Supreme Court Justice Andrew Napolitano Sounds Nice

There is a raging debate going on right now on who president Obama should nominate as the next Supreme Court Justice to take the late Antonin Scalia’s seat. Should the seat remain vacant until the next president is elected and takes office in 2017? This would effectively leave the decision in the hands of the people. That’s if you believe in a rigged political process and a democratic system of mob rule. Should Obama choose a justice immediately so the court can continue to render decisions on important cases? Well, Obama is definitely going to nominate someone, it’s just a matter of who will he nominate. The chances of the president nominating an orginalist or a moderate judge share the same probability that there are talking hippopotamuses on Pluto. So what should happen?

If the Republicans had any testicular fortitude they would delay the process and wait until after the presidential election to confirm the next Justice of The Supreme Court. If Obama nominates someone or if Hillary or Bernie Sanders nominate a justice, then you can be sure you will be living in a country where you will have no freedom left to speak about. It’s bad enough we can count our natural rights that have not been encroached upon with about four or five fingers. Can you imagine what would happen if someone like Loretta Lynch becomes a Supreme Court Justice? Say goodbye to gun rights, they would be ban the sale of most guns, and attempt to confiscate guns, although that would be a very difficult task for The Feds since their would be so much resistance. There would be abortion on demand, partial birth, and maybe the government will eventually mandate The States to enforce infanticide laws. Maybe they will coerce people against their consciences to pay for infanticide. That is what partial birth abortion is right now. So who knows how far The SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) will go if they have a majority of progressive judicial activists serving in this branch.

The  SCOTUS is tyrannical to begin with and nothing will change that. When you have a branch of government interpreting their own Constitutional document, that paves they way for immense power grabs and a road to an unstoppable tyrannical government. There have been so many cases that have stole liberty from the people and which have transferred more power to the political class. The federal government was supposed to be an agent of The States,but now it has turned into an oligarchy. There is no decentralization just centralization and power in the hands of the few. Read about Marbury V Madison, McCulloch V. Maryland, Wickard V. Fillburn, Korematsu V. The United States, Plessy V. Ferguson, and many others Supreme Court Cases that have destroyed liberty. Then you will begin to understand the tyranny of the judicial branch. The executive and legislative branches are no better. Executive orders that give the president dictatorial powers and a Congress made up of 535 members representing the interests of 320 million people. This is tyranny in a nutshell.

So the only way to stop the hemorrhage that is the despotism of The Federal Government. A government that uses judicial activism and judicial tyranny, combined with countless executive orders issued in the overnight hours when everyone is sleeping and will never notice. The people of this country are sleeping when they are awake so it does not really matter. The way to stop this continuous trespass on liberty is to come out of this stupor and snap out of this brainwashing that has infected the minds and sensibilities of otherwise rational people. If people stopped giving their consent and talked about peaceful secession, which is the biggest check on government, you would see how the government would change.

The other option is to make sure that if a Republican gets elected president in 2016 that this new president nominates Judge Andrew Napolitano to replace Antonin Scalia. This is the best choice and the only choice if the last vestiges of a free society are to remain in tact. He is extremely experienced and a constitutional orginalist. He always reads the constitution and it explains it with the original intent of the founders in mind. He has handled thousands of sentencings and hearings. He also taught constitutional law and jurisprudence at Seton Hall Law School for eleven years. He is now a judicial analyst and gives his opinions on a wide range of legal and constitutional issues that are in the news. This man has proven to be a textualist and he has made an unwavering commitment throughout his impressive career as a judge and constitutional scholar not to be a judicial activist but a defender of the original meaning of this founding document. Any other choice would be a mistake since Napolitano and Scalia are cut from the same judicial cloth. I guess we will wait to see what happens. I am not saying The Supreme Court is a legitimate way to decide the constitutionality of laws. The system of checks and balances is extremely flawed and the federal government has grown to an immense size since 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. This is of course inevitable. There can never be governments that remain minimal. They will always grow. Limited Government is an oxymoron. So the only hope is peaceful secession or Judge Napolitano. The latter is more realistic for now.

Atheism and Libertarianism

Atheism, simply defined is the lack of belief in God or Gods. It’s the negation of theism which is the belief in God. There is also a type of atheism called strong atheism, or antitheism, which is the assertion that Gods can not exist and do not exist. Antitheists also find religion to be contemptuous since it is irrational and has given rise to many of the problems humanity has faced and continues to deal with in the modern day. The Inquisition, religious wars, hatred of homosexuals, mistreatment of women, the death penalty for apostasy, stonings, witch trials, suicide bombers, genital mutilation, brainwashing children,and many other horrible precepts. So religion can be a way of life, whereas atheism is not a lifestyle. It’s just an absence of belief in the supernatural and Gods. Essentially everyone is an atheist. There are thousands and thousands of religions and Gods. If you are a monotheist, (Jew, Muslim, Christian), you reject all of the other Gods. You reject The Hindu Gods, The Greek Gods, The Norse Gods, so on and so forth. The difference between an atheist and a monotheist is that the atheist takes one more step, and does not believe in any Gods. So as I said, atheism is not a lifestyle. It does not say you must live a certain way. But what about political beliefs. Is atheism more compatible with one over another? Is it more compatible with Communism, or is it more compatible with Libertarianism? I think it is obvious to see why the latter is a better choice when it comes to reconcilability. So let me make the argument.

First, I think it is better to discuss this topic by using strong atheism, rather than weak atheism to discuss the compatibility between politics and the lack of belief in Gods. Strong atheism, or antitheism, is an assertion and can be looked at as a philosophical position. A person who is against religion can discuss the reasons why and make compelling arguments against religion. The atheist, who just lacks belief in Gods, is just that, and it does not go much deeper than that. The same way we do not call people non alchemists, or non coin collectors, or non Catholics, they just do not believe. I think Libertarianism and Atheism go hand in hand. Libertarainsim is based on the non aggression principle (NAP) and it says that no one is allowed to initiate force against your physical person or private property. Self defense and punishments for criminals are permissible, however, aggressive actions like murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud, trespass, vandalism, etc. are all violations of the NAP. Libertarians believe that The State is illegitimate since it is an institution with a monopoly on force and ultimate decision making power in a geographical region. The State is coercive and it murders, kidnaps, and steals. It is perhaps the greatest plunderer and threat to human rights and freedom man has ever seen. What does this have to do with antithesim. Well, organized religion is hierarchical and coercive.  So if you take one of the monotheistic religions, more specifically Christianity or Islam, let’s say Christianity for argument’s sake. There are certian rules and guidleines you must follow in order to be rewarded with eternal life after death. There are many things you can do in life that are victimless crimes here on earth, or not even a crime anywhere in the universe, however, the celestial overseer, the dictator in the sky, will punish you with a hard handed and excruciating punishment if you break these rules and do not ask for forgiveness. The Ten Commandments, sacred scripture, and religious precepts govern the kingdom of God, and religion says you are bound by them here on earth, and breaking them could mean a fiery and tortuous afterlife in a place called Hell. If you break God’s rules you could land a one way ticket to a place a thousand times hotter than the Sun, where all the dregs of humanity reside, the serial killers, the murderers, the thieves, the rapists, the torturers, unless of course they asked for forgiveness then they are with God and Jesus. I find this to be a ridiculous proposition. Especially since . If a person committed atrocious acts of violence for 3/4 of their life and then on their death bed, that person asks for forgiveness, God has a place for them in heaven. I find this a repulsive idea, that someone like Ted Bundy, or Heinrich Himmler, could be forgiven for their crimes by the all loving God by merely asking for forgiveness and salvation. After all, a so called benevolent God who created these horrible people and who permitted them to inflict suffering and pain to people sounds rather sinister. But if you show disrespect to God, or you do not believe in God, or you criticize the idea of God, or you are disrespect your parents, or you covet things, or if you are a homosexual, or eat certain food, you may very well find yourself in a burning dungeon, with the sound of wretched moaning and blood curdling screams for eternity. This is absurd and perhaps even more sinister and evil. But many people believe in this nonsense. They believe if you are gay, or you are an atheist, or if you admire your stamp collection more than God, this will send you straight to Hell. So dogmatic religion and libertarianism would no mix well philosophically since libertarians oppose coercion. They oppose The State. So religion and God are very similar to The State. The geographical area that that is monopolized with the threat of eternal damnation is the earth, Heaven, Hell, and the whole universe. The monopolizer of this coercion and threat of violent punishment for not believing is this celestial overseer we call God. Sort of a despotic dictator of the transcendent realm. If you eat the wrong thing or have sex with the wrong person, you will very likely be punished here and in the afterlife according to scripture. This is like living in a perpetual 1984 times a trillion!

Many atheists identify with Communism or political and social collectivism. This seems logical since Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto, was a staunch atheist. I do not think Communism and atheism go together though. Communism replaces God and supernatural power and judgement with statist power and force. The Communists and Progressive Leftists want people to worship The State and Big Government. If you are an anarcho-communist, and you oppose The State and capitalism, you are still in favor of using force to seize private property. Anarcho-communists are still in favor of mob rule and central governmental panels who have been elected by a system of mob rule (democracy) making the ultimate decisions on how resources are allocated among the people living in the commune of city, or wherever this political system exists. I think Ayn Rand’s rejection of faith is more realistic. She rejects mainly because it is irrational. She talked about how a lack of knowledge was not a license to invent fantasies. Instead, humanity should strive to expand its knowledge.

So in conclusion, I think a person who is consistent in their beliefs and who calls themselves a libertarian, should also reject the dogma of religion. There are many wonderful people who are devout theists. There are people in my family who I love dearly who are religious and believe in God. They have a right to believe what they want. People have an inalienable right to practice a religion as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process. Unfortunately, there are religions which exist today, which are extremely violent. I do not have to name them. You know which ones they are and one in particular which has been responsible for human rights violations and ultra violence for 1400 years. So the problem is that religion has many coercive elements and ideas ingrained in the holy books and if people are just going to pick the good parts and do away with the bad, then why do we need religion at all? Libertarians who are against The State and support the NAP, would be much more consistent if they were antitheists. I do not see how religious dogma that is very coercive and is used to condition young susceptible children into believing in God is an acceptable practice and in line with the objectives of freedom. I find it unsettling for a person who is a supporter of freedom to submit to a supernatural morality monitor who they have never met and in which there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of this God. the only evidence, if you call it that, is a holy book or books that were written eons ago by extremely fallible men living in the desert way before The Age of Enlightenment, The Theory of Evolution, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Immanuel Kant, David Hume and other world changing contributions and discoveries. If you support freedom and the NAP, I think it would also be logically consistent to reject organized religion and celestial dictatorships.

Republican Fear and War Mongers

I don’t tune in to Republican debates,or any political debate for that matter, with the expectation of walking away with a sense of enlightenment or an intellectually stimulating experience. I will watch these debates only for the entertainment value and because I think it’s important to be up to date with what the plunderers, crooks, thieves, propagandists, and murderers, better known as the presidential candidates, are saying and plotting for the mostly unsuspecting masses. Once you understand how the political class operates it is so easy to see how pernicious these people really are once they start speaking about various issues. The Democrats pander to third world law breakers who they will put on welfare and forcibly integrate into our communities. They are champions of unrestricted immigration programs and refugee programs, not because they care about these people. They only support the idea that it’s American to welcome and support throngs of invaders, many who are diseased, poor, and have the propensity to commit violent crimes, so they can build up their base. The goal is to create a voting bloc so big that future elections will be in the bag. The Republicans like unfettered immigration too since their wealthy campaign donors will benefit from all the cheap labor. One of the main pet projects and visions of The Republican Party is to have the most powerful military in the world, an interventionist foreign policy, and of course, be “strong” on national security. This is what one can expect from this group and it was a non stop back and forth on the debate stage last night with respect to who is the strongest on foreign policy and national security. The amount of fear that the Republicans use to rile up their constituents and loyal supporters has only gotten worse post 9/11. And in the wake of the San Bernardino attacks, the Republican fear mongers and war hawks, have put the issue of national security and U.S. military prowess front and center. The war drums are beating and the war rhetoric has reached full throttle.

The only country has slid into paranoia and hysteria after the Paris Attacks in November, and just a couple of weeks ago the San Bernardino attacks. People are afraid to fly on airplanes, they don’t want to do shopping, and many are willing to sacrifice their privacy and civil liberties for a false sense of security. The media has played a major role in this psychosis that has enveloped the country. Sensibility and rationality has gone out the window and when that happens it opens the door for a warmonger to step up and gain support from the terrified electorate. The media reports every threat. Someone can look at someone the wrong way and it’s breaking news on every channel. An entire school district in L.A. was shut down yesterday as a result of a unreliable threat. The threat had no credibility, and yet school officials closed 900 schools and thousands of students stayed home. This is becoming outrageous. Of course we want children and people to be safe, but over reacting every time someone writes a threatening email from a cafe in Brussels is going to turn this society upside down. Islamic terrorism is a very dangerous and imminent threat to Western Civilization. It threatens Muslims and Non-Muslims alike, and the ideology espoused by these savages is a violent political and religious ideology that has been intertwined to achieve worldwide dominance. However, we must behave rationally and realize that you have a better chance of dying from food poisoning, from a brain parasite, in a car accident, being struck by lightning, or by drowning in a bathtub than you from terrorism. The chance of dying in a terror related attack is one in the tens of millions. Maybe the Republicans should fight a war on the public road system since 30,000-40,000 people a year die on public roads and highways. Better yet, let the private sector handle the roads and highways. The Republicans are hell bent are ending terrorism. How ironic, since it was U.S. Foreign Policy along with backing from some allies which has created the chaos and destabilization in The Middle East.

The U.S. government has transformed The Middle East into a snake pit. It is an area of the world which has been in a state of disorder for centuries. When foreign governments meddle in these affairs, arm rebels who they think are freedom fighters but are actually barbarians who chop people’s heads off and burn people alive and want to bring us back to the 7th century, and when foreign governments topple dictators and provide support to brutal dictators all over this region, it is now wonder there is blowback from these ill advised policies. George W. Bush invades Iraq in 2003, kills hundreds of thousands of civilians. The country spends over a trillion dollars fighting this war and training the Iraqi military. When the U.S. leaves the Iraqi military runs away from ISIS. Then you have the Arab Spring, more like The Arab Fall, where the U.S. gets involved and plays a major role in toppling dictators. Then you have the U.S. arming Syrian rebels are actually Sunni jihadists and savages who want to bring a thousand years of darkness and tyranny to the planet. So this is why you have these terrorist groups like ISIS running around. Part of it is because of the ideology which fuels jihadism but it also has to do with U.S. and Western Foreign Policy of incessant entanglements in matters that should not concern these intervening states. But the answer we got from the fear mongers and war mongers that make up The Republican Party and the neocons that contribute and work for Fox News, is more war and interventionism and an Orwellian police state that would make Orwell’s 1984 look like Candy Land.

The Democrat Party has been the party of war throughout American History. I mean you have Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Harry Truman (Korean War), LBJ (Vietnam War). It has not been until recently that The Republicans have taken over that role. The Old Right and The Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan, Russell Kirk, Frank Chodorov did not support an interventionist foreign policy. Nevertheless, since Reagan and Bush I and Bush III, hopefully not a Bush III, it has been a integral part of the Republican Platform to embrace and support a massive military with an out of control budget, along with, a desire to go to war if one of “our” so called interests are threatened anywhere in the world. The problem is the U.S. has a military prsence and these made up American interests in over 150 countries. So any concocted violation of these interests could be a pretext for war. This is insane and is what really puts American citizens in danger. All I heard from these blood thirsty jingoists last night, with the exception of Rand Paul, who is a statist by the way, just more Libertarian leaning, is that we must defeat ISIS, we must remove Assad, we must control the internet, we must collect metadata and spy on the American people to prevent a threat which is less likely dying in a building fire. Blowhards like Christie and Trump want to spy and collect date. Trump wants to regulate the internet. Rubio wants to collect massive amounts of data as he champions the rights of Syrian refugees to infiltrate our cities and towns. Cruz wants to wage another long war which will kill innocent civilians and cost another trillion dollars, maybe more. Bush, like Cruz, and pretty much all the others want to travel four thousand and five thousand miles away, to the corners of the earth to hunt people down. The U.S. government flipped the switch that delivered the electricity into the Arab Middle Eastern Problem. Now they want to fight and defeat this Frankenstein with fear tactics and trillion dollar military campaigns. All that will do is create more Frankenstein’s and then you are just playing a giant game of whack-a-mole.

The solution is to let the Arab countries resolve their own problems. The coalition of these 65 countries should not include the United States. This country has a mountain of domestic and economic issues that are being made worse by the political elite and crony capitalists. The taxpaying American citizen should not be on the hook for another expensive and unjust war. Rand Paul made a smidgen of sense in this last debate. It’s just too bad he is a libertarian leaning constitutional conservative and not a principled and consistent libertarian. The way to fix these problems is to close the borders, or at least restrict immigration to a minimum with a policy of discrimination in place. The welfare state must be completely abolished, there should be no gun laws that restrict or infringe upon the inalienable right to self defense and to bear arms, and all U.S. military bases and foreign embassies should by closed with all military personnel returning the American bases immediately. The military budget should be cut drastically and political incorrectness should be protected and encouraged everywhere in America. I would go much further than this, peacefully and as a law abiding citizen of course, but the ideal solution would be an anarcho-capitalist society. Anyway, The Republicans, and the media, and the neocons are preying on people’s fear and concerns to build a gigantic police state and increase their hegemonic power in The Middle East. The State needs war, and fear, and dependency, and helplessness from the exploitable and dewy eyed masses to survive and grow strong. I hope if you are reading this you are not that gullible and naive.


What Halloween Means for Society

Once a year many people around the world dress up in costumes, throw parties, carve jack-o-lanterns, bob for apples, and of course go trick or treating. These traditions are associated with the well known holiday called Halloween which takes place on October 31st every year. The holiday dates back centuries and the traditions and practices associated with the occasion have changed quite few times over the years. But what is the meaning of Halloween? Does it have any purpose besides dressing up in scary masks and ringing door bells looking for homeowners to plop copious amounts of candy into pillow cases or baskets that look like a witch’s cauldron or carved pumpkin? What are the underlying ramifications for society as a whole? Does Halloween teach us any good lessons?

Halloween has it roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain when people would light large bonfires and where costumers to keep away spirits. This goes back approximately 2,000 years and the festival marked the end of summertime and the start of darkness in winter. Christianity had a major influence on Halloween too. The holiday eventually became known as All Saints Day, or All-Hallows. Many of the same rituals,like lighting bonfires, remained apart of the festivities. Halloween was not a mainstream holiday in early America. It was celebrated sparsely throughout the colonies in through the 17th to 18th centuries but did not really gain any traction until the late 19th century when more Europeans came to the country. Finally, we have the modern day version of Halloween which has evolved into trick or treating, horror movies, and costume parties. So what are the benefits of Halloween, if any? I would say none. Let me explain.

I was a kid once and I remember going trick or treating for a few hours with my mother and some friends. As I got older I would go alone with my friends and carry a pillowcase since that could hold way more candy than a plastic container in the shape of a pumpkin. I used to come home with mounds of candy. And then when I was a teenager and in my twenties I would go to Halloween parties and party the night away. So I did enjoy Halloween for many years. I have not celebrated the holiday in years. I now have time to reflect and look back on the years I did partake in the festivities. I can now analyse the dark custom from a much more mature perspective. I am able to see the many defects and shortcomings of this day from a rational angle and not from the lens of an indulgent child or immature teenager. Although, I must point out that many adults behave like toddlers and sorority/fraternity members on Halloween too.

This idea of sending children out to go door to door and beg for candy is not a virtue. What kinds of ethics is one instilling in their offspring when they send them to their neighbors’ homes and neighboring communities to ring bells and beg for candy? It teaches them to be vagabonds and panhandlers. Some even dress the part. I know it is only one day out of the year, but I am merely pointing out the side effects this one day might have on susceptible minds. Then you have the candy aspect of the holiday. We already live in a society where parents think a doughnut is a wholesome breakfast and that a TV  dinner or frozen fish sticks in a nutritious dinner. And that is on the nights when they aren’t at the drive through window ordering greasy hamburgers and fries to feed their children. So it’s no wonder children are obese and there is an epidemic of health issues in young kids, like diabetes, that never existed in the past. Now we want to encourage them to beg for poison? The insane amounts of sugar in these treats along with the chemical compounds that make up this junk food that are impossible to pronounce because the chemical name is 24 letters long with 9 syllables. This garbage is something you would not want a barnyard animal to ingest, let alone your own kids. If you monitor their intake that’s fantastic. But some kids come home with enough candy to last until next Halloween.

Then you have the hooligans who cause property damage. These menaces spray shaving cream, throw eggs, spray paint, break windows, and deface the neighborhood on Halloween night. Now, of course it’s not every kid,but it’s enough to make property owners vigilant and keep a watchful eye on their property. It becomes a major nuisance and property damage should be punished to the fullest extant of the law. It should not be encouraged on certain days of the year. Then you have Satanic rituals, devil worship, and slasher movies. People are free to believe and watch what they want. Some people find a thrill in being terrified and that’s fine. I would just say that the moral fabric of a society is stretched when you have people who engage in dark fantasies and portray themselves as evil and monstrous killers even if it’s only done once a year and non violently. I support the right of people to dress up anyway they want, as whoever they want. If people want to use the holiday as a way to release their darker inhibitions, that should be permissible.As long as people are peaceful and do not hurt anyone or damage anyone’s property they should be free to do what they want on Halloween. I can only give my modest opinion about the habits of the day and comment on the practices that I think bring negative consequences to communities.

On Halloween, I’ll probably lock my door and not answer it when it rings. I’ll make it look like I am home so maybe the costumed thugs who do not get any candy from me will think twice about egging my car. But I guess that’s the chance I take for not giving in to ass backwards societal norms that teach kids to be leeches and permit adolescents to be vandals. I know, people will say I am a grump. I was once a kid and participated in this silly tradition. But now I see how ridiculous it is. Anyway, I know most of the people out there are innocent parents, children, and teenagers, who just want to have fun. I hope the people who celebrate Halloween today take into consideration a few things I said and use common sense. They should take precautions and try to be safe. I support people’s freedom to beg, eat toxic junk food, dress up like ghastly monsters, and throw wild Halloween parties. But that does not mean I am not allowed to have a boisterous opinion on these matters. I will condemn any traditions that I think are ruinous to civilized society. Finally, property damage and the initiation of violence towards people is never acceptable. That rule does not change on October 31st.

Thin VS Thick Libertarianism

There is a controversy among libertarian circles that has become frequent. I intend to shed some light on this quarrel that has been going on for some time now. The ultimate objective is to explain the difference between thin and thick libertarianism in an effort to bring clarification and resolve to the argument of what these terms actually mean. There is also a controversy on whether or not thick libertarians are libertarians at all. For instance, are left libertarians, who explicitly denounce private property rights, to be considered libertarians? They are clearly thick. But to further this discussion, I must first explain what it mean to be thin or thick.

Thin libertarians adhere to the non aggression principle (NAP) and believe the initiation of force may not be initiated against anyone else or their property. This is the only principle or axiom that defines their libertarianism. All debates, issues, and arguments come back to whether or not the non aggression principle has been violated. This is a universal truth that applies to everyone and no one can be subjective on whether or not the iniatiation of force is permissable. It is wrong no matter who initiates aggression or where it is done. On the other hand, the thick libertarian seeks to expand of the definition of libertarianism, most will accept the NAP, others will define libertarianism based on a wide range of philosophies,moral theories, and ways people should live their lives to achieve freedom. Thick libertarians who believe in the NAP also argue that in order to have a well organized and logically coordinated philosophy of freedom, then libertarianism must include more ideas that directly relate to human rights and freedom. This is thick libertarianism. Although, I think that if they believe in NAP and have other values and ways to achieve freedom and advance society that is non aggressive, that could be considered thin. So the thin libertarian says that libertarianism is only concerned with acceptable uses of force. That is all libertarianism is, where as, the thick libertarians say it is and should be more than that. So for instance, you might have libertarians who say “I want to live in a society where I can do anything I want as long as I do not steal or hurt anybody”. They many want to take drugs, have brothels, and share their food with vagrants. The other community might say, we support the non iniatiation of force but instead of being socially liberal, they may be culturally and socially conservative. They may support the traditional family, be against prostitution, prohibit reckless drug use, and despise egalitarianism. So people can live anyway they want.

Libertarianism is a philosophy that supports freedom and not a value system or moral philosophy. Thick libertarians say that some other cultural value system must be applied to everyone as a universal axiom. So left libertarians might say that there is no private property or land ownership, It must all be shared and allocated based on human needs. That’s very thick and it violates the NAP. You might have a minarchist who says that taxes are necessary to fund courts, that violates the NAP. You might have a a religious libertarian who says religious law should be followed. These practices are not in line with libertarianism becuase they violate NAP. But if you have a hedonist who seeks pleasure that is immoral but does not violate the NAP, they are still libertarians But they are thicker libertarians. Same goes for libertarians who seek to live in a society based on the values of Western civilization, they are thicker.

The real problem arises for people who call themselves libertarians but want to be against all forms of so called oppression. Even if the oppression is not really oppression at all, but just natural inequality brought about biologically or through a series of poor decisions made by a person. This is precisely how classical liberalism turned into modern day progressive-egalitarian liberalism which strives to make everyone equal in every imaginable way through the use of force by The State or some centrlaized panelof decision makers. For a certain group of purported libertarians, it’s not enough to denounce State aggression. The thick libertarians, the left libertarians, mostly of the anarcho-communist variety, are also for fighting the so called oppression of capitalism, poverty, discrimination, and political incorrectness. They seek to change the natural order into favorable living situations for everyone. They see utility and preference as objective. They believe they can socially and economically design society. And they morality as subjective and not objective. These positions are fundamentally incorrect and should be looked at in the opposite way. That is, preference is subjective and some bureaucrat or commune leader should not be deciding what someone needs to live a happy life. The other is that morality is universally applicable and there is no such thing as moral relativism in the very broad sense. The anarcho-communists and the anarcho-syndicalists, who claim to be real libertarians, complain about the intolerance of people who support private property,freedom of association, and capitalism. But these specific left libertarians would use violence to take and destroy private property and have in the past. The Occupy Movement has demonstrated this disregard for private property in a very convincing manner. At best, most left libertarians, anarcho-communists and the like, are thick. More accurately, they are frauds, with illogical positions. They claim to be for tolerance but if you do not support egalitarianism, democracy, hedonism, and communitarianism, they say you are not a libertarian. These people are free to live their lives anyway they want, in whatever society they want. But once they start forcing their beliefs on other libertarians, that is aggression and not libertarian in any sense of the word. And to further clarify, I am not talking about left libertarians like Roderick T.Long,Keven Carson, Samuel Edward Konkin III, who founded agorism. I agree with much of what these libertarian theoreticians say and have said. I disagree with Long and Carson on many issues, but I think they are legitimate libertarians. I agree with many left libertarians. It’s the anarcho-communists I find to be illogical and contradictory.

Anarcho-capitalists and paleolibertarians hold certain principles like free markets, cultural conservative values, and private property to be integral parts of their societies. These communities, or societies, are voluntary and no one is forced to live there, however, property owners are free to choose who is permitted on their land, or in their home or business. The freedom to associate is libertarian and I think it is in line with thin libertarianism. That is, the right to discriminate and own private property and possesions you homestead,purchase, inherit,or receive through gifting. Moreover, I think thick libertarians can be social and political activists and support things like anti-racism and the environment, however,i think the non aggression principle, the absence of The State, and private property could address those things in an effective manner and without all the violent rhetoric. Violent racism would be taken care of but not all racism. Being racist is stupid and immoral even if it’s non violent. But non violent racism can not and must not be punished with force, and it seems that many people want to eradicate sentiments they disagree with and that they find offensive even though holding those sentiments does not involve violence. The ones trying to eradicate non violent racism, as bad as it is, with force are the ones who are acting violently.

In conclusion, if you are someone that supports the non aggression principle and that’s all you look at when deciding the proper use of force pertaining to various issues and subjects (abortion, contracts, The State, boycotts, war, racism, child rights, victimless crimes,etc.) Then you are the thinnest of the thin. Walter Block is someone I would consider the thinnest of the thin. If you are hold the NAP as a central tenet, but also believe in other non violent cultural and social values, right or left, that does NOT involve strategic violence as a means to achieve those goals or enforce those objectives for maximum freedom, I would say you are thin. And finally, you have libertarians who believe in the NAP, and others who do not follow the NAP, but what makes them thick is that they apply some other value system, or subjective moral system, made up of a wide array of ideas and guidelines,and they universally apply it to everyone. They apply, what they believe to be,universal maxims that are subjective and really based on moral relativism to every human being. Examples include, being anti-private property, supporting egalitarian ends by coercive redistribution of wealth, social justice that involves violence against so called offenders to achieve justice for so called victims, militant feminism, etc. These are extremely thick libertarians.. The people who call themselves libertarians that would use violence, theft of private possessions, intimidation, to transform a whole society to meet their brand of freedom and to achieve social justice and egalitarianism, are not libertarians. They are so thick with nonsensical beliefs that they disqualify to be called libertarians.  I would say anarcho-capitalists are thin. Anarcho -conservatives who live in defined restrictive communities that discrimninate are thin too,since discrimination is based on private property and the freedom to associate. Their values and moral philosophy are non violent and in line with the advancement of freedom and civilized society,with the NAP being the central principle of this voluntary organization. If you do not like these guidelines and rules, or you are not welcome in a community. You can live somewhere else,or homestead other property. There are choices between what is hopefully millions and millions of world communities in a much larger anarchist world. The left libertarians, the anarcho-communists, want no private property, and mob rule through democracy decided by panels, and social justice, and hardcore egalitarinism. There is no choice. Just social engineering and a bunch of hippies deciding what you need to service and be happy. Hopefully this enlightens people on what it means to be for freedom and what it means to be against the initiation of force.

Anarcho-Conservatism Explained

There are quite a few political philosophies out there and when people are asked where they fit on the political spectrum, you are likely to get a plethora of different answers. When a person identifies as either a liberal or a conservative, then you have a pretty good idea of the general worldviews that person holds. It’s not enough to just say you are liberal or conservative though. Those labels are ambiguous and can have a whole host of meanings. For instance, conservatism is a very broad philosophy with a few different sub groups. There are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. There are paleoconservatives and neoconservatives. There are also constitutional conservatives. Paleoconservatives are for limited government. They have a tendency to be nationalists. They are usually for a policy of non intervention when it comes to war and foreign affairs. They are also socially conservative and support the traditional family and are pro-life. They are vehemently against illegal immigration, and, are not fond of legal immigration either for that matter. The philosophy has its roots in The Old Right and in traditional conservatism found in the teachings and writings of Edmund Burke, and more recently, Russel Kirk. They even derive many of their sentiments from influences as far back as Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun. One of their objectives is to preserve Western culture. Patrick J. Buchanan is a notable paleoconservative along with conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage. Savage uses the motto “Borders, Language, and Culture”. They do not have much in common with the Neoconservatives who are linked to people like William F. Buckley Jr. and Irving Kristol, and more recently, his son Bill Kristol. They strongly support military interventionism and big government policies that have more in common with liberal progressivism, with a mainstream conservative patina. The Fox News Channel is mostly made up of neocons like Sean Hannity and Charles Krauthammer. The constitutional conservatives are strict textualists when it comes to The U.S. Constitution. Two things all of these brands of conservatism have in common is that they all support The State and some form of centralized government and they are not really conservative philosophies in the most fundamental sense. The only real conservatism is anarchism. The only real anarchism is conservatism. This philosophy, as it will be discussed in the next few paragraphs, has not been thoroughly explained and presented to the world. The philosophy is called Anarcho-Conservatism.

There is a libertarian philosophy called Anarcho-Capitalism. This libertarian system says that The State is illegitimate since it has a monopoly on force and ultimate decision making power in a given geographical region and that it should be eliminated and replaced with a system of anarchy that operates on laissez faire economics, free trade (voluntary exchange), and where all goods and services are privatized and compete for market share. These services would include defense agencies, police/security agencies, courts/resloution organizations/arbitration firms, money, roads/highways and any other marketable and commidfiable goods and services that you could imagine. Victimless crimes like drug use, not wearing a seat belt, gambling, prostitution, would not be punished under this framework. However, private property rights are the cornerstone of this philosophy along with the non aggression principle (NAP). Private property owners will decide who is permitted on their property and the non aggression principle (NAP) says that force can not be initiated against anyone’s private property that is legitimately acquired through homesteading, free trade, or an inheritance. And obviously, the initiation of force against someone’s private property rights in their body (ownership over their own physical person) is also prohibited. This philosophy was influenced by Ludwig Von Mises and The Austrian School of Economics along with Individualist Anarchism Theory. Murray Rothbard was the first economist and libertarian theorist to define anarcho-capitalism and is the father of modern day libertarianism. Anarcho-conservatism and anarcho-capitalism are directly related to one another and they can be used as synonyms for one another. However, anarcho-capitalism can fit under the banner of anarcho-conservatism and anarcho-conservatism can fit under anarcho-capitalism since capitalism is a conservative principle and conservatism is directly linked with pure free market capitalism. It’s safe to say that anarcho-conservatism covers more ground and not only encompasses the whole philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, but  it also addresses and is defined by many other philosophical principles that directly pertain to the formation and preservation of civilized societies. The Natural Order, morality, punishment theory, cultural values, social relationships, and human behavior are all important pieces to this overall philosophy as they relate to objective conservative values and norms.

An Anarcho-conservative society is of course a stateless society. It would function based on voluntary social cooperation and the division of labor. The society would be part of a much larger anarchist society. It would only differ in that it would be a defined community or territory based on conservative values and a capitalist economy. Other ways to describe or label this political philosophy would be Right Wing Anarchism, Right Libertarianism, Anti-State Cultural Conservatism, Stateless Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism (although anarcho-capitalism mainly just focuses on Austrian Economics, the non aggression principle, private property rights, and contract theory). The late Murray Rothbard and living libertarian theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe are anarcho-capitalists who are also cultuarlly conservative. They might be called anarcho-conservatives. Perhaps Rothbard would have disagreed with the label. But it seems like it would fit based on his writings and stances on a number of topics.  Anyhow, as I said, neocons like Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, Mark Levin, and most of The Republican party, are not real conservatives. They are statist plunderers who support their idea of monopolized force. They want to police the world and make sure western democracy is forcibly disseminated throughout the world by waging incessant wars and by meddling in foreign affairs. Many of these people I just mentioned are not only war mongers but religious zealots as well and believe God is watching over America. They support out of control defense spending, heavy regulation and punishment for behavior they deem immoral, (The War on Drugs), and want to preserve statism and mob rule through democracy as long as it fits into their ideology of global dominance and crony capitalism. Modern day mainstream conservatives are center-right socialists. Pure and authentic conservatism strives to preserve the  societal values and institutions that work to keep humanity from devolving back into barbarism while also putting humanity on a trajectory towards advancement and prosperity. There are certain elements within a society that will hinder and deteriorate this stability that conservatism provides and there are other principles that will allow conservatism to stay fully intact and function so that it meets its full potential.

So first, economically,anarcho-conservatism is based entirely on laissez faire economics and voluntary trade. Anarcho-conservatism strives to unleash the ingenuity of unfettered entrepreneurship  and unrestricted free market capitalism that is only regulated through competition, private property contracts, and the invisible hand. This economic system is the only economic and political system that will bring people out of poverty on the largest scale and is the only way for civilization to advance technologically and as a people. Next, anarcho-conservatism strives to preserve the Natural Order. What is The Natural Order? Well, first off divine law seeks authority from God, and positive law makes government the authority, so The Natural Order is structured based on natural law and the objective and universal morality within these laws. For instance, private property is a concept that is logically deduced from reason and is an a priori truth. I don’t want to digress into a long explanation on private property ethics, for that you can read Hans-Hermann Hoppe who is a genius when it comes to private property anarchism and private law society. So The Natural Order is a system that arises without government interference or dogmatic laws from the imaginery celestial kingdoms from invented Gods. The Natural Order is based on systems of private property, the NAP, production, voluntary exchange, and social relationships which allow a civilization to advance and burgeon in no time. What develops is a Westernized Bourgeois civilization with an aristocracy that climbs to the top. These nobles/aristocrats would not be rulers but trusted members of this society that would participate in legal services/arbitration, peacekeeping, give trusted opinions on various issues etc. They would be the nobles of this community and lend their expertise, mostly free of charge, as a public good, or actually a private service. Since they know the bourgeoisie have great expectations of these elite nobles based on their past accomplishments and wisdom that made them nobles in the first place and these nobles have a desire to keep the community civil and moral. This is a bourgeois class system with a higher class of well respected nobles. A natural aristocracy if you will. And it is all voluntary. As far as social norms and cultural norms. This is just a framework but, an anarcho-conservative community, however large it may be,  will be part of a network of other communities that hold similar values. Communities and territories would compete in a stateless society. The best ones rising to the top and creating the most prosperity all while protecting private property rights and  voluntarism. So I am not talking about this one society as if the population of its inhabitants is in the hundreds of millions.I am talking about this society as if it exists on a continental land mass like North America where there is no State, just thousands or tens of thousands of competing communities that have their own defined legal systems and cultural norms. So hopefully most are anarcho conservatives,but there would be all types. Anarcho-communist, anarcho-conservative,religious communities, gay communities, feminist communities, different ethnic communities so on and so forth. The focus in this piece is mainly on an anarcho conservative community within a much larger anarchist society made up of thousands of sovereign territories, cantons, municipalities, communities, villages, neighborhoods so on and so forth.

But back to social and cultural norms within an anarcho-conservative framework. If you read Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard, they discuss cultural conservative values that would work best in a libertrian society. Here is an elaboration. So cultural values would be ones that again preserve the Natural Order. This civilization would look to preserve the knowledge gained during The Enlightenment. The teachings of the major European philosophers of the 17th , 18th, and 19th centuries would be taught. Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, John Locke, Voltaire, Descartes, Hegel, Spinoza,and many more. The political theories and writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner,  Max Stirner, Herbert Spencer, Mencken, and Frank Chodorov would also be integral parts of this society. The ideal system of morals and virtue would be based on Ayn Rand’s objectivism. Rand’s political beliefs would be irrelevant and not very useful since she was an apologist for limited government. Atheism/secularism would be the dominant way of thinking in this conservative and stateless society. There would be no established theocracies or central churches that govern, which, incidentally can have very little contrast and much more resemblance to central governments that operate with propaganda and force.  Some might say, well aren’t conservatives religious? The mainstream conservative Evangelicals are religious but this does not mean very much. It is actually quite irrelevant and useless when trying to build a society based on logic and reason and not superstition and dogmatism. Anarcho-conservatives are looking to protect and maintain the ideas of the earlier philosophers and political theorists, many of which were deists, but would surely be atheists if they lived during the publication of The Origin of Species by Darwin. This civilization must be one that is based on reason, critical thinking, skepticism, and logic.  Exceptions might be made but in large part I think the conservation of secularism and free thought is what would be front and center.

Many of the ideas associated with paleolibertarianism, except the the support of right wing populists in political elections, would probably best describe the social and cultural constructs of this philosophy of anarcho-conservatism. The right to discriminate is absolutely essential in this type of society. Private Property Rights, The NAP, and freedom of association are all intertwined so DISCRIMNATION is an imperative. So who and what would be discriminated against to preserve the conservative and capitalist order in this anarchist sub community that is part of a larger network of anarchist cities and towns? These are the people and behaviors that would be discriminated against, not all the time, but most of the time. Hedonists and perpetual seekers of pleasure. They are predictably unproductive and they put pleasure over rational decision making. Hardcore drug addicts would be banned from entering these communities. It’s one thing if medicinal herbs are being used for curing disease and ailments, recreational use may be permitted, but junkies, dopers, and manipulative hardcore addicts will be prohibited from residing within the confines of these conservative districts. Feminists, egalitarians, social justice warriors (ultra intolerant cowards), communists, race agitators, Keynesians, monetarists, central planners, supporters of single payer healthcare, supporters of bureaucracy, and supporters of the minimum wage ARE NOT ALLOWED!  Beggars, vagabonds, sun-downers, leeches, lazy fat slobs, lazy skinny slobs, and blood suckers will definitely be expunged from anarcho-conservative communities. Blood sucking ticks would be welcome before parasitic human refuse who live off the production of their hosts through thievery, intimidation, and violence. So for instance, The Occupy Wall Street types and egalitarian cretins who want to “share” but have they nothing to share but drugs and anarcho-syndicalist pamphlets. They are banned from anarcho-conservative communities. They just want to steal your stuff and call it equality. The traditional family is an integral component of this covenant community and the nuclear and extended family strongly supports the division of labor and healthy development of people with both a father and mother in the home raising their child or children to become productive members of society. Non traditional relationships, unless very conservative and capitalist otherwise, would most likely be discriminated against. Traditional families can live side by side polygamists and LGBT couples, however, these sexual orientations often bring extreme progressive left wing, democratic socialist, and egalitarian baggage with them, and they are usually irrational SJWs and that is not acceptable in this type of community. The only thing worst than The State are Left Libertarians (mutualists syndicalists), egalitarians, and anarcho-communists! Different races, ethnic groups, and cultures are welcome as long as they do not infringe or try to change the dominant culture  which is based mostly on European bourgeois culture. Race and ethnicity is not something that would be discriminated against outright. People will be judged mainly on an individual basis. But there is nothing wrong with a White Nationalist community/territory, the same way there is nothing wrong with a Black Nationalist community/territory.  Now, if there are certain demographics and groups of people that have a substantial number of people within those groups who exhibit immoral, violent, or degenerative behaviors that can be quantified empirically and presented in scientific studies to show a definitive pattern of negative behaviors and negative qualities and traits, then rational discrimination would be warranted under these circumstances.  Remember different communities can trade from afar and communities that are largely made up of one ethnicity may not want capitalists and certain ethnic groups living in their town and that’s fine. Trade from afar is more beneficial and peaceful than culture wars up and conflicts up close. Immigration is of course restricted and anyone who invited a foreigner into the community must take full responsibility for that person’s actions therefore being very careful who they invite to the community. Any immigrants that look to change the culture and bring behavior that is detrimental to conservative values is not permitted to enter. Anyone who violates the NAP (assault, private property violations, contract violations, fraud, theft, rape, abortion, murder) will be tried, convicted,and proportionally punished in private courts by third parties with an appeals process. Punishments will include, depending on the severity of the crime, hard labor, imprisonment, ostracizing that person out of this society and to the peripheral communities or wherever they will be taken in and accepted. Punishments that are proportional (two teeth for a tooth) are decided by the victims of the crime and/or the arbiters trying and deciding these cases. The death penalty is strictly reserved for crimes of murder. The victims or judges/arbiters may sentence the criminal to a proportional punishment that is not as harsh as an execution under this organized private law system. Or perhaps decide just to excommunicate and ostracize the offender. What should happen is usually, but not always, left up to the victims or closest surviving heirs of the victim. In cases where this is not possible, trusted arbiters/nobles/judges will decide based on strict common law and The NAP. Libertines, such as, sluts, trollops, prostitutes, and care free spirits who disregard universal morality and embrace degenerative behavior will not be allowed either. Green tyrants, eco-fascists, global warming alarmists, militant animal rights activists like PETA, and other tree huggers and environmental scamsters would be blocked from entering this society. If, they are interested in living green without protesting fossil fuels and using coercion to make everyone else go green, then they would be welcome with open arms. Green capitalists you are definitely invited to join the community. Parents who do not spank their children are the ones who would fit into this community. And anarcho-conservatives are against war. There would be a private militia trained in guerilla tactics and private defense firms that operate in the insurance market to defend against invaders or outside aggression and imminent threats. People will have an unregulated right to keep and bear arms. But wars that result in mass civilian casualties/collateral damage that are interventionist and imperilastic in nature are something that anarcho-conservatives are vehemently against. The history of U.S. foreign policy is something that anarcho-conservatives do not support and denounce. From Vietnam to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The list of atrocities committed by the U.S. military industrial complex is very long. This is a philosophy that is against barbarism and all of the destructive statist wars! Anti-war is a strong sentiment held among the people of this group. I think it is important to help people and provide charity where the progress can be monitored. The downtrodden and poor should be helped. The mentally ill should be helped and even looked after. The problem arises when bad behavior and immoral decisions become a daily routine for these weaker individuals. If charity becomes a program that enables and encourages immoral behavior then it must be cut off and these people must fend for themselves. So most of the discrimination is based on behaviors that are chosen by people that would ultimately tear at the fabric of the Right Wing Anarchist philosophy. For others that are born with deficiencies and who exhibit behavior that is, not by choice, but still deviant, would ,in most cases be discriminated against when it comes to living in a conservative anarchist town/city. The pros and cons must be weighed and if someone exhibits behaviors that can be considered socially deviant but that person is productive, kind-hearted, and just wants to live in a voluntary society with traditional values,then they should be allowed to join the covenant community. So it’s not black and white. But there should be guidelines. People are only equal under natural law and the common law of a society which is hopefully based on natural human rights. All people are not equal economically, intellectually, physically, or in ability. They are only equal in that they may not be aggressed against and that they can pursue their own values, goals, and legitimate property ownership without the threat of force and without the pursuers of happiness using force to achieve their objectives. Violence is not advocated against people living lives that are not in line with conservative anarchist principles. I will defend their right to do and be who they are as long as they do not initiate force against anyone or that person’s property. They must be willing to respect the freedom and human right to discriminate based on private property. People have an absolute right to live in a community that values private property and capitalism. Everyone has a different value system and should be free to live in a society that fits their values. There can be separate communities that trade and have long lasting peace. The communities will vary and there will be so many competing social and economic systems. There will be some that prosper and some that devolve into chaos. Most societies that try social experiments based on emotions, hippie culture, egalitarianism and social justice will fail miserably. So, with that being said, Anarcho-conservatism is a philosophy with a few main objectives. The objectives are to prevent humankind from devolving back into barbarism. The only way to do this is to conserve and protect the institutions and values that have been most successful for human advancement. Also by discouraging and discriminating against behaviors and values that bring failure, social decay, and death to humanity.

Why live under mob rule? Why live under the tyranny of the financial elite and one world government? Most would agree that five-thousand anarchist countries are better than two-hundred statist countries. And that tens of thousands of defined anarchist communities competing on a continental land mass are better than fifty states with one bloated central government controlling everything. Instead of a thousand plutocrats controlling hundreds of millions, even billions, of people, how about, every individual on earth be sovereign and control their own destiny and lives. Anarchy brings freedom. Statism brings force, tyranny, and serfdom. That is the irrefutable truth.

Planned Parenthood | Clinics of Death

There is a well known organization that operates within the so called civilized western world. This western society being mentioned should be civilized and in a period of post-barbarism in the modern 21st century. That is not the case at the present moment. Western Civilization is collapsing before our eyes. The aforementioned organization calls itself a health care organization that prides itself on women’s healthcare. Its mission is to provide various healthcare services, many that directly pertain to female reproduction, while educating and informing these individuals on the societal effects of human sexuality. They are strong advocates of privacy and this institution promotes research and technological development in areas of reproductive health services. They provide services like HIV testing, contraception, and cancer screening. So what’s uncivilized about that? Well, this organization is called Planned Parenthood and they are the largest provider of abortions in the United States. This organization operates under the fictitious banner of healthcare provider but is in actuality a factory of death. These abortionists and feminazis have destroyed human life in the most inhuman way and they do it under the guise of women’s rights and healthcare. Any person who considers themselves a member of a morally accomplished society would find it difficult to support the gruesome murder of unborn babies in the hundreds of thousands per year. There are many such people who are disgusted at what goes on at these clinics of horror. They are unfortunately forced to pay for the execution of these babies since Planned Parenthood receives federal funding.This is just another abomination. The State is of course an illegitimate concentration of power in the hands of the oligarchs with a monopoly on the use force and final judgments. They steal our privately earned wealth and spend it on wasteful projects all the time. These expenditures are used to wage wars all around the globe, redistribute wealth, build giant buildings for more bureaucrats to work in, do all kinds of frivolous research, and the list is so long it is pointless to list anymore of the wasteful spending of the thieving statists. The State should be denounced and stolen taxes being spent on any public project should not be tolerated by freedom lovers. But how can stolen tax dollars being used to slaughter the unborn be accepted and in many cases praised across the land. It is time to stand up to the pro abortion lobby once and for all. People who have clear consciences that are being clouded by barbaric practices at the expense of their hard earned income, and more importantly, their moral identity, must stand against the mutilators at Planned Parenthood. They are committing genocide with little to no resistance and you are paying for it with a gun to your head.

Margaret Sanger, a racist eugenicist, opened up a birth control clinic in New York which was the first of its kind in The United States. She was the founder of The American Birth Control League which began in 1921 and was later made part of Planned Parenthood. Sanger admitted that she was invited to speak to the women’s branch of the KKK and subsequently gave that speech. She was also outspoken about her disdain for babies and her desire to control which people in society were fit to give birth. These two respective quotes will lend a better insight into the deranged sentiments of this woman. She says, “But for my view, I think there should be no more babies”. She also said, “Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit”. Sounds like a wonderful roll model for future generations of men and women. This is the person who made Planned Parenthood a reality. This feminist hag of the lowest class has left behind a legacy of hate, murder, cultural putrefaction, and generations of sluts who think it is morally superior to sleep around and then kill an innocent child in their womb so they can alleviate any future inconveniences to their purposeless lives.

Planned Parenthood, along with, the abortion doctors, counselors, administrators, and militant feminists who work for this heinous federation, is a deep infectious wound on the back of humanity. They are similar to The Nazi doctors who did experiments on people during the Holocaust but now they call it research. The video that surfaced of the two feminazis casually discussing the sale of body parts of aborted fetuses as they quaffed down wine and indulged in their dining experience, was extremely disturbing to watch. Dr. Deborah Nucatola was very open about partial birth abortion procedures to keep body parts intact so they could be sold for so called research. The tone is reminiscent of a scene in Schindler’s List when Oskar Schindler drops by Amon Goeth’s villa for lunch while Jewish slaves are being tortured and killed just a few yards away in the concentration camp run by Goeth below the hill where the villa overlooks the entire compound. They are preparing to have an elegant lunch with other SS officers present. Goeth is ready for the feast that awaits him and his guests and even compliments Schindler on how magnificent the suit he is wearing looks, especially the sheen. Then there is the other cold-hearted bitch that represents Planned Parenthood and is caught on video discussing the sale of baby body parts. This woman is Mary Gatter and she describes the procedures that yield better organs that can be sold as “less crunchy”. She wants a good price for the merchandise too so she can buy a sports car. She had a Lamborghini in mind. These people are committing crimes against the human race. They are massacring defenseless babies with impunity and it needs to stop.

Planned Parenthood performs over three-hundred thousand abortions a year. This is over thirty percent of the abortions done in the U.S. per year. More than half of their revenue comes from abortions and it is in their best interest to persuade young susceptible females, and even grown adult women, into having abortions. These people call themselves pro-choice. They claim to believe in human rights. They are nothing but sinister cold blooded killers. They have a leftist feminist agenda to fulfill and they receive public funding on top of it all. You do not have to be a religious zealot or  a Christian fundamentalist to be anti-abortion either. If you believe in the non aggression principle and cherish the value of human life, then, it should be clear that abortion violates human rights to an astonishing degree. If life begins at conception, which empirical scientific testing and data has proven, then why are we having this discussing about preserving the lives of the unborn? We will never progress as a society if we are going to say that killing babies inside a mother’s womb is virtuous. A free society would make abortion illegal. The penalties would be comparable to voluntary manslaughter and murder depending on the stages, procedures, and circumstances of the abortion. For example, taking “the morning after pill” that inadvertently kills a blastula would not be punished as severely as a partial birth abortion. The former might be monetary restitution to a children’s hospital, ostracizing that person, and/or hard labor for a few years. The latter would be hard labor for many years, monetary restitution, and even the death penalty with an execution similar to the abortion procedure that killed the child. Proportional penalties for murder would include execution. The criminal (abortionist) can lose their right to life since they have taken away the life of another innocent human being. That would be retributive and also act as a deterrent. The abortion doctors are no different than genocidal technocrats. They would also suffer harsh punishments, of course. The mother should also have to hold her aborted fetus if caught committing this atrocious crime. The Germans were told by The Nazis that The Jews were not human and that they were a hindrance to progress in Germany. They were brainwashed into oblivion and ultimately accepted the reign of terror perpetrated by The Third Reich. When the war was over the citizens of Germany were forced to walk through the death camps. They were forced to witness the piles of bodies and smell the stench of rotting flesh. They played a role in these atrocities. So in a society that prohibits abortion, these women who plan abortions should be forced to watch videos of these heinous procedures as part of their punishment. This is what must be done to preserve The Natural Order and to maintain the moral fabric of industrious societies that hold the value of innocent human lives and cultural excellence as the main pillars of their exceptional existence. Societies and organizations like Planned Parenthood must be peacefully eradicated by educating the public of its malevolent nature and destructive consequences. There is no place for Planned Parenthood in a free society. If women want to have abortions they must be left to their own wicked devices. They should be pushed off the front stoops of communities that value life. They should be left to the periphery where all the other murderers, morally vacant, and unproductive misfits reside.


Foreign Occupiers Are Not Heroes

There are two national holidays that celebrate the “sacrifices”, “heroism”, and “patriotism” of the men and women in uniform who fight around the world to protect the freedoms of American citizens here at home. Memorial Day is a day to remember the fallen soldiers who fought against the ills of the world and who made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our way of life. Veterans Day is a day in which we are supposed to thank our servicemen and women of the military for all they do to keep us safe from the pernicious threats around the globe. If we take a closer look at the military history of the United States of America we will learn that it is not this epic tale of liberation, humanitarian aid, patriotism, and justice. Rather, the record clearly shows one of invasion, conquest, imperialism, murder, and occupation amongst other horrific acts that have occurred around the world. The idea that going into a sovereign country to occupy it so that undefined threats can be eliminated is not something to honor. This has been done time and time again throughout the history of this government. If this was the worst thing that was done in the name of “patriotism” sensible minds might be able to look in another direction. But with this occupation comes murder, theft, and instability. This propaganda that we are the kind liberators of The West and the evildoers are trying to take our freedoms must be looked at and examined in a more direct way.

If you lived under Saddam Hussein you would most likely rejoice at the moment of his demise. After all, this man was a brutal dictator who killed his people in the hundreds of thousands. What if the soldiers who told you they were there to free you, indiscriminately killed your family members, brought chaos to your homeland by inflaming sectarian wars, and paraded through your neighborhoods in military vehicles? Would this type of occupation be tolerated anywhere? Chris Kyle is lauded as a military God for killing hundreds of people who had nothing to do with 9/11 and the rise of Al Qaeda. In fact, the United States had more to do with the strengthening of Al Qaeda than the insurgents in Iraq. The U.S. armed and trained the Mujahideen during their fight against the Russians. The U.S. has occupied parts of The Middle East for decades with no signs of leaving these lands. This creates enemies abroad that hate the U.S. government. These military infringements against the people across these region coupled with a violent and blood thirsty ideology grounded in Islam, creates a cocktail for incessant conflict and war. Many of the people Kyle was killing were protecting their homeland from conquest and genocide. The opposite is reported here in America. We just here the same narrative over and over again. That is, American soldiers are benevolent protectors of humanity and are fighting for justice. They will bring democracy to the world and we will all live in peace. This has not been the result since The War on Terror began. The destruction in Iraq has been unfathomable. There have been hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed during this fighting and now the region has spiraled into turmoil as the armed rebels and ISIS militias are savagely murdering people across Syria and Iraq. This is a direct result of the U.S. military invading Iraq, arming rebels and removing dictators (Gaddafi) during the Arab uprisings during the Spring of 2011, and leaving Iraq with a wobbly political structure that was extremely vulnerable to attack from other threats in the region. The policy should be to allow these people to solve their own problems. Americans have been taken to the cleaners with the funding of these unnecessary wars and are now living in a police/surveillance state as a result of these made up threats. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being killed in a terrorist attack. What about the good wars America has fought? Didn’t the United States liberate Europe?

The United States provoked the attack against Pearl Harbor since Hitler would not take the bait FDR was giving him to attack the U.S. military so they could enter the war. The United States put an oil embargo on Japan and put a freeze on all of their assets. This invited the “sneak” attack on Pearl Harbor and allowed FDR to consolidate more powers under the guise of a national emergency and defense of the homeland. When the U.S. entered Germany the Russians had already gutted and almost completely decimated the German Army. The Third Reich was barely standing on one limb by the time the U.S. entered that theater. The amount of civilian casualties in Germany as a direct result of allied bombings is one of the most egregious examples of war crimes to ever play out. What about Hitler? He was conquering Europe and exterminating Jews by the millions. American sympathizers and historians will say he needed to be removed at all costs. I agree. The Third Reich was a blight on humanity. However,  I think The Russians and The Brits could have handled that on their own. Besides who created a monster like Hitler and paved his way to power. Woodrow Wilson and his role in WWI along with The Treaty of Versailles are some major factors that contributed to Hitler’s rise. The Federal Reserve which brought the crash of 1929 and the global economic collapse of the century also made it extremely easy for Hitler to seize power. The Nazis were fueled by the struggles and hardships of the German people. They exploited the unemployment and blamed convenient scapegoats to become the ruling party.

If you are conscripted into war that is of course kidnapping and against human rights. I do not blame soldiers who were made to be slaves of war. Although, some of them gladly took part in these campaigns since they were brainwashed to believe that it was a patriotic duty to their country. I do not sympathize with veterans who fought and continue to fight in wars for compensation through tax dollars so they can murder innocents and occupy foreign lands. If you say this to them or right wing evangelicals, or nut jobs like Glenn Beck or Mark Levin, they will angrily reply with, “The only reason you can say those things is because the armed forces of America have fought for your freedoms!” This is utter nonsense and people who worship foreign occupation and the military industrial complex should be called out on their propaganda, deceit, and support for this murderous cabal. The Vietnam War brought destruction and murder. It was not to fight for our freedoms and it was a war launched on false pretenses with The Gulf of Tonkin incident to expand the military prowess of America. The Korean War was unjust and another example of meddling in foreign affairs which cost more lives and fortune. The wars in the Middle East have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars so defense contractors get their kickbacks and the oil supply is under more control. The list goes on and on and there have been quite a few books written about the hegemony of this government. The point is that people should not praise murderers like Chris Kyle. They should not think it is their patriotic duty to support unjust wars waged by a government who spies on its own citizens and taxes them into oblivion.  Patriotism does not mean loyalty to a tyrannical super structure that uses rhetoric and lies to enslave people without them realizing they have been duped into buying this garbage. Patriotism is about supporting your freedom, culture, and the values of where you live. It has nothing to do with supporting a giant bureaucracy or an immense war machine. The heroes are not the invading victors. The heroes are often the people you never hear about or hear about too seldom. They are the people who stand for natural human rights and freedom. The heroes do not support malicious snipers, invading forces that murder innocents despite so called good intentions, and they do not support incessant occupation of their land.

Protecting Private Property in a Stateless Society

The reality of our existence directly pertains to the fact that we do not live in a world where resources are in infinite supply. There are hardly any resources on the planet that are superabundant to the point where supply and demand become irrelevant. The only two exceptions might be the air we breath and the ideas we think. All of the planet’s resources or goods are scarce and must be subject to the laws of private property acquisition through homesteading, voluntary trade, and inheritance, which, ultimately results in the ownership of private property. There are no places which exist where there is a bountiful amount of natural resources to the point where they do not have to be interfered with by human labor to keep the supply at a certain level to meet the demands of human consumption. Food must be grown, cars must be manufactured, tools must be crafted, so on and so forth. If there was a constant supply of food that just grew from the ground with no labor and was able to be plucked from the trees with little effort, then there would be no conflict when it came to food. This applies to all other resources like land, clean drinking water, building materials, precious metals etc. These are all scarce resources. They must be homesteaded and owned to avoid violent struggles, dissension, and war. The idea that all resources belong to all humans equally is preposterous. Communal ownership of all resources means each person must ask for the permission of every other person before using a commodity or piece of land. This would be an arduous task if you only had to ask twenty people. How ridiculous would it be if you had to get authorization from a million or a billion people before using a resource?  A person must be the first one to make beneficial use of an unused natural resource by interfusing their physical and mental efforts for it to become their private property. If someone comes across a piece of land where there are no signs of ownership like a fence, or a sign that says “no trespassing” then the area of land that is worked and cared for by that person becomes their private property. Human beings are a species that have evolved to create a purpose for themselves. They are creative and inquisitive. They have complex psychological needs and it is not enough for humans to just have shelter, food, and water. They seek to build things, advance to make life easier, acquire knowledge, and accumulate possessions and property. The people who say we only need food, water, and shelter to survive are correct. However, if those same people think that those are the only things that define a human being they would be wrong. The laws of human nature instilled in our neurological wiring and biological systems make us free beings who can pursue any objectives they want as long as they do not initiate force against someone’s physical body or legitimately owned private property. Human beings act to achieve goals. Private property is an a priori truth. The very act of speaking cements the notion that private property is a natural law of human nature. We own our brains, vocal cords, and diaphragm. Someone up the street cannot not own my body. only I can own my body. So speaking is a demonstrably proven example of how we have private property rights. Whether this is acknowledged is a different story but that does not make this logical deduction any less true. We are born free! Who owns our bodies besides ourselves? Who owns our labor and the fruits of our hard work besides ourselves? Who owns or controls people’s choice to trade freely between individuals and groups so they can advance and prosper? No one owns these rights. We are free in principle and we must protect private property in order to be free.

Currently people are not free. They are controlled by tyrannical power structures like The State. The State is one giant institution that is usually made up of smaller governmental entities that have monopolistic control over the production and distribution of a variety of goods and services. The modern state has a monopoly on the use of force through security and defense agencies like the military and the police. They also have a monopoly on the political process along with legislative powers. There is a “two party” system in The United States but it is really one party made up of power mad statists that have a few minor disagreements how to steal from, murder, and control the inhabitants of the geographical area in which they control with no competition from any external individuals, communities, or organizations. They collude with corporations to consolidate more power in exchange for favors and the financial elites control everything. The hierarchical order of the power pyramid from top to bottom is as follows: Financial Elite, World Banks, Central Banks, Commercial Banking Cartel, Big Corporations, Politicians and Government Bureaucracies/Agencies, and The Serfs.

If we did live in a privatized libertarian anarchist society,then, we would have every right to protect our private property at all costs. This society is known as a stateless society, a private law society, a private property anarchist society, the natural order, free market anarchist society, or an anarcho-capitalist society. Once a person or a group of individuals has come into possession of private property through a contractual agreement, voluntary exchange, or by simply being the first to homestead the unused parcel or resource, they become the rightful property owner. They have every right to defend their property against the initiation of aggression. It should seem obvious that self defense is not the use of force and does not violate the libertarian principle of non aggression. This concept has eluded some pacifists and anarcho-communists who believe defense of private property is morally reprehensible. To the contrary, if you can not defend your physical person and the possessions you have as property then you are not free. You are willingly as a pacifist, or unwillingly as a slave of The State, losing the very essence of what it means to be a free human being when you can no longer defend your private property. There is no such thing as a free person who is prohibited from defending his private property. You must be able to defend your life and property in a free and just world. It is a moral obligation to defend your private property from pugnacious aggressors.

So if someone poses a serious unprovoked physical threat to you then you have the right to mitigate that threat of force by using force until the threat disappears. If someone is wielding a claw hammer at you and then starts running towards you with this deadly weapon, the use of deadly force would be justified in stopping the immediate danger to your physical body. Let’s say someone shoves you. That would not justify the use of deadly force. The appropriate response might be a harder shove back and then standing your ground. If the threat becomes more serious then you may defend yourself against the aggressor to preserve your life. The use of force to defend yourself must be a reasonably justified amount. It should be proportional to the aggression used against you or your property. It largely depends on the specific situation in question. A person has every right to reclaim their stolen property with as much necessary force possible without becoming the aggressor. There exists a fundamental right to not be assaulted in anyway that is not a response to you initiating aggression or provoking an attack. Some might wonder what would constitute an imminent danger to your well being. There are varying degrees of threats and they occur in different stages. The details might be minute but the aggressor never will have the benefit of doubt given to them. The person who initiates force is looked upon as a violator of the non aggression principle which would be the libertarian code of law in an anarcho-capitalist society. The victim and defender of their property is looked at as someone who has acted morally in a free society. They are exercising their private property rights.

Let’s say you own an apple tree and an intruder picks an apple off the tree. You can approach this individual and demand your apple back and explain that they are on private property. The owner of the tree can also use force to reclaim the apple. He may not use deadly force against someone who has merely stolen an apple, a lawn ornament, or a candy bar, however, if when he is reclaiming his stolen property in a reasonable matter the thief begins to become violent and uses deadly force, then you may respond by using deadly force to eliminate the threat. The apple thief used aggression in the first place when he entered your private property. He then violated the non aggression principle when he stole the apple. Let’s say he did not know it was private property. That is why you let him know it was private property and then demand your property back. You can just take the apple back. There would be little conflict unless the apple thief is crazy. It would behoove most property owners to define their property lines by putting up fences. They would also put “no trespassing” signs outside to clearly warn invaders that they are entering privately owned land. There would be cameras around the property too so trespassers can be easily identified and punished in accordance with private property laws through private arbitration agencies. This will help avoid conflict and doubt as to who is the aggressor.

In an anarcho-capitalist society people could hire private security firms to defend their property for them. If a street owner wants his street to be clean of all pan-handlers, bums, and aggressive riffraff then he can hire a police agency that patrols his property to make sure these types are kept out. People will also be able to defend themselves by owning firearms. There would be no regulations from a centralized authority. Your typical progressive liberal response might be, “so you are okay with people owning nuclear warheads and machine guns?” This is just idiotic and another weak attempt from the leftists of the world to stifle private property ownership and freedom. Only weapons that are not capable of causing collateral damage would be legal under libertarian laws. The use of weapons that cause collateral damage would be a violation of the non aggression principle and that person would be punished in proportion to the crime. When you defend yourself from a criminal aggressor there must be no harm done to innocent bystanders otherwise you will also become an aggressor. Nevertheless, people of all creeds, backgrounds, colors, and lifestyles would be able to own firearms. The objection to this would be high crime and a society that resembled the Wild West. Despite what Hollywood has depicted over the years, The Wild West and the frontier were not as wild as the movies have lead people to believe. Any violence committed throughout the mid to late nineteenth century on the frontier and in the west was by the government. People thought twice before they robbed and assaulted people since they knew they would be met with a Colt .45 pointed at them and their possible demise was a very real sobering truth in these towns if you stepped out of line with people’s well being and belongings. The bottom line is that higher percentages of gun ownership among communities dramatically decreases crime. If shop owners and small businesses had signs in their windows that said, “Private Property Will Be Defended At All Costs” with a picture of an AR-15 or a 357 magnum, how many looters in Ferguson and Baltimore would have risked entering those stores for a pair of sneakers or a bottle of booze. My guess is not many, if any at all. The people who do burn down towns and loot during race riots, or any riots made up of violent mobs (usually social justice types and anarcho-communists) for that matter, should be punished in a harsh manner. The punishments should be proportional unless the offender belongs to a community where Canon Law is practiced and used to sentence criminals. Otherwise libertarian punishment theory is quite explicit in setting guidelines for how convicted violators of the non aggression principle will be dealt with in an anarcho-capitalist community. The society may be an anarcho-capitalist one that stretches over a vast land mass made up of thousands of communities. The laws would be strikingly similar in all of these communities. You may also have an anarchist society that covers a giant land area where tens of thousands of defined anarchist communities exist. It could be  continental region like North America where cities and regions across the continent are made up of different anarchist villages. There would be capitalists, feminists, ethnic, religious, and syndicalist communities, amongst others across the territory. They would each have their own laws and societal norms. I just want to speak for the anarcho-capitalist community since that is the political philosophy I am most familiar with and would most likely be the most productive one out of the bunch. The destruction of private property would yield a punishment that made the offender pay retributive damages along with restoring the damaged property to its original condition. This is how rioters, arsonists, and thugs would be punished in this system of justice. They would also be ostracized and labeled by society as outcasts. They would be rejects and pariahs who would dwell on the outskirts of civilized cities. They would have to work diligently to prove they could be productive individuals. Unfortunately, it could be difficult once you have been identified as a violent barbarian.

This is not Utopia. What I have described is the maximization of freedom. The anarcho-capitalist model is not perfect but it does strive to protect and uphold the laws of human nature as it relates to private ownership of the means of production and legitimately acquired possessions. The system fails and we become less than human when we must share our earned income from labor to bail out and sustain less intelligent and indolent parasites. There is law and order in anarchy. The way to peace and prosperity is to acknowledge private property rights and to ferociously protect those rights from aggressive invaders and murderous gangs in whatever form they appear.

Defending Discrimination and Defined Communities

What would you say to someone who told you that if you did not date short, fat, redheads of the opposite sex then you would be carted off to jail for discrimination and if you resisted you would be shot on the spot? I think most sane people would be adamantly against use of force to make a person choose a person they would like to date or be in a relationship with. Should people be forced to invite people into their homes that they do not want there for whatever reason? If The Black Panthers are holding a meeting, it would be unlikely that the Ku Klux Klan would be allowed to attend. If the Pagans are having a party at their motorcycle club headquarters, then you will not see any Hells Angels at that party. If you are holding a fundraiser at your home for lung cancer awareness, you probably will not have smokers walking around and mingling at the event. The point is that people discriminate everyday. People discriminate when they pick the food they want to eat. We discriminate when we decide what neighborhoods we enter and places we travel based on the crime statistics and culture of those areas. We discriminate when we choose our friends. Do I want dishonest troublemakers as friends or do I want to be friends with people who have integrity? Women’s and Men’s Clubs discriminate. Nudist colonies discriminate. The Vatican does not allow Jewish Rabbis to join the priesthood. Modeling agencies do not allow 400 lb. 5’1′ women with acne to walk down the runways. The NBA is mostly made up of tall athletic black men. Life insurance companies discriminate against men, smokers, skydivers, and freelance journalists who travel to The Middle East. They are a higher risk so they must pay a higher premium or be declined altogether.  People discriminate when they date. Gay people and heterosexuals alike discriminate against a large percentage of the population. Should we call them bigoted? People might say that’s involuntary discrimination and they do not have a choice. It’s still discrimination and it should be allowed to be freely expressed in our actions. Furthermore, there is always a choice. A person does not have to date. Force can only be used to eliminate your choices. But even if you do have a choice, why is it acceptable to use government violence to limit or abolish your choices? The problem arises when it is a business or institution that offers service to the public. Your freedom of association and choice should not be taken away from you with the threat of aggression from The State if you put a cash register and an advertisement on your private property. People have every right to discriminate based on self ownership of their body and the legitimate acquisition of privately owned property.

In an anarcho-capitalist society you might have businesses that discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and creed. Many people say this would be a horrible place to live. A society that discriminates based on outward appearance and attributes that have been designated by nature and the circumstances into which a person is born seems harsh. I think racism and homophobia are ignorant belief systems. Discrimination based on race or gender alone without considering any negative sociological, behavioral, and cultural tendencies exhibited by these certain classes would be irrational. Nevertheless, the free market will weed out businesses that put signs in their windows which state they will not serve certain types of people. If an Israeli grocer will not serve Palestinians, and vice versa, they will lose business and people that are denied services will go somewhere else. If a Christian or Muslim business does not want to serve homosexuals the same scenario applies. A homosexual horticulturist may only prepare flower arrangements for gay couples. That’s fine. These  businesses will not be around very long. Businesses that do not strive to accommodate all consumers will lose money to their competitors and will ultimately fail. The free market can effectively regulate racism and bigotry without the use of violence. Voluntary exchange works just fine. There are instances when it is rational and moral to discriminate along the lines of race, religion, age, gender and sexual orientation. This is based on a substantial percentage of that particular group’s members showing negative attributes and behaviors that can be consistently observed and qualitatively and quantitatively regarded as general rules for the specific group in question.

Let’s say a taxi cab driver or owner of a taxi cab service chooses to discriminate which neighborhoods he goes into to pick people up based on crime statistics. This driver would be justified in making that decision. Furthermore, if they do decide to provide services in these neighborhoods but they selectively refuse to pickup young black males they would also be justified in discriminating this way. White and black cab drivers have put this policy into practice based on experience. It is their moral obligation to protect their life and property and they can only do this by lessening the risk of violent assaults, robberies, and sometimes murder. The statistics are very clear in showing that most violent crimes like rape, assault, theft, and murder are committed by young black males. The opposing side will say that stats can be manipulated to fit an agenda, however these conclusions are cut and dry. Murder is murder. Stealing is stealing. Why would victims, some of which are black, make up stories about who assaulted and robbed them? It’s illogical and does not make sense. Ghetto merchants will charge higher prices for merchandise in low income crime ridden neighborhoods where minorities live. Their insurance is high so their prices must be high. Crime would need to go down and if thugs and barbarians stop burning down their neighborhoods during race riots you might have a favorable change in prices. Restaurants can say we do not allow children in our establishment. They are noisy, disruptive, and lack fine dining etiquette. This is fine and acceptable in any free society. In an anarcho-capitalist society you will have restrictive communities. They are also referred to as covenant communities and I will refer to them as defined communities. They have a right based on private property and voluntary contracts to restrict people and behaviors for whatever reason they feel necessary. There are communities that might be atheistic or secular and they do not want dogmatic religionists poisoning the well of free rational thought. They can restrict the faithful from their communities. You might have a community that prides itself on traditional marriage. They will unapologetically ban gays and communists. You might have a community that wants to preserve African culture and traditions. They may invite western cultures to visit and learn about their culture but they can also restrict people living there who may come into conflict with their values. These examples would be found in an anarchist society with thousands or tens of thousands of communities living the way they believe is the best way to live. There will be gays allowed in more culturally conservative communities as long as they are not militant and do not try to tear away at that fabric of that community. You may even find secular communities allowing religious people to live amongst them, as long as they keep their faiths and beliefs they find comforting to themselves. They would probably live in a community that upheld religion though, unless there was some endearing and intangible benefit of the religious person joining the secular community. These are all voluntary sub communities, organizations, associations, and clubs that make up a much larger libertarian anarchist society. It’s all voluntary and that’s why it is moral. The argument can be made that certain communities will thrive and others will self destruct. The communistic communities will be a disaster. The communities that embrace free love, egalitarianism, communal property, hedonism, drug use, multiculturalism, militant homosexuality, religious fanaticism of one variety or another, abortion on demand, diversity, prostitution, hardcore environmentalism, will suffer and eventually implode. We got a taste of this at Occupy. The societies that value free trade, capitalism, secularism, individualism, private property, decency, and a western bourgeois class structure will flourish and prosper immensely. They would have to restrict marauders, beggars, social justice crusaders, commies, drug addicts, and other misfits from entering this voluntarily designed and completely privatized aristocratic mini civilization. The miscreants, bad decision makers, aggressive pseudo intellectual leftists seeking “equality” through theft, and the bottom feeders must be left to fend for themselves on the fringes of productive societies.

You might hear that discrimination is wrong and that government must step in to enforce anti-discrimination laws. The government discriminates on a colossal level and when they do it they have the law and violent enforcement on their side. Jim Crow was forced segregation that could not be escaped in The South. The government encourages and imports third worlders into communities and schools that have been paid for with stolen income through taxes and regulations. This is forced integration. The government discriminates through affirmative action laws. These are violations of people’s right to choose. People will organically segregate themselves into different communities since they feel more comfortable being around people who share the same values and culture. That’s observable now on college campuses and in communities all over. Some people will assimilate and mix. Either way these choices are voluntary and should be void of any government coercion. The right to restrict people from entering your private property for any reason is legitimate under private property law. The government on the other hand uses force when deciding who is prohibited from discriminating against protected classes of people like gays, blacks, and women. This is discrimination by the government. Anti-discrimination laws are in fact discrimination laws backed by the murderous and thieving government. Moreover, affirmative action laws and other quota laws are blatant discrimination laws enacted and enforced by the same criminal organization. Discrimination based on the freedom to choose and private property is an innate human behavior. You own your body and property. The threat  of fines, jail, and murder for not participating in commerce with someone is the epitome of violence perpetrated by The State. It’s time to defend discrimination.