I recently came across: “[Saunders]: So I guess if he [Atlas] was a slave, or being held for ransom by a Mexican cartel [1], or simply kidnapped [2] or held up [3], he’d be perfectly free. Ha ha!”

As it relates to:
‘“He [Atlas] did not believe me [Ninov] and wrote a whole article to show that it is ONLY the state [4] that can limit his freedom (using the same quote [as the one I use below] from Ayn Rand[‘]s work[s*])…


Now let us dispense with any naïveté. There are those who are so evil as to want to Exterminate members of a particular…group [4]–yet Saunders imagines an anarcho capitalist hero, such as *Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged “Who Is John Galt” abandoned by his/her friends –where the real world was her classroom–out witted by a street punk [2, 3] / organized street punk boss [1].

And yet in Cherán, Michoacán Mexico, Self-Determination and Self-Defense Prevail–over “perfect” enslavement— inspired by the women of the town…and government/politicians/police [4], HSBC money laundering, a logging company and along with it 3 drug cartels [1] are driven out…and those ransomed are not abandoned…crime plummets. And word gets out across the country…

Watch “How Anarchy Can Work – With Guest Luke Rudkowski” on YouTube

And similarily in The Sagra Model of Privatized Security in Russia; a town takes out a State protected [4] / mafia organized drug operation [1] on its own; and the “nation” State does a Volte-face: Russian Village’s Privatized Self-Defense Underlines Failures of Police AND Politicians fire 200,000 LEO’s; and crime plummets…

CF [4] Yet without a government monopoly on military, police services, services would be open to UNhampered Market competition [See 5, 6, 7] that address Ninov and Saunder’s issues [1, 2, 3 and 4] and Ninov’s issue with what is free and freedom–context and usage–as it applies to remnant Anarcho Capitalism.

This means that those who wish to commit genocide [and variations therein– of so called “perfect” enslavement 1, 2, 3 –]  would not have the entire military police might of a STATIST society where they wield monopoly power [4].

They would ONLY have whatever military might that they could PAY FOR. It also means that another private defense force, quite possibly larger, would be standing in their way, as those who are targets for extermination [specific and incremental] would be looking for protection and quite willing to SPEND MONEY for it. XREF [5, 6]

The lack of monopolized laws also means that there would be no gun control (or more appropriately, victim disarmament) laws, so the targeted minorities–such as Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged “Who is John Galt”–would be much better able to take matters into their own hands [Self Deputizing Sovereign Sheriffs of FREEDOM, methodological individualism, spontaneous order] than they would be in the presence of a STATE.”

In the above examples they kicked out the politicians, police that let drug cartel loggers and HSBC money laundering in…

Excerpted from “But who will build the death camps”? By Matthew Reece from The Zeroth Position Jan 31, 2015

Now let us CONTINUE to dispense with naïveté.

Dear Reader, It is the Nation State that CREATES Conflict and Perverse poaching incentives and Surplus Costs  i.e. drug cartels, victim disarmentment, monopoly gravy trains [1,2,3,4]…where NONE need exist.

It is Anarcho [Self determination and defence and property rights]–laissez-faire–capitalism–that comes without strategies that enslave nor disarm others–and that are in accord with freedom, safety, protection, security and order such as:

Shipping Owners who hire private security as a solution to pirates to thwart numerous DAILY deadly attacks on ships used to supply fuel to us all and the risk of Nation State threats;

AND an entrepreneurial Private Security Owner’s approach to public safety, which is precisely the OPPOSITE of what Law Enforcement Officers are trained and expected to do–And eschewing the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset and police unions, Garrity and Qualified Immunity privileges upheld by DA and Judges and prosecutors that characterize government law enforcement agencies.

This is because Brown’s very successful private security company has an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MISSION – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit…

The business-oriented, personal responsibility-friendly, insurance rate-enhancing approach of Shipping owners, entrepreneurial Private Security is not recommended, suggested, or condoned by Statists.

American missions must be justified, sunk cost in a global police force rationalized. Politicians and their neoconservative allies, around the world prefer war, prefaced by political and economic intervention of those perceived to be weaker or less worthy than ourselves.

In conclusion: The LAST THING individuals/companies [NOT creations of State (Corporations); nor thugs incentivized by State intervention] would want is to kill off their supplies. Property Rights gives one the incentive to Protect and Conserve ones supply, while at the same time Profiting from it (UNLESS one has a State monopoly gravy train).

Dear Reader clearly it is NOT so that “ALL Corporations are BAD”….

The Anarcho Capitalism examples I provide clearly do not have a State monopoly gravy train!

Solutions for the Pirate Problem [AND Statism].
by Karen Kwiatkowski

Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State’s “Security” Monopoly

Support Your Local Private Peace Officer: He’s Got a Dangerous Job
William Norman Grigg

The Police State Is Personal by Wendy Mcelroy

Ref: Atlas spontanous order, bottom up interaction vs hierachial top down surplus order


End of Preamble.

Main Body Quotes and Discussion.

These following Two DEFINITIONS are provided as a response to a discussion as it pertains to Youliy Ninov‘s issues WITH “Anarcho-Capitalism” and Context and Usage of free and freedom.


“Freedom, in a political context, [i.e. per Ninov’s issues with Anarcho Capitalism] means freedom from government coercion [political restraint].


It does not mean freedom from the landlord [economic cost], or freedom from the employer [economic cost], or freedom from the laws of nature [economic cost] which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means [foremost in a division of labor society i.e. unhampered mkt capitalism see Definition ref title link ] freedom from the coercive power of the state [to hamper a free, unrestrained mkt]]—and nothing else [in the context of …Ninov’s issues with Anarcho Capitalism”.]


“If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man’s individual rights; if one upholds man’s individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system [in context of Anarcho Capitalism] that guarantees and protects these rights—”

What I am going to do is show why I don’t subscribe to the term anarcho capitalism, because I think the term “(free from the State), unrestrained, unhampered Marketplace” is less confusing and more descriptive.

Here are excerpts and insights that come from that discussion. Bonus: Dear Reader, at the conclusion, hopefully you will have the tools very few would appear to have for understanding what IS going on in many of discussions today.

The Context (political or economic) and Usage (unrestrained or no cost) are provided in square brackets. [7]

  Profile photo of Youliy Ninov  Youliy Ninov commented on the post,National defense: the hard problem and its true free-market solution, on the site A new type of societal organization

January 17, 2016 , 9:36 pm

In reply to: View

I have been using Ayn Rand’s definition of freedom, i.e. freedom means that no violence has been initiated on you. This definition is universally accepted among minarchists [ministatists] and anarcho-capitalists.

I have no idea what these “free as in no cost” and “free from being restrained by outside forces” mean. Where did you get them from? [5, 6]

Let me repeat my position: A person who acts under the credible threat of initiated violence is not free. But anarcho-capitalism says that one must buy police protection (or alternatively insurance) Since people will buy protection because of the credible threat they will not act freely. A market in which one or more of the sides does not act freely is not a free market. Conclusion: anarcho-capitalism suggests a non-free market solution. What follows is that anarcho-capitalism is not a free-market approach, which flies in the face of what they claim. [7]

In short: good ideas and intentions but wrong implementation.


In reply to: View


Profile photo of Mal Roarke

Mal RoarkeJanuary 17, 2016 , 8:53 pmReply

[7] Free is being used in two different aspects of its meaning, one is free as in no cost, the other is free from being restrained by outside forces.

An unrestrained market does not mean without cost.

You’re using free with two different meanings.

And not distinguishing between them. Here is what you were saying: a free [unrestrained] market is not free [of cost].

No resource comes without cost.

Freedom [from restraint] isn’t free [from cost].

You are saying the same word and using it 4 different ways. This makes good puns but piss poor logic in serious discussions.

You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free because it’s not free.

1. You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free [from restraint] because it’s not free [from cost].

Or else

2. You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free [from cost] because it’s not free [from restraint].

Or else

3. You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free [from restraint] because it’s not free [from restraint].

Or else

4. You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free [from cost] because it’s not free [from cost].

As any rational person can readily see that the first two are nonsense because they are non sequitors; the last two are self contradictory (A is “NOT” A).

In summary, your position is a deliberate obfuscation of the concepts of free. I don’t subscribe to the term anarcho capitalist because “free from the state, unhampered unrestrained marketplace” is less confusing and more descriptive.

Sent from my 4G LTE Device


Profile photo of Mal Roarke

Mal RoarkeJanuary 18, 2016 , 10:05 pmReply0

Many words in English  have different meanings depending on context in which they are used as I previously pointed out. Free is one such word.

In a political context Ayn Rand’s definition fit’s with meaning of restraint. In an economic context free means without cost as I have previously shown.

Pick one of the four you actually think you mean.

Excerpt from a prior post The English adjective free is commonly used in one of two meanings: “for zero price” (gratis) and “with little or no restriction” (libre). This ambiguity of free can cause issues where the distinction is important


Profile photo of Youliy Ninov

Youliy NinovJanuary 19, 2016 , 5:47 amReply0

@Mal Roarke
I can not pick because none of the given definitions fits the meaning Ayn Rand ascribes to “freedom”. She did not work with the popular definitions of freedom but created a new one and in this sense it is unique.

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

Mal RoarkeJanuary 20, 2016 , 7:33 pmReply0

Re: @Mal Roarke
I can not pick because none of the given definitions fits the meaning Ayn Rand ascribes to “freedom”. She did not work with the popular definitions of freedom but created a new one and in this sense it is unique.

You have cut yourself off with communication with the rest of the English speaking world because you are talking in a language no one else understands.

That is why your postings  are confusing and difficut to comprehend.

Ayn Rand’s definition is equivalent to the restraint definition. And I have already explained the two contexts.

I have pointed out the glaring logical deficiencies (CONTEXT, non sequitors and contradictions) in YOUR arguments.

Now you say you cannot pick one out of the four that explain what you mean in plain English.

All that is required of you is intellectual honesty.

“Intellectual honesty [involves] knowing what one does know, constantly expanding one’s knowledge, and NEVER evading or failing to correct a contradiction. This means: the development of an ACTIVE mind as a permanent attribute.” Ayn Rand

You continue to be disengenous and now you are attempting to HIDE YOUR Arguments behind Appeals to Authority and fallacies of the stolen concept and package dealing.

“Stolen Concept,” Fallacy of

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

“Philosophical Detection,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 22

As they feed on stolen wealth in body, so they feed on stolen concepts in mind, and proclaim that honesty consists of refusing to know that one is stealing. As they use effects while denying causes, so they use our concepts while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using.

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 154

Package-Dealing,” Fallacy of

“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24

Note and Reference: What is free and freedom?


Profile photo of Youliy Ninov

Youliy NinovJanuary 20, 2016 , 8:14 pmReply0

@Mal Roarke

“That is why your postings are confusing and difficult to comprehend.”

One of the reasons why you can not comprehend well my article is that I present new ways of looking at anarchism. New ideas are difficult to grasp at the beginning but once you understand them you start wondering how obvious they have been. In addition people are averse to reading, understanding and accepting views which contradicts theirs.

What you try to achieve is not to answer my questions to you but lead me into some dubious definitions which do not match the ones of Ayn Rand. Your “free from restraint” definition gets closer but it does not define restraint. If you had defined “restraint” as “initiated violence” I would have agreed, but you did not. Would you please, take a look at Ayn Rand’s “The virtue of Selfishness” and quote the definition of freedom from there? By the way, you admit that the definitions you have given are popular ones. Consequently, if Ayn Rand’s definition matches some of them, then she has not discovered a new idea/way of looking at the world. It this your opinion? That her ideas are not original?

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

Mal RoarkeJanuary 20, 2016 , 8:33 pmReply0

Ahhh. NOW I remember where I encountered such postings.


It was the subject of an interesting criticism from no less than Murray Rothbard.

“Murray Rothbard, an economist, had this to say in his 1989 article, The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics:
So why then does the present author … have the temerity to tackle a field as arcane, abstruse, metaphysical, and seemingly unrelated to economics as hermeneutics?

Here my plea is the always legitimate one of self-defense. Discipline after discipline, from literature to political theory to philosophy to history, has been invaded by an arrogant band of hermeneuticians, and now even economics is under assault….

The essential message of deconstructionism and hermeneutics can be variously summed up as nihilism, relativism, and solipsism. That is, either there is no objective truth or, if there is, we can never discover it. With each person being bound to his own subjective views, feelings, history, and so on, there is no method of discovering objective truth.”

THAT is why I felt a profound and fragmenting confusion.

Critics of hermeneutics –such as Jonathan Barnes or David Gordon[1] – are understandably moved to satire, to stating or quoting hermeneutical tracts and then “translating” them into simple English, where invariably they are revealed as either banal or idiotic…

…So why then have not the distinguished critics of hermeneutics played the game on their opponents’ own turf and waded through the mountains and oceans of hogwash, patiently to cite and refute the hermeneuticians point by point and journal article by journal article? To ask that question is virtually to answer it.

In fact, we have asked some of the critics this question, and they immediately responded in a heartfelt manner that they do not propose to dedicate the rest of their lives to wading through this miasma of balderdash. Moreover, to do so, to play by the hermeneuticians’ own rules, would be to grant them too much honor. It would wrongfully imply that they are indeed worthy participants in our conversation. What they deserve instead is scorn and dismissal.

Unfortunately, they do not often receive such treatment in a world in which all too many intellectuals seem to have lost their built-in ability to detect pretentious claptrap.[13]



An Insider’s Guide to Online Disinformation

You have probably met these people online. Photo credit: Tristan Schmurr / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
You have probably met these people online. Photo credit: Tristan Schmurr / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)



Beware of smiling trolls. Photo credit: Gaertringen / Pixabay (CC0 Public Domain)

Beware of smiling trolls. Photo credit: Gaertringen / Pixabay (CC0 Public Domain)
This is Part 2 of a three-part series