Category Archives: Transhuman News

From its beginnings as a distinct ideological movement in the postwar years, libertarianism has been a set of outsider ideas vastly disrespected by most American politicians and intellectuals. It was kept alive by small institutions, publications, and scattered academics (mostly in economics at first) who for decades were largely concerned with just keeping any expression of these ideas a going concern, barely expecting it could soon seriously influence mainstream political culture. (That story is told up to the turn of the 21st century in my book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.)

Libertarians understand they are still to a large degree strangers in a strange land when it comes to the American political scene, struggling for impact in a world they never made, and any number of other cliches indicating that obvious truth: libertarianism is still a minority idea and libertarians are still embroiled in a difficult and long-term fight to influence political ideology and practice in America. Libertarians are generally not delusional on that point.

When it comes to awareness and acceptance of the overarching principles of libertarianism, even if not to their actuation across the board in governing, the situation for libertarianism is America has gotten much better in the 21st century along many dimensions. As Reason's Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie have argued, an often pre-political embrace of the options, variety, and choice inherent in the libertarian vision of free minds and free markets has spread massively in American culture, even if government qua government isn't shrinking.

One of the ironic demonstrations of libertarianism's inroads in American culture is that mainstream outlets find it necessary frequently to declare it dead, irrelevant, or fatally wounded. Lately we've had Tim Alberta in Politico assuring us that the libertarian dream is dead; and Adam Ozimek in Forbes saying libertarianism could be more successful if only it would narrow its vision a little.

Politico makes a good point as far as it goes: Until Donald Trump's bold political entrepreneurship proved surprisingly successful, there was reason to believe the GOP might be more inclined to go for a libertarian-leaning candidate such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rather than someone like Trump, policy-wise a Buchananite populist in the Rick Santorum style (to point to the nearest even slightly successful precursor in the GOP), but with less sanctimony, less even half-convincing Christianity, and more aggressive crudity and lack of intellectual polish.

Examining the respective political fates of Paul and Trump in the 2016 presidential race, now we know better. But by the very fact that it is an outsider political movement not fully at home in either major party, nothing about libertarianism's correctness or its hopes for the future depend on some short term victory; certainly nothing about the American people's choice of aggressive protectionist nationalism (to the extent we can be sure what people thought they were getting when they choose Trump) proves that libertarianism is either mistaken or dead.

It just proves libertarianism remains what it has been since it arose as a distinct movement in America after World War II: a small fighting rump, but one whose spread and reach is as high as it's ever been, even if it has failed in 2016, as it has always failed, to win the White House.

Otherwise, Politico's long article is merely a portrait of a moment in time, not the final fate of an ideology. Its observational power is mostly rooted in noting that, while he occasionally talks a libertarian-sounding game when it comes to, say, regulation, Trump is overall very opposed to the larger libertarian vision of truly free markets, respect for property rights, and restrained government power. True, and understood; especially as Trump's pre-election rhetoric that hinted at the possibility he might be less bellicose than his predecessors overseas is drowned out in the sound of exploding missiles.

Alberta's Politico article is a portrait of libertarianism as a philosophy still where it's always been: not a comfortable fit with either major party. But it has a greater grip on a greater number of prominent politicians, and Americans (see, for just one easily quantifiable example, the Libertarian Party nearly quadrupling its highest previous vote total) than ever in modern history.

If libertarians are rightor even on the right pathwith their understanding that our government is overtaxing, overspending, overregulating, and overextending its reach both into the lives of its citizens and across the globe in ways that make many people's lives worse and our future more perilous, then American history will show it an idea that's neither dead nor needing extensive pruning, as Ozimek in Forbes seems to believe.

Libertarianism: Is Less More?

Ozimek should rest assured that a narrowly-funded, scrappy, outsider ideological movement that has never quite been able to find a national politician they can all get behind (not even Ron Paul) knows full well that a majority of Americans don't yet agree with them.

That's the purpose of an organized minority ideological movement such as libertarianism: to do the research, education, advocacy, electioneering, and storytelling that might help Americans see that, to survey some libertarian ideas, the drug war is both wrong and unproductive; that stealing property from citizens without charging them with a crime is unjust; that market and price mechanisms need to play a role in a sensible and affordable health care market; that our foreign interventions often merely sow the seeds for the next perceived necessary foreign intervention.

With that understoodthis basic idea that a radical and small movement for ideological change is trying to move the political needle somewhere it isn't alreadyOzimek's basic argument that most Americans don't seem to shape their own decision-making or voting around small government proves libertarianism is terribly flawed and needs rethinking doesn't bear much weight. (Nick Gillespie explained here 12 years ago why obviously decisions other than tax rates or regulation are going to shape people's decisions about where to live as life is, blessedly, about more than just taxes and regulations.)

Ozimek has a narrow set of libertarian ideas he thinks are important and workable, and they are indeed part of the libertarian movement message. Precisely what they are isn't quite clearhe writes that "people want quality of life, economic growth, and good government. All three of these can be helped on some margins by utilizing market forces, deregulating, and increasing freedom. Libertarianism should focus on these margins, and accept that the all-too-popular vision of radical freedom and minimal government at all costs is not wanted by enough people to actually matter."

It sounds like what Ozimek really should be concluding, if he indeed believes that stuff about bettering the world through "utilizing market forces" etc. is that people and politicians that are not libertarian should be more libertarian. And that's what libertarians are trying to accomplish.

What advantagefor the libertarian as opposed for the Ozimekanfrom pursuing a narrower vision of freedom and limited government is not clear from this essay. Nor is it clear exactly what ideas of the libertarian movement he is recommending jettisoning, or keeping. (While Ozimek isn't rigorous on this point, he seems to be implying that somehow the existence of very libertarian people or arguments is harming the cause of slight libertarian improvement. I addressed whether libertarian extremism, that is, a full or radical version of the small-government vision, was harming the movement writ large last year. I didn't find the case proven.)

Libertarianism certainly hasn't cleared the field in American political culture yet. But to be held to such a standard, when 20 years ago it was considered so unknown and insignificant that publications of the stature and focus of a Forbes or Politico would never have bothered running articles about how and why it's allegedly failing and fading, is its own kind of victory in political culture, and a necessary prelude to more important ones.

View post:
Libertarianism Does Not Yet Rule America. Libertarians Know That. That's Not a Reason for Them to Abandon ... - Reason (blog)

The basic income is known for cutting across ideological lines. Libertarians, who have had a long history supporting the basic income, are also giving the idea a fresh look as a way to replace the current welfare system.

Many libertarians, though, remain skeptical of whether a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is in line with libertarian ethics, and other libertarians believe it would cause economic damage.

Daniel Eth, a PhD student at UCLA studying computational nanotechnology, argued in Thinking of Utilsthat strict libertarianism, particularly without UBI, enables oppressive systems to emerge, even when no one is acting in bad faith and all agreements are consensual.

Eth joined the UBI Podcast to discuss the problems of libertarianism that does not endorse basic income.

One of the primary issues with strict libertarianism, Eth argued, is that without a social safety net, workers are not truly volunteering for work, because they areagreeing to work simply to survive.

There is an uneven power dynamic and that contracts are almost inherently exploitative, at least for those that are living hand to mouth, Eth said.

At least with a basic income system in place, Eth said, the workers could decide to walk away from unreasonable working conditions.

if a basic income is large enough to satisfy peoples basic needs, it goes a long way to correcting for that (power dynamic), he said.

One area of agreement between Eth and libertarians is that market-based solutions tend to be much more effective than the alternative of central planning.

That is to say, without appropriate taxes to account for things like pollution, then the market outcome will not reflect these costs to society and the environment.

From this framework, Eth said something like a carbon tax would be a great way to pay for a basic income because it would account for pollution, but also allow the market to solve.

The market is almost like an algorithm, like what a computer might use to solve a problem and I think it tends to be better at finding solutions than central planning. But you have to ask it the right question. You have to make sure you are solving the problem you want to solve, Eth said.

Tyler Prochazka has written 60 articles.

Tyler Prochazka is a Fulbright scholar completing his Master's in Asia Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. He is the features editor of Basic Income News and a coordinator for UBI Taiwan. Tyler launched the first Asia-Pacific basic income conference in 2017. Facebook.com/TaiwanUBI @typro

Read the original here:
Interview: Pitfalls of libertarianism without basic income - Basic Income News

Have you seen the viral "libertarian tip"? Someone in Missouri left a cash tip with a note explaining it was actually a personal gift and so not subject to state and federal income taxes, and wrote "taxation is theft" in the tip line on the check.

Who knows if the note is authentic? "Taxation is theft," an old libertarian bromide, has in the last year or so become a fairly popular internet meme. By some accounts, the meme wars were an important aspect of the 2016 election and its outcomeand you can expect the trend of political memes to grow. Maybe the "libertarian tip" was staged by someone who wants to promote libertarianism or encourage others to leave libertarian tips, or even just someone who wanted to play with the "taxation is theft" meme.

Nevertheless, I went out to lunch today to replicate the meme so I could give you an authentic photo of an authentic non-tip left as an untaxable personal gift. Here it is:

Reason

Some tips for you: the original photo looked like a note, not an envelope. I thought putting the money in an envelope would more clearly separate it from a tip. A note is better to show off how much you've tippedI put the money in the envelope after snapping the photo. You should probably make sure to have the change you need to give the tip you want. Asking for change from the wait staff might strengthen the case your untaxable non-tip is actually a taxable tip.

Afterward, I asked my waitress if my ploy would work. She seemed as if she wanted to tell me it would, even though she knew it didn't, because, as she explained, tips count as sales. She said that the tips that bring her wage up to the minimum wage (waiters and waitresses are generally exempt from minimum wage laws under the assumption tips get them to at least the minimum wage) get taxe like income, and that "40 to 50 percent" of tips beyond that get declared.

The intersection of libertarianism and wait staff is not new. During the 2012 election, then Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a Republican presidential candidate, became an "unlikely hero" (the New York Post's words) to wait staff for his efforts to pass the Tax Free Tips Act. In 2013, The New Yorker appeared to discover and bemoan that wait staff were hiding tips from the taxman. The horror.

Meanwhile, wait staff are also among workers most negatively impacted by higher minimum wagesthey are often asked to do more work as restaurants look to mitigate the costs of a higher minimum wage in an already low-margin business. Just last month, Eric Boehm reported that San Diego had lost 4,000 restaurant jobs in the year-plus since they raised their minimum wage at an even faster pace than the state, which has so far only seen a slowdown in the growth of restaurant jobs.

And while we're so directly on the "taxation is theft" topic, here's one of my favorite chyrons ever on FreedomWatch with Judge Napolitano, a show I produced for. Thanks go to Media Matters for preserving the screen cap:

Fox Business

Read more:
I Gave My Waitress a 'Libertarian Tip': Taxation Is Theft! - Hit & Run ... - Reason (blog)

Libertarians and anarchists often get challenged with an annoying question, Warren Redlich, theCEO of Independent Political Report and a former Libertarian Party candidate, recently wrote: Iflibertarianism is so great, why hasnt any country tried it?[1]

There is no doubt that the question has been asked often, andthat it is meant to be annoying.Consider the source: Michael Lind. Lind, for those who have never heard of him, is a writer for theNew America Foundation who has achieved some online notoriety as a professional anti-libertarian. (Agoogle search on Lind libertarianism turns up more than 100,000 hits.)

Lind first came to myattention when he proclaimed the collapse of libertarianism as a political force back inNovember 2007 just in time for the birth of the Ron Paul Revolution.[2] In fact, though, he washeralding the utter and final defeat of the libertarian counter-revolution. before that,[3]and he has continued to do so since: most recently in 2015, when he pontificated that thelibertarian moment [Rand Paul] symbolized is over.[4] (To be fair, he also pontificated inhis2015 article that There was never a libertarian moment in the United States which gets onewondering just what keeps collapsing.)

But constantly heralding the end of something that never existed in the first place must getboring after a while; so in 2013 Lind came up with a new angle: the above question, smugly packaged asThe Question Libertarians Just Cant Answer.[5] That had such a great reception thatLind followed it up within days with two more articles with equally-revealing titles, Why Libertariansare Basically Cult Members[6] and Grow Up, Libertarians![7]

Given this genesis, there is no wonder that anti-libertarians ask the question often, and thatthey do so mainly to annoy libertarians. But there is really nothing annoying about the questionitself. The absence of libertarian countries is a phenomenon in need of an explanation, andtrying to provide one could shed some light on little-explored areas of political theory. So itis worth attempting an answer.

It also worth looking at Linds answers; for indeed, he gives us not one but two. Hisfirst answer is not explicitly stated, but implicity smuggled into the way he phrases and rephrases his question. In his article he asks that question five times. The first instance is purely neutral: Whyare there no libertarian countries? but not so his reiterations:

If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modernsociety, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century isorganized along libertarian lines? If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldnt at least onecountry have tried it? Why isnt libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarianregimes in the real world? If libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasntany country anywhere in the world ever tried it?[8]

Such formulations seem designed to suggest their own answers: There are no libertarian countriesbecause libertarianism is not plausible it is discredited it is not a good idea andlibertarians just do not understand how to organize a modern society.

However, Lind cannot just keep repeating and rephrasing the same question. Some people may be tooobtuse to grasp those implications, no matter how often he makes them. Still others may beintelligent enough to see logical problems with the implications themselves:

Obviously, this is a silly, fallacious pattern of argument. Every good idea was at one pointuntried. A hypothesis that has not been tested is neither confirmed nor disconfirmed. One mayreasonably complain that a hypothesis is unfalsifiable. But it is simply bizarre to maintain thata hypothesis might be discredited because it has yet to be tested, because it is so far neitherfalsified nor confirmed. Such a principle would entail the absurdity that all hypotheses werediscredited at the dawn of time.[9]

So Lind also needs to provide a substantive answer to his own question. Which indeed he does: Onhis account, there is a significant trade-off between less government and more nationalinsecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among otherthings. Those other things including human survival itself: Economic liberty comes at a pricein human survival, it would seem. There must be no libertarian countries, then, because nocountry wants to pay that price in human survival.

But if there are no libertarian countries, what is Linds evidence that one would come with allthis nastiness? Fortunately for his research project, the free-market right has been rankingcountries according to economic freedom for years. Using one such ranking the 2013 one fromthe Heritage Foundation[10] Lind attempts to prove his trade-off theory.

His technique is to compare two points on the list. On the one hand, he looks atthe mature, well-established industrial democracies, with the U.S. as representative. But none of these countries, includingthe U.S., is anywhere near a libertarian paradise. Considering how often Lind points out the lack oflibertarian paradises, that does not exactly come as a surprise.

And then there is Mauritius. According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economicfreedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa.At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economicliberty at least Mauritius is economically free!

Comparing the U.S. and Mauritius, Lind illustrates his purported trade-offs: the U.S. has aliteracy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 livebirths compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S.

Never mind that back in 1980 (when it ranked only 68 on the Heritage list) Mauritius had aninfant mortality rate 3 times higher.[11] For Lind, the U.S.-Mauritius comparison is clear proofthat more economic freedom means more infant mortality (not to mention more maternal mortalityand less literacy).

There are five problems for his proof method, though: the five countries at the top of his list Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland the only countries the HeritageFoundation ranks as economically free. (Both the U.S. and Mauritius are ranked almost free).Using Google searches, I was able to find comparable statistics for all five; and what I foundwas indeed shocking:

The last four have literacy rates ranging from 97% to 99%: below the U.S., but well ahead ofMauritius. Their infant mortality rates (per thousand) range from 4.5 deaths (for Switzerland) to2 (for Singapore), and their maternal mortality rates (per thousand) from 11 (for New Zealand) to5 (for Switzerland) well ahead of both the less-free U.S. and less-free Mauritius. No evidenceof any significant trade-off there.

And then there is Hong Kong, at the top of the Heritage list. If Linds theory is correct, thenliteracy should be way down in Hong Kong, and both infant and maternal morality way up. Literacyis in fact down (though still above Mauritius), at 93%; but so are infant mortality (at 1.5 per1,000 births) and maternal mortality (1.6 per 1,000). No sign of any significant trade-offthere, either.

Lind deals with these apparent counter-examples by claiming that they should not count,because the Heritage Foundation rankings the very ones he relies on are biased. Hong Kong andSingapore do not count because they have small geographic areas the first is a city and thesecond a city-state yet Mauritius does, though it is only 2000 km in size. Australia andNew Zealand do not count because they are low-population countries yet Mauritius does,although its population is slightly above 1 million. Furthermore, four out of the top five weresmall British overseas colonies (so was Mauritius) that depended for protection first on theBritish empire and now on the United States (as does Mauritius, home of the Diego Garciaairbase).

And what of Switzerland, to which none of the above objections apply? According to Lind, it shouldnot count either, because wait for it Switzerland might not have maintained its independencefor long if Nazi Germany had won World War II. Really.

Despite Linds attempt to rule out all the evidence against histrade-off theory, it isreasonable to conclude that he has not proved it, and that the examples he picked to prove it were in factcherry-picked. But if his trade-off theory is unproved, it makes no sense to think that anynation (much less every nation) subscribes to it, and that that explains why none of them arelibertarian. So we should look elsewhere for an answer.

So why are there no libertarian countries? A libertarian might say it is because:

(1) Contrary to Linds initial assumption (which he puts in the mouth of libertarians), no oneactually organizes a modern society. Great societies are what Hayek calls spontaneous or polycentric orders not unplanned, but not conforming to any one plan, either; insteadsubject to a myriad of conflicting plans, by a myriad of different interest groups. Some of thosegroups goals can be libertarian, some the opposite (let us label those totalitarian).Consequently, one would expect any existing political system to contain a mixture of bothlibertarian and totalitarian elements.

(2) The most influential interest groups would be the most powerful, or, in otherwords, those that benefit most from the existing system; which means that each would have abuilt-in conservative bias conservative not in the sense of wanting less government, but in the senseof wanting to preserve the status quo and that the political system would reflect this bias. Changes ineither a libertarian or totalitarian direction would, then, happen slowly and incrementally, atthe margins.

(3) Political change is implemented by governments, and can be effected only through governmentpower. Libertarianism has an understandable bias against those who use government power for theirown ends, and vice versa. A government might adopt certain libertarian policies for its owninterests such as cutting tax rates to increase tax revenue, or repealing a universally-detested law for the sake of civil order but it is unreasonable to imagine any government reducingitspower just for the sake of doing so. Besides the already-noted conservative bias, then, one wouldexpect political systems to have a built-in totalitarian bias.

(4) The notable counter-examples to (2) radical changes in a society are those imposed bymilitary force; and, in light of (3), it strains belief to imagine a libertarian society beingimposed that way. While waging a war may accomplish some libertarian ends ending slavery in theU.S. is an example the very act of fighting one serves only to accentuate the already-notedtotalitarian bias.

In light of the above, one would expect to find no pure libertarian political systems. Then again, in light of the first two points, one would expect to find few, if any, pure ideologicalsystems of any kind and that expectation would be correct.

The Scandinavian role models ofsocial democracy that Lind invokes, for example, are hardly exemplars of pure socialism: whilegovernments share of GDP is higher there than in the Heritage Foundations economically freecountries, it comes nowhere near 100%. One of those role models, Denmark, actually ranks higherthan the U.S. (and just behind Mauritius) on the very Heritage Foundation list that Lind relies on; something that he either did not notice or did not see fit to mention.

Besides, one cannot help adding, Scandinavia might not have maintained its independence for longif Nazi Germany had won World War II.

What one would expect to see and what one does see, all over the world are mixed systems:countries with a mixture of libertarian and totalitarian policies, some more libertarian, somemore totalitarian, most probably more totalitarian than libertarian, but never purely one or theother.

There is, though, one notable counter-example to my last statement: totalitarian communism. There certainly have been totalitarian communist regimes in the real world. Most of those, too, asLind concedes, have been imperfect models, but somehave comevery close indeed tototalitarian perfection: Stalinist Russia,China under the Red Guard, Pol Pots Cambodia, and NorthKorea.

While Lind claims that the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of theMarxist-Leninist countries, (presumably referring to the non-existence of most of those regimes today),the reality is that at least one of them, North Korea, is still going strong in the 21st century.

Like it or hate it, North Korea does look like an example of pure totalitarianism: a political system inwhich libertarian elementsare completely absent. In which case, any theory attempting to explainthe absence of libertarian regimes in todays world should also be able to account for thepresence of totalitarian regimes. That proves no insuperable problem for my theory North Koreais an example of (4), a regime imposed and maintained solely by military force but it does seemto do so for Linds.

For one thing, North Korea gives precious little evidence to support his trade-off theory.North Korea, as expected, ranks last on the Heritage Foundation list, meaning that by Linds theory literacyshould be high there, and infant and maternal morality low. The country does boastan incredibly high 100% literacy rate not one illiterate in the entire country. But its infant and maternalmortality rates (22 and 82 deaths per 1,000 births, respectively) are higher even than those ofLinds cherry-picked paradigm of economic freedom, Mauritius.

For another, the example of a purely totalitarian regime in the 21st century also poses a problemfor Linds implicit answer to his question (the one smuggled into itsvarious iterations). Forif the criterion of an ideologys correctness, goodness, plausibility, etc., is whether or not itis adopted in the real world, one would have to count totalitarian communism a ringing success onall counts.

So let us rephrase Linds questions, and ask them right back at him in turn:

If totalitarian communists are wrong in claiming that they understand how best to organize amodern society, how is it that a country in the world in the early twenty-first century isorganized along totalitarian communist lines? If totalitarian communism was not a good idea,wouldnt there be no countries that ever tried it (much less continue to try it)? Why isnttotalitarian communism vindicated by the presence of totalitarian communist regimes in the realworld? If totalitarian communism is not only implausible but unappealing, why are countriestrying it?

I have no doubt that Lind will be able to answer those questions, though not without changing hiscriterion of what makes a political ideology correct, good, plausible, and appealing. So I lookforward to seeing his answers.

Photo Michael Lind in 2015. Photo by D.W. Taylor. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

[1] Warren Redlich, Was America Ever Libertarian?, Independent Political Report, April 25,2017. http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/04/was-america-ever-libertarian/#comment-1589317

[2] Michael Lind (2007), The Centre-Grounds Shift to the Left, Financial Times, November 27,2007. https://www.ft.com/content/4afdfafe-9cf7-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac

[3] Lind (2006), The Unmourned End of Libertarian Politics, Financial Times, August 16, 2006. https://www.ft.com/content/2333b794-2d4e-11db-851d-0000779e2340

[4] Lind (2015), The False Rise and Fall of Rand Paul, Politico, October 20, 2015. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/rand-paul-2016-libertarianism-213265

[5] Lind (2013a), The Question libertarians Just Cant Answer. Salon, June 4, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/

[6] Lind (2013b), Why Libertarians are Basically Cult Members, AlterNet, June 11, 2013. http://www.alternet.org/economy/libertarians-are-cult-members?akid=10559.113011.rcc3cH&rd=1&src=newsletter853683&t=9

[7] Lind (2013c), Grow Up, Libertarians!, Salon, June 13, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/

[8] Quotations in italics are from Lind (2013a).

[9] Will Wilkinson, Michael Linds bad argument against anything, The Economist, June 6, 2013. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/libertarianism-and-experiment

[10] Index of Economic Freedom, Wikipedia, April 11, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

[11] Ronald Bailey, Michael Linds Obtuse Attack on Liberty and Libertarianism, Reason, June 7,2013. http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/07/michael-linds-obtuse-attack-on-liberty-a

The Question Libertarians CAN Answer!

Read the original:
Why are there no libertarian countries? - Nolan Chart LLC