Theme: Commons

—“The problem with libertarianism is that libertarians don’t agree on what libertarianism means. Some libertarians say that if you truly believe in the non-aggression principle then you must be an anarchist. Other libertarians say that anarchists are not libertarians. Wanting to abolish the state vs. minimize it is a big Some libertarians say that being a libertarian is about minding your own business and not judging other people’s lifestyles. Other libertarians say that libertarianism is solely about the role of the state. Which one is it?”— Julie Borowski

“Non Aggression Principle” is an incomplete sentence, that deceives by suggestion: any idiot will agree he wants to be free of aggression. But every idiot will also substitute his definition of property(interests) to aggress against. Ergo, the statement is absolutely meaningless.

Rothbardian ethics of Ghetto and Pale, were designed with malice of forethought NOT to equal European rule of law of reciprocity in interests both public and private. So that the Jewish method of fraud by baiting into hazard could persist, and European retaliation prohibited.

There is only one source of liberty, and that is armed men with sufficient force to demand rule of law by self-determination, legal sovereignty, by reciprocity, adjudicated in an adversarial market(jury) of peers. Jews never had sovereignty, liberty, and never used reciprocity.

So stop advocating Jewish libertarianism’s war against reciprocity, rule of law, and commons – because it’s another fraud like marxism, postmodernism, anti-male-feminism, and neoconservatism. It’s bait, argued by suggestion, to lure well-meaning fools into the hazard of failure.