Egalitarianism Is Inherently Statist

Bionic Mosquito writes about how community is found within a truly egalitarian society  – through the state, and only through it (bold emphasis added):

Destroy all other hierarchies and all that is left is the State.  This should not be a difficult concept to grasp.  It takes little more than opening one’s eyes to our daily existence.

Where during the Middle Ages the quest for community might lead one to the Church, today the journey often ends in the political party.  Eventually, when man feels he has lost all control of his destiny, he willingly turns to the totalitarian state.

Citing Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor:

“So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and painfully as to find someone to worship.  But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men will agree at once to worship it.  For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but find something that all will believe in and worship; what is essential is that all may be together in it.  This craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time.” 

I know, I know… “I am an individual; I am strong; I am a libertarian.”

OK, so pretend Dostoevsky isn’t writing about you.  Instead, just look at the 50,000 others cheering wildly for the troops next time you are at the ballpark.

Just who is the one who doesn’t fit Dostoevsky’s description?  Who is the oddball?

Hierarchy is neither anti-libertarian nor anti-liberty. Hierarchy is good. It gives people a sense of purpose and a role in culture, society, and their institutions. It provides structure and stability.

Every successful, effective group has positions and roles, and the members either take those roles or are delegated them according to their abilities.

This has nothing to do with “equality” by whatever definition you wish to provide.

It has to do with giving people a place to belong. The idea that everyone has the same role or has equal authority to anyone else is just as Utopian as the notion that without the state there would be no need for hierarchy.

Even if the titles are not bestowed officially, men naturally seek leadership among their groups.

People are innately unequal in every way imaginable, save for their common right to self-ownership.

Death is the true equalizer; we are all going to die, and only in death do we become equals.

Posted in cultural marxism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Traditional Education Or Bust


Jeff Sanders at PJ Media provides five problems with state-run schools in America, though they are merely five more reasons you should educate your children on your own.

I’ve never been a fan of the term “home-schooling,” because it implies the kids stay inside all day surfacing the internet and become book worms or geeks totally out of touch with the culture and society around them – until they go to college and go wild.

If I ever get married and have kids, they will be traditionally educated, by me and my wife. They will learn what we decide are important for them to know and reflect our values. That includes practical skills such as wood-cutting (as pictured above), changing car oil, fixing a leaky faucet and basic home maintenance. Their reading material would include classical Western literature. Physical fitness would be a must, too.

All this would be done discreetly and with as little fanfare as possible in order to avoid unwanted attention from anyone who might have an axe to grind, rather than to make a political statement or thumb my nose at the state.

This is the only sensible approach to educating a child in today’s environment.

At this point, I have absolutely no compassion or sympathy for people who send their kids to state schools and then complain about it expecting their whining to bring about any sort of change. My only concern goes for the kids who have no say in the matter, but even then I have no power to change it.

If you haven’t figured out by this point what you’re doing by sending your kid to these places, then you’re being woefully ignorant. It is adamantly clear by now that the administrators do not answer to you, and your kid’s education is not their responsibility. No one is punished when your son or daughter can’t locate their own nation on a map but know about white privilege and what a transgender feminist thinks about the Industrial Revolution.

Regardless of what the state claims about how it owns your kid, the reality is your child is still your responsible to raise, which means you need to take the proactive steps necessary to prepare them for adulthood, and when they aren’t able to take care of themselves by 18 when they snatch that worthless high school diploma, that is your fault, not the state’s. If enough people actually had the balls to pull their kids out of school and find some traditional form of education instead of instigating gadfly-worthy walkouts, then change might occur.


Posted in Central Government, education, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

No Escaping The State

In recent months I’ve come to the conclusion that there are few, if any, options for a man who wants to live a free life with minimal state involvement, and yet at the same time marry and have kids.

The marriage part is difficult enough to navigate, but apart from that is also the kids.

Apparently there are some men who actually contemplate the notion of having children through surrogacy, thinking it will save them from the state by not marrying.

Boxer breaks it down well in his post on how your children are not yours and therefore surrogacy is not an option to avoid the state.

Remember, gentlemen, you do not have any say over your kids. Your children belong to the feminist state. Once you internalize this truth, you’ll find yourself ready to participate in Marcuse’s great refusal.

I’d add that any man who wants to have a surrogate child better accept that he will be quietly suspected of any number of weird lifestyle choices. Protest all you want, but that is the reality. And considering some of the weirdos I’ve met who adopted kids but never married, the suspicion is justified just as much as that aimed at unmarried women who adopt.

However, there’s a separate issue that people tend to get confused on.

There is the moral, and then there is the practical.

Morally, and rightfully, your children are yours until they become of age to care for themselves. The state has no business telling you how to raise your kid. I’m not arguing against that.

However, practically speaking you are a temporary steward of those kids – the state implicitly claims them as their own the moment they are born. Practically speaking, it can take them from you whenever it pleases and on whatever pretense it desires. If they think you won’t comply with the CPS worker who shows up to collect your kids, they will bring a law enforcement officer along who will have no hesitation (and would likely enjoy) demonstrating his power over you while it happens.

If you send them to state-run schools, any values you hold that don’t correlate with that of the state will be undermined and your authority denigrated in the eyes of your children. If you try to homeschool your kids, you will be watched for any unorthodox behavior or views as pretext to seize them. If you send them to private schools, they are also watched for anything that might be deemed too radical, and they know it.

And don’t think that taking your kids to the middle of nowhere will help, either. Unless you’re in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness or somewhere so remote it would take too many resources to do anything, you will show up on the radar at some point.

The fastest and easier way to attract attention is trying to be left alone, because it sends the message that you’re doing something they don’t want you to do.

You may think all of what I wrote above is unfair. You may deny the state’s claim all you want. But unless you’re capable of exerting superior force and violence to the point where they will cease to bother you, then you have to acknowledge their claim when making life choices, because they are stronger than you and can do what they want if they want.

One of the great tragedies of the modern world is we renounce the notion that “might makes right” by foolishly believing “right makes might.” It doesn’t. You can be in the right as you protest your son being dragged off by the state because taught him some religious viewpoint considered dangerously “extreme.” You can then protest all you want as he gets passed around foster homes and eventually dies from neglect or abuse.

That doesn’t change the fact that it happened and you couldn’t stop it. And if you knew what could happen, you have a responsibility to take the precautions needed to avoid that situation to the best of your ability. 

I’m not arguing that men shouldn’t get married or have kids (the former before the latter, if you will – thank you). I’m saying they if they do, they should do so with full knowledge of what they’re doing and the risks they expose themselves to of state violence – and plan accordingly. 

Don’t have a kid and then do stupid stuff that all but guarantees a confrontation with the state.

Posted in central planning, marriage, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Rules For Immigration

I have more or less stopped writing about the immigration/border issue, because I’ve found people are less concerned about the results than they are about the “spirit” or “principle,” which ignores all relevant information used to determine prudent action. Not only that, but we can only look at what is happening in Europe to see the fruits of that policy.

However, my interest was reignited after I read a list by Jim Cox of negative cultural traits that should be used to bar people from entering the United States, (it could also apply to any country with common sense).

Among them are:

  • cannibalism
  • female circumcision
  • convicted criminals

Mind you, we’re talking about lowest standards possible for a functioning society. However, this is how it would work in a private society. The owners would set rules for who is allowed in, and yes, they would be free to presume the values of those trying to enter based on where they come from.

I’m sure there are some open border advocates who will even protest these standards. After all, what right does the state have to prevent someone from crossing an invisible line?

Cox answers that question in a similar manner as I have repeatedly.

Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration. With all property owned privately the immigration problem would be a thing of the past as the property owners would set the terms for access to every piece of property. Until PPS is achieved shouldn’t we prefer that government policies closely match what would likely be the rules when it is achieved?

Open borders advocates should direct their wrath at government intruding itself into what could otherwise be a private property society rather than at those of us who wish to solve the problem by creating that society.

Why some want to welcome violent (do I need to say, virulently anti-libertarian) people into American society is beyond me.

The problem is that open borders is fundamentally an anti-boundary ideology. It is opposed to all borders, not just ones controlled by the government. Who are you to impose any boundaries on others? Who are you to say this is yours and that is theirs?

Practically speaking, they don’t care if government manages the borders and continues to tax people for continued control. What they care about is that government remain inactive in how that property is managed.

This is why the notion of common property is inherently communist. Once the state has taken money from you to control and manage land, it belongs to everyone, according to this viewpoint.

Mind you, these same people will also point out examples of U.S. imperalism over the years – so does that land occupied by the U.S. military now belong to Americans as much as the people who’ve lived there for centuries? (Rhetorical; it doesn’t).

I could get into the more ulterior motives for much of the open borders stance (like the total lack of interest in the immigration/border policies of non-Western nations).

But this whole issue could be answered by simply entertaining the mindset of a Big Government advocate: If you wanted a larger, bigger state, what policy would you favor?

Better yet, what stance do they take right now?


Posted in borders | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Rethinking Free Speech

I’m rethinking my stance on “free speech.” What does that term mean?

In libertarian theory, it means you get to say whatever you want, on your property or property where the owner permits you to speak as you please. In the real world, the push for free speech concerns either public spaces, the ability to say things without losing your job and livelihood, or opposition to censorship on social media platforms.

I appreciate the right of people to speak their mind. But do you really want to be in an environment where anyone can say anything? I’m not talking about prohibiting those spaces. I’m talking about whether you would choose to spend your time there.

If any kind of talk is allowed, it resorts to the lowest common denominator. The worst, most vile things are said. Think of the dumbest, ignorant, and uncouth humans on the planet. Do you want to be around them? To you want to listen to them or talk to them?

Private clubs are not just for smoking cigars. They’re for people to gather amongst like-minded individuals and have conversations suited for their status, intelligence, class, and education. It is a form of peaceful segregation regarding who you want to speak with and listen to.

If you think about it, free speech becomes a problem the same way open borders become a problem. Should a homeless person be able to say vile stuff in front of a family with toddlers because they’re in a public park? Is that an accurate reflection of the private sector?


I don’t have an entire philosophy or ideology around this yet, but it would seem that whoever owns the property needs to have clear, unambiguous rules about what is allowed. Those rules ideally will be tailored to attract the kind of people they want frequenting it. I concede that this means social media platforms can ban people for political or religious reasons, but I would say that they need to be specific and consistent about it.

I guess that’s the thing. I don’t think people should be able to run roughshod over someone else’s property, but don’t lie about the rules you set for the kind of speech you allow and don’t allow on your property, either. If Twitter and Facebook want to censor right-wingers and religious views they don’t like, then they need to state it clearly. And if they’re going to discriminate on the speech they allow based on the demographic of the person who said it, then so be it.

But don’t claim you’re being objective and consistent about it. You don’t get to be arbitrary and capricious about who you censor (unless you state so to anyone who enters your property), because you’re engaging in fraud.

Free speech is almost a form of multiculturalism in which everyone is forced to compete for which culture will be the most dominant. There should be opportunity for everyone to be able to speak their mind, but that doesn’t mean they need to share the same space or venue to do it, and people should be free to form spaces that restrict what can be said in order to maintain true freedom of association.

(h/t to Davis Aurini and Matt Forney for their prior commentary on the issue that inspired this post).

Posted in free speech, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Why Knowledge “Is” Power

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances.

Rollo Tomassi, Rational Male

“Freedom” and “liberty” are not directly tied to anarchism or libertarianism, but let’s be honest: Most people interested or enthusiastic about the ideology are drawn to the notion of greater control over their lives. They don’t like how government, and others, tell them what to do and use coercion or aggression to make it happen.

Much time and thought has been given to implementing libertarian principles in the political realm. My quick thought is that it is also where libertarians run into the most trouble trying to maintain their beliefs while actually achieving something meaningful.

Recently I contemplate the many ways in which people can live their lives outside of state control or regulations. What are productive things people engage in that don’t put them at risk?

Another way I looked at it was this: if you lost everything tomorrow except your life, what would you have left?

The answer: knowledge.

Knowledge “is” power because it’s all in your mind. To be sure, you need a place to store the material you use to learn, whether it’s a bookshelf or a Kindle. But beyond that, your knowledge is yours and yours alone. Learning a valuable skill gives you greater control over your circumstances, because you rely less on others. Neither the government nor others can take take it away.

The only way for them to deprive you of knowledge is by killing you, and by then it’s a moot point.

I would suggest that perhaps less time should be spent theorizing about situations that will never arise and obsessing over the latest decree issued by government; instead, devote one’s efforts toward obtaining relevant, worthwhile knowledge that will guide you and aid you, even if the worst should happen. If nothing else, it offers something to comfort us if that happens. Our greatest wealth and treasure cannot be stolen or “redistributed” to others.

Imagine you lost it all, except the clothes on your back and the knowledge in your mind: What would you want to know?

Start there.




Posted in general political thoughts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Breaking Up American States

Courtesy of Fox News, there is an alternative Calexit movement emerging – an exit of rural California from urban California.

There is another secession movement in California, and elsewhere in America, that is getting genuine attention from political pundits. While it may be unlikely to succeed, the idea of intra-state secession—a section of a state splitting off to form its own state—has been growing in popularity. And there’s even a Constitutional procedure for doing it.

In recent decades, the political differences between rural areas and metropolitan areas seem to have become more severe. This has caused political splits in certain states, where, often, those rural areas, with lower populations, feel stifled by their city brethren.

This is why there’s a movement in New York for upstate to split from downstate.  As Republican state senator Joseph Robach puts it, “We’re completely overwhelmed…by the policies of New York City.” In 2009 and 2011 he introduced bills to hold a referendum on secession.  And in 2015 there was a rally in favor of carving out a new state, supported by more than a dozen groups frustrated by the policies of Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo.

I’m working hard to refrain from making political predictions moving forward, so I want to heavily pad this observation as something strictly within the hypothetical possibility.

We could possibly see intra-state secession movements like California and New York reach a fever pitch once Texas and swing states turn blue due to demographic changes. The electoral college still determines the presidential winner, and so if red parts of a blue state can break up, it means their votes still count, while the impact of a large state turning blue has been diluted.

This won’t happen as long as many Americans still believe the system as is can be fixed, reformed, or co-opted. Only when they accept that there can be no coexistence in the same political jurisdiction will they act desperately, without permission or explanation.

There is a constitutional procedure, but it’s highly unlikely to occur that way, for obvious reasons. Blue states have no desire to see their red regions leave, no matter how much they tell you about how they hate them. They may not like them, but they need them under their political control.

If these movements succeed, it will be due to outright or de facto secession in which the people in those counties or communities ignore the laws coming out of their state capitols and instead adhere to their own institutions and self-created governments.

Out of all the scenarios out there, this may be one of the most practical, the most effective, and frankly the most peaceful way of addressing the situation we have on our hands. Decentralization can diffuse tensions, reduce anxieties, and perhaps bring back a “live and let live” mindset that’s not possible when people 3,000 miles away have power over your local school’s bathroom.

Even if these movements do not ultimately happen, the perception that people will resort to them if feel compelled to may deter lawmakers and others from pushing divisive and hateful policies in order to avoid that kind of crisis.

Posted in borders, Central Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment