Make Money to Buy Your Freedom

by Stephan Kinsella on May 30, 2025

From Tom Woods’ latest daily email:

I just interviewed Jack Spirko for the Tom Woods Show about his new book Laws of Life: Ditch the System, Design Your Life. The interview will be released next Thursday.

One thing that came up was Jack’s insistence that we focus most of our energy and attention on things that are within our control. (His view is a bit more nuanced than that, but this is a mere email, dear reader.)

I don’t like that the U.S. government spends as much as it does. But there is nothing I can do about that.

I can make a long list of things I disapprove of that I have no way of changing.

But there are plenty of things I can do, in the here and now, to create a more secure and fulfilling life for my family and me.”

The following is adapted from a note I wrote to Tom in reply.

This is great and it highlights part of my problem with libertarian activism. Libertarians spend their effort trying to change the system; inevitably they fail, and many of them drop out or become postlibertarians, bitter at it all. ¹ Because their expectations were unrealistic. They lose hope if they think they cannot make a change, because they forget that there is something else you can do–change the things within our own personal life within your control. Treat the state and its laws as a mere background condition of action, as Mises treats non-scarce aspects of reality as general conditions of action instead of scarce means. As Hoppe says we have to treat criminals (and the state) as mere technical problems. They cannot (usually) be reasoned with anymore than lions, disease, famines, bears or tornadoes. (See quotes below.)

Focus on your own life. To put it crudely, treat the state as an obstacle and one of many challenges in life, and find a way to achieve success and happiness within it. Internet pioneer John Gilmore once said, “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” ² Treat the state the way the Internet treats censorship. Route around it. Think of it impersonally, like a background fact that exists, that can’t be reasoned with. Succeed despite it.

Avoid jail. Don’t do hard drugs, because not only is it pointless and bad for you, so is prison. Focus on your career. Make a lot of money. L. Neil Smith once argued that in a free society we would all be eight times richer. ³ Okay. So just make 8 times more. Make enough to pay your income tax and avoid prison and still live a rich life. As Michael Saylor says, “You need to choose your battles. Respect social norms. Don’t fight unnecessarily…” ⁴ Buy your freedom. Even Roman slaves could save up some money, their “peculium,” and use it for personal purchases. ⁵ We are not complete slaves. You can make enough now even after taxes to live like a king and fund your hobbies. ⁶

But of course libertarian activists don’t want to hear this, maybe because because if you focus on activism and shun normie paths that lead to money you have less time to engage in activism.

Maybe, for some people, it’s possible to do both. As Francis Ford Coppola said,

How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?

We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.

This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?

In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, “Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money.” Because there are ways around it. ⁷

Why not do the same for liberty? Have a successful career. Have a family, a house, make money. Learn about liberty. Work to promote it in your own way. You don’t have to get a job “working for liberty”—good jobs in the liberty industry are few and far between, and you can lose your independence if you are beholden to some boss in the non-profit sector. (One reason I never took a job at any think tank.) ⁸ Be you own benefactor. You know, people who like golf aren’t usually pro-golfers. They have a jay-oh-bee and they use their money for their leisure activities–vacations, golf, movies, restaurants.

***

Related comments:

Hoppe on Treating Aggressors as Mere “Technical Problems” (Jan. 5, 2013)

while scarcity is a necessary condition for the emergence of the problem of political philosophy, it is not sufficient. For obviously, we could have conflicts regarding the use of scarce resources with, let us say, an elephant or a mosquito, yet we would not consider it possible to resolve these conflicts by means of proposing property norms. In such cases, the avoidance of possible conflicts is merely a technological, not an ethical, problem. For it to become an ethical problem, it is also necessary that the conflicting actors be capable, in principle, of argumentation.

… Suppose in my earlier scenario of Crusoe and Friday that Friday was not the name of a man but of a gorilla. Obviously, just as Crusoe can run into conflict regarding his body and its standing room with Friday the man, so he might do so with Friday the gorilla. The gorilla might want to occupy the same space that Crusoe occupies. In this case, at least if the gorilla is the sort of entity that we know gorillas to be, there is in fact no rational solution to their conflict. Either the gorilla wins, and devours, crushes, or pushes Crusoe aside (that is the gorilla’s solution to the problem) or Crusoe wins, and kills, beats, chases away, or tames the gorilla (that is Crusoe’s solution). In this situation, one may indeed speak of moral relativism. One may concur with Alasdair MacIntyre, a prominent philosopher of the relativist persuasion, who asks as the title of one of his books, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?—Crusoe’s or the gorilla’s? Depending on whose side one chooses, the answer will be different. However, it is more appropriate to refer to this situation as one in which the question of justice and rationality simply does not arise: as an extra-moral situation. The existence of Friday the gorilla poses for Crusoe merely a technical problem, not a moral one. Crusoe has no other choice but to learn how to manage and control the movements of the gorilla successfully just as he must learn to manage and control the inanimate objects of his environment.

… No one can be expected to give an answer to someone who has never raised a question or, more to the point, to someone who has never stated his own relativistic viewpoint in the form of an argument. In that case, this “other” cannot but be regarded and treated like an animal or plant, i.e., as an extra-moral entity. Only if this other entity can in principle pause in his activity, whatever it might be, step back so to speak, and say “yes” or “no” to something one has said, do we owe this entity an answer and, accordingly, can we possibly claim that our answer is the correct one for both parties involved in a conflict.

Conspiracy Libertarians, Waystation Libertarians, Activists vs. Principled Libertarians quoting, Lewis in the Silver Chair:

As I wrote in Lewis in the Silver Chair, when the Emerald Witch was trying to make Puddleglum and others, who were her captors in her underground world, and under a magical spell, believe there is no Narnia, and no Aslan (the Jesus-figure)—no world above, no sun, no lions, until

Puddleglum shoves his bare foot in a fire, so that the pain helps rouse him from the spell:

“One word, Ma’am” he said coming back from the fire; limping because of the pain. “One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.

The Golden Age of America is Now:

For my part, since I believe in the power of freedom, free markets, and technology, I think it’s reasonable to predict that the economy and innovation will continue to increase, over time, in absolute terms, despite the state’s depredations. I could be wrong. It’s possible. But it seems to me that bugging out is not a viable solution. If doom is coming, doom is coming. For me, it’s not a reason to give up. Far from it; it’s a reason to try to be more successful—to acquire more money and power, to better withstand any coming statist calamities.

I do not believe in optimism for optimism’s sake. I am not a believer in the “power of positive thinking”; I’m a realist. Rothbard, I think, used to say the libertarian has to be a short-run pessimist and a long-run optimist. I suppose I agree: things look “bad” now from the point of view of libertarianism’s odds of success; and we can hope that the free market and freedom will ultimately somehow defeat the state, because they are more right, more productive, more powerful. I suppose. But this is strictly an activist perspective; it’s what someone focusing on libertarianism’s prospects would say. But the goal of each person is his own life. I am a personal optimist in the sense that I think I, myself, and many other people as well, can and will be able to live happy, successful, flourishing lives, despite the state. I view my libertarian involvement not as typical political activism; it is more of my own hobby, or avocation. Others have different interests outside their work and families. I am interested in libertarianism because I happen to like economics and political philosophy, and have a passionate, intense interest in justice and rightness. But as a person I am interested in more than this: in living a good and happy and successful life. So I view the state (and private crime) as evil, yes; and they are evil because of the barriers they put in the way of people who want to live happy lives. It does no good to complain about the possibility of hurricanes or a disease one has; the criminal actions of the state are intentional, so complaining about the state (or, more particularly: voicing objections to, criticizing the state) might have some long-run or even short-run efficacy, but there is no guarantee. So the state, as with private crime, has to be regarded as a type of background danger in life that one has to figure out a way to defeat, evade, escape from, hide from, navigate around, or ignore. And I’m confident that, for at least tens of millions of Americans, this is possible. It’s a shame; it’s an unfortunate cost or drag needlessly imposed on civil society, the economy, and individual human lives; but there you have it. We can still recognize it, take it into account, and prosper despite the state.

Activism, Achieving a Free Society, and Writing for the Remnant:

Are there any words of wisdom you wish to pass onto the next generation of Austrian scholars?
Yes. Do not focus on short-term goals; this way discouragement lies. Have principles and integrity. Do the right thing, and fight for truth and liberty, because it is right, even if it seems to be an uphill battle. But I would say: live a good life. Enjoy it. Think hard before becoming altruistic. And as I noted in “Nock and Leonard Read on “One Improved Unit” and the Power of Attraction“, your primary task is to improve yourself–to strive for excellence in yourself. Then you become a bright light that attracts people; they see you are good, and successful, and worth emulating or listening to–so you win people over by the power of attraction. They come to you, and then you have more success spreading the ideas of liberty than if you go around being a pest.

… I view the state and its various horrible intrusions into public life as similar to a disease or natural disaster or other natural threat we need to respond to. ³ That’s my approach to it—have normal, good life, and then gird for the upcoming apocalypse; while in the meantime studying and promoting liberty and helping keep “the Remnant” alive. Libertarian activists hate when I say this. But I’m old enough and have been in this movement long enough—since 1981 or so—that … I don’t care. They stamp their feet and demand results now. I want results now too. I just don’t conflate fact and fiction. And I try not to stamp my feet like an insolent punk. I love Star Wars and Lord of the Rings but I know they are not real. I know the difference between fantasy/fiction and real life. No offense, libertarian activists. I have no problem being realistic (and I don’t care if activist libertarians sneeringly deride this as defeatist), and if being realistic, and honest, means I can’t be a good huxter exaggerating promoter that’s perfectly fine with me because I’d rather achieve my own liberty with my own money and success and live in a 62% liberty world as a man with integrity, than lie to myself and others in the vain hope of tweaking the knob from 62% to 62.1%—or, more likely, freedom is always being eroded so the 62% this year will be 61.5% next year, so I’m selling my soul and integrity in the vain hope of having a small chance at slowing down the decrement from 62% to 61.5%? I don’t play these games. I never pretend. I won’t do it. Whatever it is, it is, and if it’s bad, we need to know it and accept it, and build on that understanding of reality.

Libertarians & the Religious Right: an Interview with Stephan Kinsella, by Alberto Mingardi, Laissez Faire City Times, v. 2.39 (1999):

Substantial progress in the direction of liberty is not possible until most of our fellow men favor liberty. Perhaps this is an impossible goal. I do not mean to be pessimistic, but it could be that for some reason–economic, sociological, biological–the human race is doomed to remain mired forever in some form of statism. In that case, and in any event, all one can do is attempt to live one’s life as best one can within the confines of the existing system.

To be a libertarian does not mean that one believes liberty will actually be achieved, just as being opposed to murder does not mean one believes no one will ever be murdered. Rather, to be a libertarian means one is interested in and understands liberty, and is in favor of it, and voluntarily respects the rules it teaches in living his own life. It does not necessarily mean that one must be an advocate or propagandist. I do not see the mission of libertarians as trying to find ways to “convert” college students or even to educate others, although if one is interested in that, that seems to be a pretty good thing to do with one’s time. But a libertarian may spend 98% of his time on his career, family, friends, and hobbies, and rarely be involved with protests or writing or arguing with others. He understands and respects liberty, and wishes there were more of it, and then goes about his life. He either thinks it is futile to try to waste time trying to change the system, or that his miniscule contribution is not worth the effort.