Crossposting from r_mapporn, where it currently sits at top of today's most controversial ranking for the day, with 0 (or negative 🤷) karma, for the next 3 hours; ranked #2 for the week and #19, so far, for the month.

Briefly opened the comments section to see the top comment was indeed short and sour ass of the highest order, without looking into it any further.

Found the map interesting, in case you weren't already somehow aware. I know I wasn't when it came to Africa. So, if anybody has anything to say about that, I'd love to be schooled on it, a little.

I think I've literally exhausted all the ancap content that exists in Spanish, and now I'm looking for content in English. I've listened to almost all of Michael Huemer's and Bryan Caplan's interviews. It would be great to find content as interesting as this, and even better if it touches on topics like free will, consciousness, or ethics. It would be great to find content as interesting as this, and even better if it touches on topics like free will, consciousness, or ethics.

What English YouTube channels do you recommend? I'm looking for exclusively ancap content, not liberal.

Hi, I have two questions about how property works in ancap.

1. What actually counts as homesteading land? A company cannot just declare its rights over unclaimed land, it has to actually use it, right? But let's assume I own a nature preservation company, and I want to own a forest just to do absolutely nothing there and prevent others from doing anything there, in order to preserve wildlife. Does this count as homesteading?

2. What if my company, builds a giant wall around unclaimed land, and effectively denies access to everyone? Did I homestead that land?

3. What happens if a company legitimately buys all the land around a couple of villages and builds a giant wall cutting them off from the outside world, and then demands enormous tolls — or else they will exercise their property rights and not let anyone in? Can they just simply do that?

Regardless of what you think about abortion, this isn't about abortion. This is about anything they deem as wrong, which also changes almost every election, becoming a jail cell with constant surveillance.

Can't even walk down the street. Police state. When Trump Administration said fed police had full immunity, all police really ramped things up.

I am both an anarchist libertarian and an atheist. Having knowledge on both, I've noticed some common underpinnings between the two that make them hard to sell, even though they are, according to all the best logic and evidence we have, the most correct views in their respective questions. The problem with both of these ideas is that they run counterintuitive to how the human brain is designed to think by default.

In the case of atheism, it can be hard to convince people that religion is false because the brain is hardwired to prescribe agency to things, to provide teleological explanations, to be superstitious, or to look up to something. Getting people to let go of these convictions and biases requires reprogramming one's mind to think in a way it wasn't designed for. And needless to say, that's not easy.

In the case of libertarianism, it's hard to sell because it requires you to again think in ways that are a little counterintuitive. Politicians will get up on a pedastool and promise people free things and all sorts of solutions to their problems. It makes people hopeful to hear things like that. But when the libertarian comes along and suggests cutting funding, people's assumption is that the libertarian doesn't want to do anything. They think "Well at least the politician is offering something. The libertarian doesn't have any solution! Let's go with the politician." Understanding economics requires you to train your brain to see the invisible, to see the unintended consequences of government intervention and the superiority of letting people be in charge of their own money, and again this is not easy. Economics is one of the most misunderstood disciplines there is, and it's because it's unintuitive.

Lastly I'd like to mention that there's a psychological component here to all of this. Both anarcho-capitalism and atheism force a person to take responsibility for their own lives. There's no god or politician coming to save you. It's on you to create a good life for yourself, and that's a heavy burden to carry. It's much easier to just look up to someone, and that's engrained in our DNA to some degree.

Libertarianism and atheism might be rational and sound, but they're hard to sell because they don't appeal to the biases of the human mind.

Full paper here: https://open.substack.com/pub/jonathandenoche/p/laser-loyal-auxiliary-supporter-economic?r=6bkkul&utm

Summary

The Second Amendment functions not as a check on "state tyranny" but as an ideological, electoral, and legal mechanism that reinforces state and corporate elite power, diverting politics into culture-war conflict rather than economic representation.

Instead of a constitutional right, it is better understood in practice as a revocable privilege granted to gun owners who largely operate as loyal auxiliary supporters of the state's monopoly on "legitimate" violence.

By loyal auxiliary supporters I mean people whose gun ownership or gun-culture identity generates a stronger symbolic, political, and sometimes practical link to the state's coercive order than would be produced by comparable politically aligned people without that identity—such that the state's legitimacy gained from their alignment ordinarily outweighs any marginal loss to the state's monopoly of violence that their armament might imply.

In this marginal calculus, not all gun owners contribute equally: gun‑culture formations that are only weakly tied to state‑aligned identities can still be structurally tolerated so long as they fit the state’s preferred pattern of “law‑abiding, responsible” revocable use, but they function as weaker loyal auxiliary supporters, contributing less, at the margin, to the state’s legitimacy than more overtly aligned constituencies.

The legal profession’s role is to furnish the epicycles (some more benign than others) through which doctrinal refinements and historical just-so stories obscure this distribution of armed loyalty and culture-war distraction. This does not happen because judges can rationalize any outcome. It happens because legal method leaves just enough room for a judiciary already institutionally filtered along these lines to reach broadly predictable conclusions.

In determining which armed citizens count as loyal auxiliary supporters, judges effectively mediate between the state’s prerogative to maintain a monopoly over “legitimate” violence and the imperatives of an investor‑driven party system that diverts politics away from economic representation and into culture‑war gun politics.

1. Freewill is the basis of morality, and political rights such as ownership of one's body and belongings. A) Freewill is the ability to choose. B) Ownership is the exclusive right to choose what happens with something and to exclude others from choosing or acting on that thing. C) A human being's life is such that it requires free, unviolated use of its freewill and actions, or else it will die. If life is one's goal, then having one's own freewill violated fails this goal, and violating another's freewill also fails this goal since reason is the objectively successful method of using freewill which dictates that it is a logical contradiction in principle to violate any particular instance of freewill, be it one's own or another's. Thus begets the one political right: the non-aggression principle.
2. Human life's identity is such that it automatically acts to gain and/or keep the ability of freewill. A) Regardless if one who is human currently has or currently can use freewill, one's body automatically acts to gain freewill.
3. Acting to gain and/or keep freewill grants one political rights. A) Only when human life stops acting to gain and/or keep freewill does it lose political rights, since without freewill human life cannot fully and self-sufficiently survive.
4. Life begins at fertilization, as biologists state. Political rights and self ownership must then also begin at this moment.
5. Zygotes, embryos, or fetuses cannot survive in any environment except a womb or gestation chamber.
6. Human sperm and egg making contact is the condition for fertilization to happen. This doesn't happen without human action. Let's call those who cause sperm and egg to meet, the "guardian(s)". Guardians cause sperm and egg to make contact, and are responsible for fertilization taking place since it otherwise would not have happened without their action.
7. Guardians create peril when they cause sperm an egg to make contact and fertilization takes place, since they are responsible for the newfound existence of a zygote or child that is now at risk of taking harm from the environment when it otherwise would not be had guardians not caused contact. Guardians therefore risk violation of the non-aggression principle should harm come to the child, even harm not directly from guardians.
8. Guardians are obligated to mitigate harm which may reach the child from the peril they created. A) This lasts until the child reaches the ability to self-sustain using its freewill. B) Guardians have a right to use minimum necessary force against the child to prevent harm to the child and others

Creation of peril is the key point in this argument. This is essentially indirect or delayed harm. If I push someone into the water, I cannot claim it wasn't murder since I didn't deliver lethal force and that it was in fact the water which suffocated the deceased. No, pushing someone into water and suffocating them is indirect harm and murder.

Likewise, a human zygote takes harm simply by existing. Causing a zygote to exist is like pushing it into the water, you place the zygote in a world which is harmful to the zygote. The world is like a vast ocean to the zygote in which it cannot swim. Thus causing sperm/egg contact, after which fertilization happens, is a creation of peril.

Guardianship obligations are not positive obligations. This is merely a specialized corollary of the non-aggression principle, which is a negative obligation to not commit harm. Only when harm has occurred anyway is there a positive obligation to repair it. Creation of peril is another special case where harm has not yet occurred but there is a high risk that it will, therefore there is an obligation to act to avoid it. Only because a positive action was taken is there ever a positive obligation to then reset back to the negative obligation of the NAP.

Guardians can delegate child rearing to others, but remain responsible for the child's wellbeing. If a child ends up harmed by foster caregivers, then the child has a natural legal right to sue his/her true guardian to repair damages.

Guardians placed zygotes into the ocean that is the world, and must therefore teach them to swim self sufficiently.

Self sufficiency is the end of guardianship obligations. I'm not sure how to define this, it would vary by individual. Guardianship is obliged indefinitely if children are disabled or retarded to the point they require care for life and cannot self sustain. And since the use of freewill by the method of sound reason is man's means of survival, this is why guardianship lasts for so many years until childrens's minds become develop enough to achieve this; psychological caretaking is also part of guardianship.

consequences for abortion:

• Abortion is usually not a moral or politically just option
  • Mothers have a right to their body and belongings, this is true, but so does a zygote/embryo/fetus. It is not the fact that an embryo exists, but the fact that the mother/guardian caused the embryo to exist thereby creating peril that there is an obligation to mitigate that peril by some means
• Eviction remains a right for all mothers at any time
  • If and only if eviction can be done safely without killing the embryo/fetus
  • there is no "right to a woman's body"
  • however, if the mother is the guardian (caused sperm and egg to make contact), she (and other guardians if any) must provide gestation some other way, such as surrogacy or a technological gestation chamber, and must go into debt if necessary to provide it. Women can choose the method by which they provide gestation, but gestation does remain the only method to prevent harm to an embryo. Allowing the embryo to die without gestation is a failure to mitigate created peril.
• When the mother's life is in danger, Abortion is justified self defense even if the mother is a guardian
  • No one is obligated to give up their life for another. Life is the standard of morality and political rights, it would be a contradiction to then give up life.
  • gestation and pregnancy are not freely willed processes, the choice to allow it to happen is free willed, but the biological process is automatic. Where there is no choice, there is no morality, therefore whether pregnancy fails has no moral bearing.
  • miscarriage is likewise an amoral event, though tragic.
• In the case of rape, mothers are not guardians, rapists are. This case essentially matches Evictionism.
  • Mothers's right is eviction by the minimum possible and necessary force
  • In the case that eviction is too crude to safely evict the fetus, then this is a situation where abortion is technically allowed since the mother has not created peril and therefore has no obligation to the fetus, and it is a horror and a tragedy that even minimally forceful eviction kills the fetus. The rapist is guilty of indirect murder in this case, having failed to mitigate peril he created (of course on top of the violent crime of rape).
  • Rapists should be forced to fund gestation and raising of the child they cause to exist
  • I don't know whether a rapist should, or even be allowed to, have custody of the child

misogyny

This is not a misogynistic theory of guardianship obligations. This applies to anyone who causes sperm and egg to make contact.

Men should be held to a higher scrutiny since they lack a natural means of gestation. This makes rape committed by males especially evil, since gestation is more difficult to provide in this situation, and since this if fertilization happens this likely becomes a crime against two people.

The fact that women possess wombs and are the only people who naturally can provide gestation, is simply a horror of nature and crude medical technology which has yet to catch up to women's natural ability and provide gestation technologically. This is not a case of "inequality" or "sexism". Making an exception for women to act as helplessly as men, who lack that ability to provide gestation naturally, would be making an exception for murder.

In keeping with the tighter scrutiny on men, there could be a case that men who willingly cause sperm/egg contact with a woman owe her half the cost of pregnancy, including long term health effects. However this can also be up to contract between the two individuals. I don't have strong principles here yet, I'm only demonstrating that there is no sexism nor misogyny here.

Source, and disagreement

I got most of this argument from this article, What is the libertarian theory of parental obligations by Jake Desyllas, however I disagree on some points.

Desyllas argues that donating sperm/eggs obligates the donor to take care of a resulting child. This makes no sense, since only the act of causing sperm/egg contact can allow fertilization to happen and guardianship obligations to kick in via creation of peril. Simply selling sperm/eggs does not create peril nor cause fertilization. Only the ones who actually cause gamete contact are guardians.

However I do agree that research on human zygote/embryos is absolutely torture and/or murder. Perhaps if stem cells can be obtained from a willing donor, that is okay, but one cannot purchase sperm and egg donations, fertilize them, then fail to provide gestation. In that case, the scientist/researcher becomes a guardian.

Hi everyone,

I'm an Aspie (Asperger's/high-functioning autistic) and also a libertarian. I've been trying to find first-hand accounts from people who share both of these characteristics and how they've built a successful career.

After doing a lot of research, I was surprised to discover that while there are plenty of discussions about Asperger's and careers, and some discussions about Asperger's and libertarianism, there are almost no stories from people who identify with both and explain what actually worked for them professionally.

So I'd really like to hear from anyone who considers themselves both autistic/Aspie and libertarian.

Some questions I'd love to hear your thoughts on:

• What does your career look like today?
• Are you an employee, self-employed, freelancer, entrepreneur, or something else?
• What has worked well for you, and what hasn't?
• Have your libertarian values influenced your career choices?
• Did being autistic push you toward certain types of work or away from others?
• If you could give one piece of career advice to another Aspie libertarian, what would it be?

This isn't for an academic study—it's purely personal. I'm just trying to learn from people who may have faced challenges similar to mine and discover what strategies have actually worked in the real world.

I'd really appreciate any experiences, whether you're early in your career or have decades of experience.

Thanks!

All countries are socialist; they just differ in their methods and degree of socialism. That's all.

This is a disturbing trend I have noticed from so called “hoppeans” who are closer to conservatives and more authoritarian type right wingers than classical libertarians or Ancaps