Description

All the social programs and other corporatized charitable organizations have shown us that some people don’t want others to rise out of poverty and hardship, so they subsidize it. What is missing from the equation? Voluntary cooperation amongst mutually consenting individuals and organizations to come together and make a difference, sometimes at no charge at all. Libertarian activist Anthony Welti discusses feeding the poor (and paying a fee afterwards) and free market solutions to helping the least amongst us. Don’t forget to support the program on Patreon to get rewards and other exclusive content. Sign up now by visiting: www.patreon.com/remsorepublic Check out our new podcast Unapologetic w/Tiana Dalichov: https://remsorepublic.com/2018/02/07/podcast-unapologetic-w-tiana-dalichov-growth-of-islam/ Follow the Remso Republic: remsorepublic.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/RemsoRepublic/ Twitter @Remso101

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • http://drr.lib.athabascau.ca/files/phil/375/baxter5.pdf   This was required reading at Lewis and Clark Law School back in 1976. It poses some interesting issues. Might be a good basis for discussion.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • I recently read Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed and it brings up a number of questions. I sent him an email with these questions and am still waiting for a reply. But I thought I’d put them out there in this group as well. There are five series of questions and this is the first batch. Is a covenant community binding for all time? Or can a member of a covenant society secede from it just as he ought to be able to secede from the state? Can the terms of the covenant be changed in the future and if so how? Can the covenant specify that all rules and restrictions covered in the covenant can be changed through democratic means – in other words through voting? And if so, can they do specify that this be done by simple majority rule or other ways as specified in the covenant? Further to this – am I correct in assuming that the terms of the covenant inhere to the property and not the person?  For example, I own property in a strata development which is covered by such a covenant. It binds me to the bylaws of the Strata Corporation and these rules can be changed by the members democratically at a meeting. The strata council enforces the rules, manages the budget, etc. I also pay strata fees which are analagous to taxes if this were a municipality. (The strata fees are actually more than the municipal taxes I pay, though the city provides a lot more services.)  And these rules inhere in the property, so if I sell it, the buyer is bound by the covenant. But I cannot secede from the covenant. In effect, a covenant community is really a mini-government, but organized as a contract rather than as a political entity. But in practice, is there really any difference? I have written on my blog about this a few times. Most notably here: http://jollylibertarian.blogspot.ca/2015/10/private-government.html and here: http://jollylibertarian.blogspot.ca/2015/10/consent-of-governed.html and here: https://jollylibertarian.liberty.me/is-consent-a-sufficient-condition-for-a-society-to-be-considered-libertarian/  The latter contradicts the first two as I have had some change in thought on this. Feedback appreciated.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Perhaps you will find this magnificent BBC documentary interesting. It tells the story of the ancient city of Caral, a little north of Lima on the coast of Peru, which is arguably the oldest city in and the beginning of civilization in the Americas. The Lost Pyramids Of Caral There are two points I would like to make about the story told therein of Caral which I think are relevant to libertarians. 1) The early civilization of Caral apparently arose purely out of commerce. This confirms the insights of the Austrian school of economics. And it may be an example of a commercially organized cooperative human society that antedates the rise of any state. 2) This contradicts the presumptions brought to the study by the archaeologists. For one example, at 7:20 one states the following. You can’t build … on the basis of consensus. You have to have leaders and followers. You have to have specialists. You have to have people who are in charge. People who can tell individual groups, alright, today you will be doing this. This group you are going to be doing something different. In other words, in his academic world, the possibility is inconceivable of that human cooperation could be organized by trade — the marketplace — rather than authority.

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 replies
  • This is basically a response to: Beyond ‘no means no’: the future of campus rape prevention is ‘yes means yes’ “No means no” and “Yes means yes” may seem like good, simple, and commonsense advice, but I can’t imagine anyone who honestly observes their social interactions can’t see that most communication (especially in the realms of “seduction” and “attraction”) is completely nonverbal. To start, let me begin by saying that I used to be super careful about ever crossing another person’s boundaries without their permission. In reality, I was too careful. I used to never initiate with women ever. I was too afraid to do something that they didn’t want. If a girl wanted to be with me, she had to do all the initiation (I somehow magically got some action this way, but it ultimately hurt my chances). As a result, I can count on more than one hand when I’ve been in situations where women are giving me a 100% nonverbal “yes,” but I never acted on it, because I never got a verbal “yes.” It got so bad, they would even contact me later in the night and say things like, “You know, you could’ve kissed me/fucked me if you wanted.” Consent is a much bigger grey area than feminists want you to believe. But ignoring how consent usually happens in the real world is ultimately destructive toward an honest conversation about what “consent” really means. To bring this around full circle, this also means that if a girl is giving a verbal “Yes,” but a nonverbal “No” (hesitation in her voice, closed body language, doesn’t seem “into” it) it’s probably better to lay off even though you technically have verbal consent. Please Note: This was originally a post for straight men, but feel free to switch the genders however you like – it’s not relevant.

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  • Recently I was talking to somebody about anarchism after they read The Anatomy of the State. The discussion quickly turned into a dissection of hypothetical situations like “what if someone can’t afford to protect themselves, and somebody kills them? What happens then?” It was very assuming of violence, first of all, but the more troubling aspect was the inability to accept that government may not be a necessary evil. She understood that government was bad. Still, she was very convinced that order must be instilled using law. I’ve heard her say “they’re great ideas, just not practical” more times than I can handle. How do you explain anarchy? What is the best way to answer specific questions about hypothetical and violent situations? How do you keep it positive when the most obvious opposition is violence? 🙂

    Jump to Discussion Post 12 replies