NAR BASICS - Multi feature - listenable 🎧

Israel NAR LEADERS - double feature

Wed Aug 20th 2025- Carson Younker

Marjorie Taylor Greene on Secrets of DC, the Israel Lobby, etcetera

Right-Wing (Rightist) Anarcho-capitalism is NOT the right-minarchists enemy!!

For as long as right-libertarians have existed there has been an internal fight between right-market anarchists and the right-minarchists. Constantly minarchists on the Right are called Statist by right-market anarchists (anarcho-capitalism). Meanwhile right-minarchists call right-anarchists Utopian. 

I want to start off by pointing out that both views are different ways of interpretation of the logical end of supporting the Non-aggression or Non-Initiation of Force principles. Minarchists believe you cannot enforce the NAP without having a minimal state existing; funded Ideally through voluntary or at least pseudo-voluntary means such as a single tax that is as close to a user fee as possible. Best described by the Federal Libertarian Party here in Canada. 

"Taxation—such as income, corporate, carbon, and capital gains taxes—are theft, taking justly earned money by force. We aim to eliminate these, replacing them with a voluntary head tax, direct payments for services, and crowdfunding. Keeping earnings in Canadians’ pockets will boost saving, investment, production, and consumption, energizing the economy. During the transition, a 5% GST will fund military, police, and courts, acting as a semi-voluntary tax tied to consumer choice."

Meanwhile right-minarchists misunderstanding anarcho-capitalism think that traditionalist Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism calls for no laws and for privatizing what will be legal or not which it never has. As someone that has been both a Biblical/Christian Anarcho-conservative/Anarcho-Capitalist we did not and do not call for no laws.

Rothbard himself called right wing anarchism a society where all initiation of force is outlawed by an agreed upon libertarian legal code. Once codified that all initiations of force or threats thereof is banished from society. A completely privatized and non monopoly free market in rent a cops, insurance agencies, cooperatives, corporations and mutual aid agencies will take over all things that is currently done by a monopoly on the initiation of force without any force and coercion within society.

I would be happy and feel safe in either a right-minarchist society or a right-anarcho-capitalism society. I also think both are equally welcomed in the broader Biblical/Christian libertarian spectrum of views. As well as are equally moral views of society based on our shared commitment to the non-aggression or non-initiation of force principles. We can discuss and debate which is the correct view, but I will not throw either view off the Christian libertarian bus.

Jonah 011

 

Neo-Libertarianism is consistent right-minarchsm

I wish to put forward that Neo-Libertarianism is consistent right-minarchsm by citing the following from the Neo-Libertarian blog called "Politics and Prosperity." The author uses the term libertarian-conservative now as opposed to neolibertariann, but, he means what I do by Neo-Libertarian.

• R-M reject the non-aggression principle with respect to national defense. They do so not because they favor aggression but because the principle, in its standard interpretation, is a non-action principle. It would not allow a preemptive attack on an antagonistic state that is armed, capable of striking us at any time, and known to be contemplating a strike. R-M, in other words, tend toward hawkishness when it comes to national defense.

• R-M also tend toward a hawkish stance on crime. For example, some R-M have no sympathy for journalists who protect anonymous sources where those sources obtain their information by breaking the law. Other R-M reject the idea that the press should be allowed to print whatever information it may obtain about America’s defense forces, plans, and operation. R-M understand that liberty and the prosperity it brings are unattainable in a lawless, defenseless society.

• R-M are unsympathetic to “political correctness,” arguing that government must not do anything to quell impolite speech or to compensate blacks, women, etc., for the past behavior of those who discriminated against them, because to do so penalizes persons now living who are innocent of discrimination. But more than that, R-M would give individuals and businesses broad latitude in their affairs, penalizing only acts traditionally understood as harmful (e.g., murder, rape, and theft).

• R-M see “rights” like abortion, homosexual “marriage”, euthanasia, "Queer" rights and "gender" ideology as government-imposed social innovations with potentially harmful consequences for civil society. If social custom, as embodied in legislative acts, rejects such things it does so because those things undermine the fabric of society — the bonds of mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual restraint that enable a people to live and work together in peace.