DSEngere

Hi everyone! My friend and I have just released a new voluntaryist podcast! Fellow anarchists: Today, I'm happy to announce the official launch of FLAGSHIP FREEDOM, a liberty podcast hosted by Michael and I. Join us on our brave new mission as we attempt to shake the foundation of political philosophy itself. Regardless of your political beliefs, we promise an interesting and refreshing take on some of the most important topics in your life. We will regularly have special guests on the show to discuss and debate important issues. Perhaps the most fun part is that you, the listener, can call in and tell us how full of crap we are. If you want the inside scoop on the biggest social revolution of our time, then strap yourself in and join us on the frontline in the war of ideas. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/flagship-freedom/id1158470903?mt=2 Here is the link to our iTunes page. We can also be found on GooglePlay, Sticher, Youtube, Tunein, and Blubrry.

Hi everyone. Just wanted to announce that I've released my new blog, www.weloveliberty.com My goal is to explain voluntaryist concepts in a thourough yet simple and concise manner for the average layperson. My first article is, of course, "Taxation is theft"! http://www.weloveliberty.com/#!Taxation-is-theft/cy97/564b9d8c0cf2382b191d60e1 Subscribe for new updates. Enjoy!

In this video, I think Stef is confusing people who are new to Anarchism. The NAP does NOT prohibit the use of force against people who have done wrong to others. For instance, if someone rapes or steals, then force CAN be used against them to extract what they have stolen (restitution, etc.)! Stef makes it sound like only people with brain tumors will rape. Can we stop sounding so utopian to outsiders? Yes, prevention is better, and surely it will reduce violent crime, but there will always be some unrepentant criminals. Now, using force may not be the BEST way, but it's not morally wrong. I agree that ostracism is great and preferable, but Stef is making the NAP sound almost pacifist, which it is not. Stef made similar "far out" arguments about how an anarchist society would work when on the Joe Rogan show, where he spoke about future weapons targetting peope based on DNA, etc. I was pulling my hair out... For statists, you need to ease them into the anarchist paradigm. The most solid argument is simply "If it's a service that people want and are willing to pay for, the free market will provide for it". Boom. Simple as that. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this?

The statist argument is that because government owns all land, it has the right to do whatever it wants. I agree with the premise that if you own land, it's "your land, your rules". If I have rules at my house that I want to "tax" people, or not allow drugs, etc. then that's fine, because it's my house and my rules. However, I believe government does not own ANY land. But I need to make the solid historical case and my knowledge of history is not great. How can we prove, historically, that the government doesn't actually own anything? I want to make a rock solid case. For instance, we can use the 13 original British Colonies as a case study. Because the settlers came on British ships on a British government charter, does that mean that the 13 colonies were government owned? I have a few counter points, but I feel that they are not strong enough: - Any land that government has claimed has already had inhabitants owning land already -Obviously you cannot simply claim arbitrarily large tracts of land as your own property -Government recognizes private property currently anyways (for instance, allodial land patents) -You cannot sign up children (people who have been born into property) to abide by rules which they never agreed to (you have to give them the option to leave, and the entire country is way too big to leave)

My personal opinion on the matter

I feel for you man, that sounds very frustrating. In fact, I know for a fact how frustrating it is, because I live that struggle basically every day. It's so hard to talk to hardcore statists because under every terrible idea are 10 more supporting it, so you really do have your work cut out for you. I have chosen to take my ideas to Youtube in hopes of gaining more converts, however I haven't stopped the in-person interactions either (they're just incredibly wearisome). Keep up the good fight! Eventually you will get a couple converts, and then you can sleep in the satisfaction that you have worked hard and created one more liberty advocate who will help to change the world, albeit slowly. I applaud you!

We, as ancaps (aka economically literate people) know, the price of technology tends to go DOWN over time. I realize we are far beyond DSL and all that shit, but it seemed like 5 years ago, the price of internet was a lot cheaper. Why has the price of internet been increasing over the last 5 years? That's my subjective experience, at least. The media is full of all sorts of anti free-market conspiracies about how companies are out to screw us. I of course know that it must be rooted in the regulatory capture, lobbying, general bullshit relationship that many ISPs have with the government, the FCC, etc, however I don't know any of the details. Is anyone savvy on this subject?

Hi everyone. Has anyone else experienced the mind-fuck that is anarcho-communism? I need some empathy before my head explodes. So lately, I've taken a strong interest into the anarcho-communist, anarcho-mutualist, libertarian socialist, etc. (leftist) world. I really wanted to consider their ideas with an open mind. After all, they claim to be anarchists, so they can't be that bad, right? WRONG! Not only are their ideas unbelievably bad in every way possible (evil, naive, unrealistic, etc.), but these are some of the most pompous people I have ever debated. They like to make posts taunting anarcho-capitalists by calling us "an"caps, as if we're supposedly not anarchists because we support "hierarchy" and "oppression" via voluntary trade. It's literally like watching a scrawny 10 year old walk up to a sumo wrestler and spit in his face. They have no idea how bad and embarrassing they look. I have directly asked many of them, and almost all support the initiation of force against peaceful property owners (such as businesses) because they're engaging in "exploitation". This worries me. Will we have to start shooting commies again? I wouldn't mind a whole lot, to be honest. I searched hard to find any merit to their ideas and found precious little if any. I can't be the only one tripping over my own incredulity here.

Hi all. "Got an idea? Let's make it happen!" My name is Dan, and I'm a mechanical and mechatronic engineer. I am now offering my expertise to help inventors, entrepreneurs, businesses, and anyone else who is interested in bringing their invention ideas to life. Do you have a great idea but don't know what to do next? Give us a shout and we will work with you to come up with technical specifications, 3D models, and a physical, functional prototype in your hands. Mention that you're from FDR and I'll give you a sweet deal. As a start-up, I offer very competitive pricing, probably the best you'll find anywhere. www.brainchildengineering.com You have a great idea but don't know what to do next. Our team of engineers will work closely with you to design a product that's ready for investors. Even if all you have is an idea, we will take it through design, engineering, prototyping, physical test, and beyond. You have a great idea but don't know what to do next. Our team of engineers will work closely with you to design a product that's ready for investors. Even if all you have is an idea, we will take it through design, engineering, prototyping, physical test, and beyond.

Time to put this tired, old idea to rest. Enjoy my video ladies and gents! Constructive criticism welcomed!

Constructive criticism welcomed!

Hey thank you very much! I really appreciate that.

Video by yours truly. Let me know what you think!

A video I made to hopefully save you a lot of time

Video by yours truly. Probably nothing new in this video for people here, but thought I'd drop it here anyways in case anyone wants to potentially sharpen their arguments! Criticisms welcome.

Robert: Thanks very much. Don't hesitate to hit me up if you think of anything neat! I can't tell you exactly what it's for, but let's just say it's a "scraper" of sorts Jacbot: The jet engine is, unfortunately, way out of my league at the moment! That would require quite a lot of capital and money (and staff) to dive into. Maybe in 5 or 10 years! The paper airplane though is genius and way more within my grasp. Jack: Thanks very much, and congrats to you as well! I should clarify, I will be taking the PE test in about a year, but have already passed the FE test so I don't anticipate much of an issue.

Hey folks. My name is Dan. Aside from being an ardent AnCap and avid supporter of Freedomain Radio, I am also an entrepreneur in the engineering field. I wanted to share my services with the Freedomain Radio community, as I know that many of you are enterpeneurs (and I know that Stef is all about entrepreneurship). I am a mechanical engineer and will have a degree in mechatronic systems in 6 months. In about 18 months I will have my professional engineering license. I am in the process of gearing up for my start-up engineering business! The concept is quite simple: Prototype engineering services I want to help individuals, inventors, companies, etc. take their ideas from conception all the way to a physical, working prototype in their hands. That includes refining the idea, engineering/optimizing the design, and manufacturing the physical prototype. I come to you to offer my services! I guarantee that you won't find better prices than mine. Why is that? I am relatively young (25 years old) and inexperienced (2 years as a full-time mechanical engineer), so I am trying to gain some experience on smaller, low-key jobs before fully opening my doors and quitting my day job. In other words, I am gaining speed down the runway before I "take off". We've all had awesome ideas, but most of the time they never move beyond that stage. If you have an idea for a product or gadget but don't know how to take the next step, let me know! I'll engineer it and produce a working prototype for you! Every transaction is agorist, of course. Any idea is welcome. I also work with microcontrollers, so if your idea requires a "brain", that's no problem! Some sample ideas to get your creative juices flowing: - Automatic plant watering system - Any hand tools - Sun-tracking solar panel - "Balancing act" vehicle - Saltwater conversion system - Tempersture regulated hydraulic system Here are some pictures of a product I designed with my brother. We are about to 3D print the models and test the design! '

Any and all critiques welcome! http://youtu.be/g-n8j9Fydls

has a great point here. IMO, As long as people refuse to use force against violent thugs (government), government will continue to exist.

Hey man, I really appreciate the thoughtful review. It means a lot! You are absolutely right about me looking around (as well as other things), that's something that I noticed too. I'll definitely fix that next time. Thanks for your time and thoughtfulness!

Am I missing anything? Was I annoying? Did I make my point clear? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szCq-1E5iik

I agree completely

You said, "taxation is theft because theft is the seizure of property by use or threat of force." Not quite true. If someone AGREES on a contract and fails to pay for something or to provide a good or service that they were paid for, then their property can be taken by force with moral legitimacy. I'm trying to show people the obvious truth that the state does not have any morally legitimate reasons for taxes. A lot of people believe that the government actually rightfully owns property, and this alone is one of the most central pillars to the idea that taxes could be morally legitimate. I appreciate your reply though, thank you.

It is my intention to make the “taxation is theft” argument completely watertight, even from a legal perspective. That is, I want to beat statists at their own damn game. I, and I think everyone here, understand the philosophical meaning of land ownership, homesteading, etc. But I need to make sure I understand the legal side of property ownership. I need some people who have a good legal understanding (and/or philosophical) to make sure everything I’m saying is correct. So please, shoot holes in my arguments and tell me where I’m wrong. Be brutal! First though, we should make some definitions clear. Ownership of property means that it is YOURS, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it, as long as you are not aggressing against others or violating some other contract that you agreed to (example: I own my windows and I can paint them pink UNLESS I have agreed with my homeowner’s association not to make my house look ridiculous). Also, you do NOT have the right to enter onto someone else’s land (or house, etc.) without their permission, much less demand payment from them without their agreement. To do so would be known as armed robbery. When you are on someone else’s land (or using their property) you must abide by their rules. The rightful owner does not have the right to aggress against you or use any more force against you than is necessary to remove you from their property (should they chose), but you still must abide by their rules, otherwise you are aggressing against them. I cannot walk onto your lawn and set up a lemonade stand unless you agree to this. You cannot use my weed-whipper unless I allow you. This is all basic voluntarism, non-aggression principle stuff. Hopefully this is all obvious. Now, onto the legalese; suspend reality with me for a little bit while we dive into the world of government insanity: 1. “A land patent is an exclusive land grant made by a sovereign entity with respect to a particular tract of land.” A land patent gives you alloidal ownership over land. Allodial — Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal. In other words, completely, unconditionally, and privately yours; The intuitive and commonly understood definition of "property". The US government did and does hand out “land patents” to supposedly grant you complete, thorough, and permanent ownership. In other words, IT'S YOURS. So LEGALLY (according to the gub’ment), one does not actually own their land unless they have a land patent in their name. So that means even if you own a house and have paid your mortgage, you don’t legally OWN your land in the traditional, obvious sense of private ownership. Hopefully some red flags are already popping up in your head. For the government to be able to grant you ownership of something, they have to actually have ownership of it before they give it to you, otherwise they have no authority over said thing. So, for the moment, let’s pretend that the government actually DID have ownership over a certain piece of land (it does not, but I’ll get into that in a minute). Say it gave a land patent for that piece of land to “Bob”. So now, Bob completely and privately owns this piece of land. Yet legally, if Bob sells this piece of land to Mary, she does not actually privately own this land like Bob did, until she pays the government to get the land patent updated in her name. Legally, is this true? If so, clearly this makes no sense, for if Bob wanted to sell HIS land to Mary, it automatically now belongs completely to Mary. If it reverts back into the hands of the government, then it never really belonged to Bob in the first place, but instead to the government. Once you voluntarily give some property (land or otherwise) to someone through selling it or by giving it freely, you have voluntarily given up all right to that property. That’s what PRIVATE OWNERSHIP is all about. If you want to retain any kind of authority over that property, then that needs to be spelled out in a contract, and there is NOT unconditional, free-and-clear ownership of said property. Yet, the wording in land patents would suggest that they DO grant you free-and-clear, private ownership of land; The government claims that about 60% of land in the US is privately owned. They either do not truly mean privately owned, or they are clearly violating the rights of private land owners. Clearly, the way the government handles this makes no sense, and for them to claim the right to tax you or take your land through eminent domain implies that either they own your land or that you agreed to said taxes/eminent domain previously, which of course you never did. This is why the concept of taxes (property taxes in particular) make no sense, for if you actually OWN your land, nobody has the right to come onto your property and demand continued payment for it- that is no different from renting property. Is it feasible that you could only own your property conditionally, on the agreement that you are subject to the government’s laws on your land? If so, this is not spelled out anywhere (correct me if I’m wrong). Moreover, the government cannot simply impose laws on private owned landowners who occupied their land before the government tried to establish authority over their land. Now, back to the concept of government ownership (this is very important!): Does the government actually own anything? I would say “no”. Why? Firstly, when governments form, they steal money (and land) from people who rightfully owned their land and money before the government encroached on their territory. Again, this is nothing more than armed robbery with a badge. So right from the beginning, the government is an illegitimate, criminal organization because it operated using stolen money. As a consequence of this, government doesn’t actually rightfully own anything, and thus have no moral legitimacy to establish new taxes, laws, etc. over private property. I believe it’s really as simple as that. Am I missing anything important?