are killing themselves, that would make self-evident the failure of state control. Pay no attention to all this..we’ll just keep you busy over here with half-truths that forward our agenda.

      We’re playing checkers and their playing chess.

    • As far as I can tell, BLM is protesting injustice by law enforcement. Thugs (of any race) in the streets of Chicago are not expected to be moral. Police officers take an oath to protect their community and to uphold the law. Criminals do not take that oath. It’s absurd to hold criminals to the same standards as cops and vice versa. You don’t call thugs in an emergency. Thugs aren’t given special rights, privileges and protections by the government. Bypassing criticisms of law enforcement based on black-on-black crime is nonsensical. To suggest that you can’t be outraged over abusive policing because criminals exist makes no sense whatsoever. I’m genuinely baffled why those leaning right consistently make that really poor argument.

    • Anti-police violence advocated by BLM leaders proceeds from the realization that police are an obstacle to degenerate and criminal behavior which they would like to see removed …

      Can you be more specific about the degenerate and criminal behavior that a BLM leader advocates? You apparently don’t refer to drug possession and presumably don’t refer to drug dealing either. BLM leaders want to shoot cops for sport? Can you quote someone? A nameless rioter shouting in a crowd doesn’t count.

      If I’m holding a controlled substance and a police officer threatens to arrest me, may I resist using force proportional to the officer’s force? He carries a gun, so I may carry a gun? He may shoot me and call it self-defense if I even touch my gun, so I may shoot him if he touches his gun?

    • @restonthewind People inciting other people to riot, followed by the riot actually occurring, is degenerate and criminal behavior.

      A nameless rioter shouting in a crowd does count if people heed his words and act upon them.

      I agree that drug laws are immoral and that people have a moral right to use defensive force against government agents who attempt to enforce those laws. This would be more in line with the libertarian revolution that I wish BLM would turn into.

    • Rioting (assaulting or destroying the property of innocent people) is criminal behavior, but I asked for a “Black Lives Matter” leader advocating it. Sherelle Smith is the sister of a guy recently shot by police telling her neighbors to stop rioting. Adding “take it to the suburbs” is hyperbole that I wouldn’t take literally and I doubt that she intended literally. Certainly, she said it in the heat of the moment.

      A nameless shouter may influence other people at a “Black Lives Matter” rally, but calling this person a “BLM leader” or associating all persons identifying with “BLM” with the shouter makes no sense. Certainly, if a Klansman shouts at a Ron Paul rally, even if he influences some other people at the rally, I would not call him a libertarian leader or a leader of Paul supporters. Anyone can show up at any rally to incite violence.

      You can find self-described supporters of “Black Lives Matter” advocating violence that I disapprove, but self-described “libertarians” also advocate violence that I disapprove. I associate BLM more with resistance to violence by state agents against blacks like Eric Garner. Any movement of this sort will attract angry people advocating counterproductive violence in response.

      BLM will never be precisely the sort of justice movement you advocate, but some people marching under the BLM banner will agree with you. You can make common cause with them or not.

    • @liberty56

      They aren’t out marching against black on black violence probably for the same reason you aren’t out marching against white on white violence.

      The ratios are about the same…


      BLM:racist :: Lee : racist

      I trust you know how to read analogies.

    • @dl1337 Now that’s not nice.

  • Yani Kuhn replied to the topic Cost of Capital in the forum Natural Resource Company Studies and Valuation 4 hours, 33 minutes ago

    Rick please correct me if I am wrong, we have learned from you to Look for Value

    in this context also from the view point what we could loose. That is

    current liquidation value versus market capitalazation of a junior mining company.

    The easy part of the valuation are the redundant assets: add up cash substract debt and you get the liquid…[Read more]

  • Pete Sisco‘s article Suppose I’m a Voter has a new comment 4 hours, 43 minutes ago

    • I love anarchist memes 🙂

    • Ah….you can all vote to eliminate force and coercion too…just sayn’

    • I’m confused by this one:

      “You must pay to kill people in other countries, because I say so.”

      Except in self-defense, by what authority would you kill any people in any country?? (Maybe this line ought to be reworded.)

    • You have to pay for wars. What did an individual Iraqi ever do to hurt me? And why should I pay to kill him and give a pension to the guy who pulls the trigger?

    • @liberty56 I think you’re missing the point. If only a minority understands that the initiation of force and fraud is wrong, they can never successfully use voting to eliminate it. And even though millions of others may disagree, that still doesn’t make the initiation of force or fraud a moral act.
      Heck, voting itself is an initiation of force. Voting is simply stating your preference for the candidate that you believe will most likely use the force of government to coerce other people to act in the way you want them to. If one understands that the initiation of force is immoral, how can they be expected to vote?

    • Ok…a few thoughts

      “…only a minority understands that the initiation of force and fraud is wrong” Agree.

      “…millions of others may disagree, that still doesn’t make the initiation of force or fraud a moral act” Agree

      “…voting itself is an initiation of force” Agree

      “Voting is simply stating your preference for the candidate that you believe will most likely use the force of government to coerce other people to act in the way you want them to.” Not necessarily, it can also be used to enforce and prevent/protect you/other people from the initiation of force from other people.

      The thing is this: a single individual has their own force and right to make their own way and be self determined. That is moral. But there is more then one individual on this planet or confined space in which we must live.

      If two individuals got together and one says, you can’t force me, and the other says, well then you can’t for force me either, and if they were intellectually healthy, they would mutually agree that it is most moral (and fair) not to force each other, that leads to mutual, voluntary co-operation. This is a civil/behavior agreement.

      Formally, this mutual agreement would be similar to the Bill of Individual Rights, that you and mankind are mutually guaranteeing to you and to mankind.

      You and mankind can vote, and use collective force to guarantee this operating condition of individual freedom from each other, just as well as mankind can vote to create an operating condition of force and coercion of each other.

      Mankind as a whole cannot get away from co-operating if they wish to advance…there is just too much economic benefit (and pleasure) in it, which naturally leads to self organization, that naturally leads to devising general, moral, principles of operation using our higher intelligence beyond the animal instincts. It’s the intelligence part that is in question. Not the collective force.

      So no, voting does not mean you’re voting to force others. It can be of course, but it depends on what we collectively aim to create.

      There is no running away from collectively organizing by not “voting”. We will all have a state of something we must live in. Are we voting to create an operating condition that guarantees liberty and a protected state of individual freedom, or not?

    • Thanks, Lee.

      I have no moral objection to you ‘voting’ for Apple or Android, or for Boeing or Airbus as a means to organize a better society and increase your happiness.

      I’m talking about political voting where one person votes to force another person to do something, or to not do something.

      I’m even fine with 100,000 people forming a voluntary community under Sharia law, then voting to behead a blasphemer – because ALL of the people in that society agreed to that rule and to live and die under those terms and conditions. Just leave me out of all of it.

    • Was I not just addressing political voting??? It’s to the advantage for all of us to have a fundamental human operating condition in which mankind can further organize and manifest themselves into these sub-organizations/companies/families…etc. It is to our advantage to have a civil/moral operating agreement (life/liberty/freedom of conscious…)

      I agree on the sharia law thing too, but then if someone decides it’s not for them, they have to have a way out? No?

    • Well, on my Sharia example, it would all depend on the explicit terms and conditions a person agrees to in order to be part of that particular society.

      I think you and I are in fundamental agreement.

      My gripe is that under Democracy I am compelled by force to live under terms I never agreed to and to which I still do not agree. I am, essentially, enslaved by the mystical power of the political vote. And if I don’t comply I get put in a cage.

      (People with zero right to put me in a cage, vote to put me in a cage. Voila!)

    • I think we are in agreement too, but if you harm me and others, you should be put in a cage.

      But then you may even ask, by what “right” do you have to “judge” me to put me in a cage, even thought you are harming others?

      That would bring us back a mutually agreed to civil contract of mutual nonaggression because of our fundamental natural rights (life/liberty/freedom of conscious…)….that is mutually agreed to, so others do not have the right to harm you? It’s full circle logic.

      No one is forcing an agreement on another, without the other being held in the same agreement. By this process it is “derived” by intellectual logic and reason. It’s not just “made up” with feelings and believes. When reasoned today as well as 1000 years from now, it always ends in life/liberty/freedom of conscious…when each is held by the same standard. There is no other outcome.

    • Put in a cage is only one option. I think it’s better if you’re made whole, plus compensated for the trouble. But, in any case, all parties would have to agree.

      BTW, not everyone cares about intellectual logic and reason and they don’t want to live by that standard. (They might prefer the precepts of the New Testament, or some other subjective belief.)

      I wrote a book about how to construct a 100% voluntary, zero-coercion system for 7 billion people simultaneously.

      The Freedom App – Building True Freedom Through Contractual Republics

    • I’ll take a look…thx

  • Danielle posted an update in the group INTP 5 hours, 14 minutes ago

    ENTP here. As Frank Marcopolos suggested, the Myers-Briggs personality test is questionable, though it might reveal some interesting insights. For example most of my friends that appreciate philosophy and intellectual pursuits are introverts, and most leaders I know (professionally and otherwise) are extroverts. That’s not entirely surprising,…[Read more]

  • Danielle just joined Liberty.me 5 hours, 47 minutes ago

Join For Free!

Freedom brings us together. Join the global liberty community, now free!

Find out more
The Scott Horton Show – Peter Lee

Peter Lee, editor of China Matters, discusses the possibility of a nuclear arms race in East Asia where Japan, South Korea and Taiwan could easily become nuclear powers and create their own deterrent …Read more

The Jason Stapleton Show – Johnson Calls for a New Carbon Tax

At some point, Johnson supports are going to lose credibility altogether. Many of us left the Republican party because they no longer promoted the ideas of limited government and free markets. We got …Read more

The LAVA Spurt – The Don’t Wait for Government Edition

The free market saved countless lives in Louisiana the last several days while the government fiddled. Thank you for joining me on the tenth episode of The LAVA Spurt, The Don’t Wait for Government Ed…Read more

Live this week

See Upcoming Events

The Tatiana Show w/ Robert Murphy – August 30, 2016

Tatiana and Josh interview Robert Murphy. Robert Murphy is a Research Assistant Professor at the Free Market Institute (FMI) at Texas Tech University. Dr. Murphy earned his B.A. in economics from Hillsdale College and his Ph.D. in economics from New York Unive…Read more