Hey folks, It’s time for the Ancap Barber Shop!  In this episode, we are discussing #Bottomunity and Argumentation Ethics.

But first, Scott installed some new camera mounts, so go check them out!
The Facebook live stream is posted below:
Pretty cool right? We’re also producing some extra Patreon content this month so consider jumping in at one of our four Patreon tiers! You can learn more at:
If you sign up at the Buzzcut level of $1 per podcast episode you can expect to see a new commentary track this month. Go to
and let us know what movie you’d like to listen to us watch! You’ll also get a bonus episode between Scott and Dave discussing Flat Earthers!
If you sign up at the Gentleman’s cut Level of $5 per episode you’ll get two live streams this month!
And if you sign up at the Pompadour level of $10 dollars per episode, or the Executive Contour level of $25 per episode you get the already released April 2018 episode of “A Little Off The Top” where Scott discusses the arrest of “Count Dankula”, the Scottish YouTuber that made a video of his girlfriend’s pug doing the ole Zieg Heil.

James Weeks (LNC Stripper), made a Facebook video discussing #bottomunity. The idea is the unification of the two bottom quadrants of the political compass, in juxtaposition to either quadrant unifying with their respective “counterpart”. The boys discuss their opinions and weigh the pros and cons.


They then move on to discuss argumentation ethics, the rationalist justification of libertarian ethics that Hans Herman Hoppe derived from studying argumentation. The basic idea is that if you have chosen to argue with someone over a dispute instead of using force to settle the dispute, you are practicing a pursuit of peaceful ends to the argument. Hoppe makes it clear that you could at any point in the argument (or afterward) shift to using force instead of arguing peacefully, but you couldn’t do so justifiably. You would be contradicting the precedent you had already set by arguing instead of taking what you want with violence.
We hope you enjoyed this episode and don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel and leave us a review and a 5-star rating on your podcatcher.
See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

Scott McDonald is the Ancap Barber. Born and raised in Huntsville AL, he is an agorist barber extraordinaire. Along with his beautiful wife, Erika McDonald, he fathers the wonder child, Elsie McDonald. Scott has been involved in political and philosophical discussion for most of his adult life. His mission in life is to spread liberty at every opportunity, as well as eventually owning his own barber shop. Adam Brown is a musician, libertarian, and minarchist, as well as the co-host of the Ancap Barber Shop. He and Scott make up the doom country duo, Pinecone Percy. Adam believes in minimal government and personal freedoms, you will usually find him shredding on a guitar, banging on drums or debating anarchy and religion with Scott. He was born and raised in Huntsville, AL. His goal is to share his passion for freedom and liberty to anyone and everyone.


  • Can you tell me the declarative sentence that Hoppe claims is implicit in argumentation, the one that contradicts other ideas about property? Here is my best try: I have property in my body and I gain ownership of something that is unowned when I mix my labor with it. The statement implicit in criticisms of property would be: No one has property in their bodies and no one gains ownership of anything by mixing their labor with unowned stuff. I’ve tried to be fair to Hoppe but I don’t think this sentence works. If you think I’ve got it wrong, please suggest a better candidate sentence (not a phrase, not a hand wave, a declarative sentence). If mine stinks, give me a better one. Supporters of Hoppe should be able to either defend this sentence or give one that they can defend. I see a problem with unpacking “property” and “ownership” in a way that holds up all the weight Hoppe puts on this concept.

    Jump to Discussion Post 82 replies
  • As in a game of Chess, the definition of the words that are used to convey thoughts & ideas must be clearly & uniformly understood by all participants to enjoy a productive dialogue. The King, Queen, Knights, etc. each have clearly defined & limited use for the purposes of the game. The same idea needs to be applied to terms used to clearly convey our thoughts & ideas. Much time & effort is wasted where the parties are using keywords with diverse definitions. How can we improve our preparation for better communications?  

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply