StephanKinsella.com

The image at left accompanied my Mises Daily article How We Come To Own Ourselves. I just love it. I’m not sure where it came from, but it’s apparently entitled something like “Father and Son,” by sculptor H.C. (Hendrik) Andersen. I love this guy’s scultpure and would love to find more pictures of it—what I can find online is spotty: I found only a couple more. This guy was cool. [update: see The Story of a Libertarian Book Cover]

comment on Kevin Carson’s post “Socialism: A Perfectly Good Word Rehabilitated”: (see also my post The new libertarianism: anti-capitalist and socialist):

Brad, the dispute over “capitalism” and “socialism” between the left- and standard-libertarians is partly semantic, though not completely–but the semantic part is a time-waster and muddies the water about the substantive debate. For instance it might well be right that it would have been better to name our view “socialism”–but so what? The term has been taken, and has a meaning. It clearly means state ownership of capital. [continue reading…]

[From my Webnote series]

Related:

• Capitalism, Socialism, and Libertarianism
• Should Libertarians Oppose “Capitalism”?
• On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources (proposing the term “consensualist” and consensualism)
• “What Libertarianism Is,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society, n43
• How To Think About Property (2019)
• The Origin of “Libertarianism,” Mises Blog (Sept. 10, 2011)
• Rothbard on Leonard Read and the Origins of “Libertarianism” (Nov. 17, 2014)
• On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources; Voluntaryism and Voluntarism
• Timo Virkkala, Grand Theft L-Word
• Jeffrey Tucker, “Where Does the Term ‘Libertarian’ Come From Anyway?” FEE, September 15, 2016
• Mark Thornton, “Libertarianism: A Fifty-Year Personal Retrospective,” J. Libertarian Stud. 24, no. 2 (2020): 445–460

In Kevin Carson’s Socialism: A Perfectly Good Word Rehabilitated, we are informed that the true libertarian is anti-capitalist and socialist. Well, at least Hoppe’s magisterial treatise A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism still has a suitable title–if you just switch the terms. (Incidentally, the image at right is a postcard I bought in 1990 in Berlin, right after the Wall fell. The post-Wall Germans were under the impression that socialism was a bad thing.)

But words have meanings. Socialism means centralized control of the means of production–or, in Hoppe’s more essentialist generalization where he defines socialism as “an institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property and private property claims”, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, p. 2; also see pp. 12–which is clearly incompatible with libertarian principles, by both standard- and left-libertarian lights. If we ignore semantics, even “communism” could work–after all, we are for community, no? But words have meanings and fighting over semantics is futile. Hell, we’ve even lost “liberal,” though there is some hope we can regain that (I recall Objectivist David Kelley once in a speech said, if the leftists are done with the term liberal, can they please give it back?). But “socialism”? Too late. If we were picking a new term, I might choose Hazlitt’s tentatively proffered term “Cooperatism” (Foundations of Morality, p. xii), but I think libertarianism, or anarcho-libertarianism, works just fine. It’s not the term that is the problem: it’s what it stands for. (As Rand said when asked: “Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things that you mean?”” Her answer, as mine, was: “To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it.””)

(As for “capitalism”–it is not at all incompatible with libertarianism, though it may not be the best descriptive or definitional term; but it basically describes a system in which the means of production are privately owned; this is indeed compatible with libertarianism, and an essential element of any libertarian society–and it is not “vulgar” to recognize this.)

[Cross-posted at LRC]

Update: Hoppe: “I prefer the term ‘private law society.’” Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Interview with The Daily Bell,” in The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline 2d ed. (Mises Institute, 2021), p. 505.

And see Kai H. Kayser, “APARACTONOMY AND ANARCHO CAPITALISM,” LIBERTY: THE MAGAZINE (Jan. 4, 2026):

Aparactonomy is a concept formulated and named by K. H. Kayser, derived from the Greek “aparaktos” (unbothered, undisturbed) and “autonomy,” representing a more practically oriented extension of anarcho-capitalism. It envisions a stateless nation guided by a voluntary constitution, with a strong emphasis on cultural cohesion, meritocratic diversity, and robust self-defense capabilities. Aparactonomy seeks to overcome some of the obstacles surrounding anarcho-capitalism, particularly its perceived vulnerability to external threats, to facilitate lasting societal and individual peace and prosperity (Kayser, 2025; Hoppe, 2001).

Update:

Every time someone tries to rename libertarianism or introduce another framing or vocabulary, it’s like they think it’s all just a matter of branding or persuasion, that you can trick people into thinking or saying they are really libertarian–e.g. voluntyarism,…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) January 8, 2026

Tweet:

Every time someone tries to rename libertarianism or introduce another framing or vocabulary, it’s like they think it’s all just a matter of branding or persuasion, that you can trick people into thinking or saying they are really libertarian–e.g. voluntyarism, live-and-let-live-ism, nations of sanity-ism, panarchy, private law society, cooperatism, consensualism, agorism, autarky, polycentrism, market-liberalism, and now aparactonomy … it ain’t gonna work. People may be confused and inconsistent and quasi-statist but they are not stupid. 

Update: I believe I read that Ayn Rand had mused that the term “existentialism” might have been appropriate to describe her philosophy, but it was already taken; and she found a way later to argue that Objectivism was a better term anyway. Since the socialists hijacked the liberalism, we started using libertarianism, even though it also refers to a philosophical view about free will. But others have proposed different terms, such as voluntarism, cooperatism, consensualism, and so on.

Walking around Kyoto, Japan, today, exploring Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples, I was reminded of the “Co-exist” decal and bumper sticker, and it occurred to me that another possible candidate for libertarianism would be “co-existentialism,” since the purpose of libertarianism is to provide for individual freedom and liberty in a world of possible conflict by establishing recognized property rights. To establish property rights so that we all might co-exist, to live among each other in a world of scarcity and possible conflict.

Tom, not only does Cato’s Bill Niskanen praise Bernanke’s job performance (as I also noted here), but here we have Cato Senior Fellow and former president of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank William Poole worrying about Congress “damag[ing] the independence of the Fed.” Why, that would be terrible! How can the Fed “do its job” if it is not “independent”? Imagine the havoc it might wreak on the economy!

[Cross-posted at LRC]

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Article No. 28. “Why Pr. Block Is Not Entirely Right and Pr. Tullock Is Completely Wrong: The Case for Road Privatization,” by Laurent A.H. Carnis

Abstract: The private provision of road services and road privatisation has been extensively studied and has generated numerous debates among scholars. Block and Tullock exchanged on the possibility of having a completely privatised road system. Tullock defends the idea such a system is not viable, whereas Block shows a free market for road provision can be easily conceived.

This article proposes a re-examination of this debate and defends a pragmatic and realist approach. Although it shares Block’s conclusions on the possibility of having a free market for road services, it justifies them on a different ground. In fact, the ‘physical obstacle’ argument is less important that it could be previously imagined but it reflects more a socialist tendency to pose the problem.

Anthony, right on. Your’e right about King Obama. After briefly, foolishly slightly getting my hopes up about an Obama victory, he proves himself to follow the rule that every President is worse than the last. I’m already–gag–missing Bush. Here are just a few links to back up some of your contentions–Obama has taken the Bush positions on habeas corpus, wiretaps, and the State Secrets Privilege, and also is bad on  marijuana legalization, while his pig trough keeps expanding, and his maniacal, hypocritical, smug supporters call for censorship of unpopular speech.

[Cross-posted at LRC]

As reported on Volokh: Court Strikes Down Random Drug Test Policy for All Public School Employees: in Jones v. Graham County Bd. of Educ. (N.C. Ct. App. June 2), the N.C. Court of Appeals applied Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution (similar to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure) to overturn the Graham County Board of Education’s “Alcohol/Drug-Free Workplace Policy”. Let me get this straigth: a state court overturned a bad state law based on a state constitution? B-b-b-but how can this be? No bad law can ever be stopped without the intervention of a benevolent, centralized federal court system! Surely this will upset the Libertarian Centralists.  (Hat tip Skip Oliva)

[Cross-posted at LRC.]

Court Rules Convicts Have No Right to Test DNA reports that “The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime.”

This should be no surprise. After all, ignorance of the law is no defense–this makes sense when law is restricted to malum in se; but it’s perverse when it applies to artificial crimes, malum prohibitum offenses (see also Mencken on this). And if the state can convict you of a malum prohibitum offense–one in which you are not really guilty of any real crime–then it should also be no surprise that actual innocence of committing even a genuine crime–malum in se–is not a defense.

[continue reading…]

Reply to BrainPolice, “Why I Reject ‘Self-ownership’ Redux“:

Self-ownership is not incoherent, and indeed is crucial to libertarian theory, if it’s understood properly–if it’s understood simply to mean the idea that each person, as opposed to others, has the right to control his own body. (See my How We Come To Own Ourselves, A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability and Defending Argumentation Ethics, for more detail). As for the disparaging remarks about Hoppe’s theory above, I am reminded of Rothbard’s great Hoppephobia, where he wrote:

The Lomasky review is an interesting example of what is getting to be a fairly common phenomenon: Hoppephobia. Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks on critics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.

I agree with Todd Andrew Barnett: Maher is not now and never was a libertarian–not even close to it. Why he insists on self-describing himself this way is a mystery, but it’s inaccurate. He is smart but ignorant and thinks he knows more than he does; he thinks that snideness and condescension equals intelligence. He thinks he’s better than Bush and his ilk: he’s not. He’s for drug legalization: whoopee. I recall he was cold on Bush; then warmed up when he thought the Iraq war might work; then got cold again. He’s for higher taxes, for Obama, for socialized medicine. He’s vile and crude, and unjustifiably snide and condescending. And he’s no libertarian.

Maher: you’re out!

Free Life Commentary * Issue Number 184 * 18th June 2009
Book Review by Sean Gabb

Organization Theory
Kevin A. Carson
Booksurge, 2009, 642pp, $39.99

I will begin my review by stating its main conclusions. These are that Kevin Carson has written one of the most significant books the libertarian movement has seen in many years. I do not agree with everything he says Mr Carson has said here. I do not suppose any libertarian will unreservedly accept what is said. Even so, I doubt if there is a libertarian who can read this book and not, in some degree, have his vision of a free society enriched and even transformed by it.

Summarising an argument that is worked out over more than six hundred pages is not easy. However, Mr Carson begins by observing that, while economic theory seeks to analyse the behaviour of individuals and small groups within a market system, the economic reality is a world dominated by large corporations within which prices are largely administered and there is an absence of competition.

The rest of Gabb’s review is here.