Insurance Mandates vs Freedom of Movement & Freedom of Choice


Le happy Muh Roads meme. Oh wait, this post is not about roads! It is about my opposition to this driver insurance mandate crap.

It all started when I heard about some family of mine having insurance troubles.

First I went on a totally pointless walk to try and fail to return my bike tubes for having the wrong kind of valve tube. See, my bike’s back tire busted when I was on the bridge that connects Cheshire (my town) to Wallingford (a town I like biking to on mid summer’s eve every month of hot season). I was trying to go to Wallingford to buy programs to get my Battle for Middle-earth modifying matter onto my Macbook Pro. Instead I ended up needing to replace the bike tubes.

Once I got home from that, one of my family relatives came home… and she tells me her insurance expired. Also, there’s, I guess, a law mandating arrest, conviction and jailing for anyone who lacks insurance. Here, I am going to focus my reader base that just keeps getting more global on how hazardous insurance mandates are. On the health of the civil right to freedom of movement, but also on the economic liberty called freedom of choice.

How Insurance Mandates are inherently bad for the freedom of movement

Here is the more relevant segment of this post. Thus, I will make this segment much longer than the next. Basically, this law I heard from my family relative says if you do not have car insurance then you can be arrested and jailed for using the car you legally own. Now don’t get me wrong, I do think drivers need to earn and retain driving licenses by learning and following rules of the road at all times. But I also believe that to force everyone to buy car insurance is going disgustingly overboard. And thus is getting into the “You have no freedom of movement anymore” zone. Which is an inherently immoral zone to get into, especially if you are a cop or politician or other government officer.

As such these principles of mine have lead me to ask this relative of mine “Are you violating someone else or their belongings by lacking car insurance?” And she said stuff to me that lead me into saying “Please think about what the question was cuz I only need a yes or a no.” Her reply was that car owners do need to have car insurance. Now, I believe her on this absolutely! But I refuse to ever believe that arresting and incarcerating people on what comes off to me as a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ basis, is the utmost worst way to go about it.

Now, I do not plan on owning a car until I have finished two years of studying Software Engineering at Gateway Community College. And to make time for a larger store of work-hours per week I desire to take the software engineering courses online. I’ll save the making new friends aspect of life for when I apply what skills I learned to earn my associate degree to an actual software engineering job. Kinda like what I do now except with a much easier time turning more relatable folks into honest friends.

But when I do get to car ownership, I guarantee you my reaction to having car insurance for the first time is not going to be anything favorable to this mandatory insurance law. I am going to create a petition to get all insurance mandates abolished overnight, even though that is something that legally, only Congress can do.

How insurance mandates are always bad for the freedom of choice

Even though I think everyone needs to buy insurance, I also think people need to be personally responsible in ways like saving up for insurance. There are other ways one can afford insurance, too, I realize. I must also highlight that even economists can agree from all manner of ideological viewpoints to oppose income taxes. See, income taxes are constantly one god-tier reason many poor, working class and even middle class are willing but unable to buy insurance for car, health, or whatever else.

Plus, no one private company should have any kind of monopoly on the sale of insurance. Natural economics means allowing insurance prices to reflect supply and demand, i.e. if insurers get fewer customers than they have supply for, prices get low. Although, there is the question of how insurers would be punished for ripping off their customers! Frankly, insurance customers would make negative reviews and solicit boycotts, because there would not be government bailout of fraudulent insurers in a fully civilized economy.

Well, that’s all I got. Thanks and bye, readers!

~KSP Perkins


How To Ramp Up Freedom Of Movement And Border Security Alike, Without Resorting To Any Of Trump’s Ideas.


Syrian immigrants, probably going to some European country

There are culturally but mostly economic arguments to make for assimilating illegal immigrants into American culture instead of deporting them.

Granting to you and indeed to anyone who knows me by real name, Kyle Perkins, or by my internet name Libertarian Defense Atheist; that Mr. Border Wall is going to have his inauguration very soon, I figure today is duly a good time to make a case for a more Liberty-based immigrant policy.

However, from what I understand, there is exactly as much need for raising freedom of movement as there is for raising border security. Because in absolute & total honesty; I tend to be a Pro-immigration-leaning Middle Grounder on immigration, whether it is legal or otherwise.

1] Path To Legalizing those Here Illegally

As a secular morality atheist, I can and do agree in full with the Judaism espousing academics and intellectuals over at Global Jewish Advocacy on the issue of a Path to Legalization.

They argue just as I always will no matter the social media site or journalism site I am arguing on, that these 11 million immigrants who are here illegally need to be put through a simple multi-step journey to being legalized for three reasons.

  1. More citizens 18 and older means more citizens to incentivize to voluntarily join the heroic and ultra high honor US military.
  2. More citizens 14 and older means more citizens to offer jobs that advertising for directly appeals to their individual talents.
  3. More citizens of any age means more citizens to teach not just the English language but also American constitutional culture of cultural liberalism.

2] Five Justifications Not For Amnesty But For Earned Right To Apply For Citizenship

The fellow classical liberalism libertarians I have over at Reason Magazine have published, three years ago, a list of five reasons for amnesty that I am going to go ahead and interpret as something else. Meaning a list of five reasons for an open immigration policy that’s got nothing to do with amnesty. Here are the five reasons, each one in few sentence format.

  1. Immigrants of both kinds, legal and illegal, seem to love taking up the lowest wage jobs in our nation precisely because no person born in the US wants those jobs. These include house cleaning, crop farming, busing tables, and producing extra low priced medicine to.
  2. Immigrants of both kinds, legal and illegal, routinely pay into our wildly complex taxation system and directly to the Internal Revenue Service at times. This is despite the fact that we need to replace the IRS and all currently in effect taxes with something very simple Milton Friedman got a Nobel Science Prize in the science called Economics for proposing. Flat Tax with Negative Income Tax, a wildly simple tax code that would also destroy all loopholes and all forms of what Milton rightly called the Welfare Trap.
  3. As I have said in the URL for this post, illegal immigration is a victimless crime. A decent 85% majority, I’d guess, of the illegal immigrants organically prize every means to steer clear of violent crime and property crime alike. Of course this is regardless of whether the immigrants looks for organized religious or secular morality means to abide by both the law and empathy alike.
  4. Ever hear of freedom of movement and or the right to travel? Well, constitutionally it is actually a Ninth Amendment right and therefore one of those James Madison hinted at when he wrote the American Constitution.
  5. Eleven million people that roughly 85% of, give or take, are good people on their own initiative. That sounds like a bucks ton of people to really do anything about, which is exactly why we need to put all of these on a highly specific and heavily colorful path to earned citizenship, simply as opposed to amnesty.

3] How To downsize Immigration Policy complexity to a simple hybrid of open immigration and surged border security.

Full disclaimer about whose proposals I am paraphrasing, I have little to no liking of Senator Graham outside of these arguments he makes for simplifying immigration policy. I have linked to his proposal on border security but something called ProCon.Org has quoted him on a Pro-immigrant speech of his as their 8th argument for not open borders but rather open immigration. There’s a major nuance between open immigration vs open borders as far as I can tell. And please keep in mind I see mix of good and bad to all of these.

  1. Hire 20,000 more border patrol agents in addition to the 18,000 who were already added in 2012.
  2. Building a fence, NOT a wall, with a doorway in every half mile or quarter mile of fencing.
  3. Add a distinctly Digital Age E-verify system with regards to individual ID cards.
  4. Similar entry-exit system to what they used to do on Ellis Island in the 1890’s and how my Irish immigrant ancestors were processed (tough medical record check & tough criminal record check)

As for the Graham quote I found on the Pro-immigrant list of arguments at, I can summarize the initiatives to ramp up freedom of movement, meaning what versions of them I’d rather we do as a nation, like this.

  1. Call to action for the 11 million illegal immigrants to go around their respective states signing up for English language classes.
  2. Call to action for them to go to classes to learn both free market economics and American civics as well as the human-decency-fact that violent crimes and property crimes are the only crimes that count as crimes.
  3. A honored and delivered on pledge to make all of the above take five years or shorter to all happen. I cannot stand Graham on his belief about making all of the above take a decade or longer.

We need to blow up our entire immigration policy and start over from scratch with these 7 planks.


Thanks for reading this and please sign onto donating $1.75/month with the button below;

California Faced With No Or No Question: Is Weed Legalization To Blame for California Rise in Property Crime?


This is a guy who likely smokes weed very often, something I personally refuse to ever do but I would rather live in a permissive society than live in rampant tyranny.

The Defacing of Hollywood sign to say “HOLLYWEED” has gotten legalization falsely accused of soliciting property crime.

Ugh; I honestly thought the people of America would have learned by now that property crime, like violent crime, is also caused by barbaric ideas and neither by poverty nor by any sort of anti prohibitionism activist deeds.

Evidently there were some people who have decided to blame the November Eighth Twenty Sixteen Legalization of marijuana for the ruining of Hollywood sign to say ‘Hollyweed‘. The property criminal at least had the modesty to admit it was him and to press charges against himself and to admit what he did was superstitious trashiness.

Honestly I pulled my knowledge of this story right out of the Time Magazine episode that has the Botox story as its front page story. And I have quite a case to make against this branch of prohibitionism.

The History of American Weed

When this country started, on Fourth of July of Seventeen Seventy Six, marijuana was far more often used for making hemp clothes, hemp scarves, hemp bandanas and hemp ropes than it was for making anything to be put into one’s human body. As for Medicinal and Recreational weed; neither one of these uses of marijuana was a normality until the year of 1839.

Starting in 1906, and indeed during World War One, marijuana was regulated only by a little something called the Pure Food And Drug Act. This was a bill demanding people to label not just marijuana but all foods, all drinks, and all ingredients with ingredient lists. Thus the start of why we start to learn weird chemical names from our food and beverage labels!

It was not until late 1930’s when we got our first scenes in United States history of criminalizing marijuana. The only exception I can gather from my research was a demand by the FDR administration for people to use marijuana to make hemp ropes for defensive annihilation tools that happened to have ropes as parts of them.

After World War Two the worst that could happen to someone for breaking laws against marijuana is they get a fine or they serve a sentence not of jail but rather of rehab. It was only when Richard Nixon exploded marijuana criminality into a matter we know today as the War On Drugs, an explosion Nixon did with the intent of filling black people with nothing but deprivation.

Current Status Quo

Nowadays, prohibitionists keep on with telling us many lies with the best of intentions, yet all they are really doing is teaching us hate and it’s indeed backfiring on them with us teaching them fear.

The War on Drugs? We’re needing to break it. The war on drugs has tried to squeeze the life from cartels, but has instead squeezed the life from decent folks.

Easily, I thank anyone reading this for reading and if you like this content then I would ask you to please sign on to donating an obviously measly $1.75 per month; thanks again;


US Military Security Needed At The Inauguration of Donald Trump!?


Homeland Security manager Jeh Johnson explains why the US military may need to be a part of Inaugural security on January Twentieth.

From seventy eight hundred National Guard soldiers to tens of thousands of town police department members!

Sounds to me like Homeland Security Department manager Johnson (speaking into mic above) is going to have to recruit some US military personnel! Not just a few thousand US Army, but rather many thousands of US National Guards, along with various police officers, legions of cement armored trucks and a national population’s worth of other security entities.

Are We The People, of the United States of America, really this damning crazy and hellishly evil in the heads that we need the director of the HSD to use American military might to protect us from ourselves!? Or is this just some very specific barbarians on the Far Left that this guess applies to with an indubitable Yes answer?

Where was I in the 2016 Election Cycle?

I must admit… while I have managed to stay civilized and stay culturally American in my behavior, I have been dismayed at the progress of Trump in three ways.

First came my switching over from the Libertarian Party to the Republican Party in middle 2015 because I took the iSideWith quiz and at the time came out with the LP as number one party match at 88%. As for candidate match, a Florida Senator who loves the Digital Economy and understands the world around America as much as I do, called Marco Rubio, was number one candidate match at 78% and Trump and Clinton both near rock bottom. And then I saw the ‘people’ of Florida voting for Donald Trump instead of this Senatorial promoter of free enterprise in Digital Economy context, the very kind of free enterprise promotion that libertarians like me need to do! But no, Marco is not a libertarian but rather a Center-Right conservative human being.

Then in February and March of 2016 I revisited iSideWith and it told me about another candidate in the LP that was exactly as articulate with similar but different principles in comparison and contrast to Marco Rubio. This LP alternative was of course Austin Petersen, who I can relate to 98% politically, so I directly endorsed him via Gmail and when he thanked me and asked for a phone number I instantly gave him my personal phone number. But when it came for the Libertarian Party primary, I thought there was no Connecticut state ballot access on April 26th for the Libertarian Party. If I had known about the ballot access it would have been because I directly asked the Cheshire CT handler of voter registrations, and then went to go vote for Austin Petersen. Sadly the LP delegates chose a complete hypocrite over this incredibly intellectually advanced Austin Petersen nomination candidate.

Lastly I went to backing and endorsing Evan McMullin, an Independent candidate who came off to me as more of a Pro-Defense Pro-America libertarian (with tiny conservative leanings), than as any kind of conservative that he was marketing himself as.

But when I noticed that Gary Johnson (the complete hypocrite on Liberty Movement principles) was going to be my most politically relatable option, I very reluctantly voted for this stoner and watched him get his ticket Trumped by the Donald.

What barbarians do I speak of?

Many people on the Far Left, the Anti-liberals who I am absolutely done with seeing referred to as “Liberals“, are irreversibly convinced that moral good has nothing to do with physical behavior and everything to do with political opinion. Reality is that empathy confirms exactly the opposite; which is that moral good has nothing to do with opinions in any topic whether the topic is politics, Middle-earth, dinosaurs, sports, or whatever else; and everything to do with physical actions.

These backward primitives are the people I can easily guess to try to launch the most barbaric siege attack they can on the ceremony we are discussing here, but I hope I’m fully wrong about this. As an atheist, I personally hope to the attendees of the inauguration and to the inaugural security that the security will not need to open fire on anyone.

Okay, I think I am done with this assessment. Thanks everyone and please buy a subscription which is only $1.75 per month!



Every Difference You Need To Know Between a Neolibertarian and a Neoconservative


A version I cooked up on Gimp of the ‘Statue of Freedom’. This artwork alone should hint at many differences existing between neolibertarian and neoconservative.

Neolibertarianism Is Quite Often Not Neocon Stuff.

So, I look at an Encyclopedia definition of what a Neoconservative is. And looking at this article alone allows me to bring you readers this writing about how starkly different a neolibertarian like me is from any neocon.

But do not worry, as I read the article, I will highlight both common grounds and differences that neolibertarians have on neocons.


Neolibertarianism just by being one of ten different kinds of libertarian endorses individualism, and apparently neoconservatism endorses individualism as well. This means both ideologies motivate judgement of human peers and foreign regimes on an individual basis, and both ideologies value individual freedom.


Real capitalism, not corporatism, is wherein items and services are owned by private individual humans and not by the government. And neoconservatives can agree with neolibertarians on endorsing true capitalism for economy.

Culture And Religion

Here we go, the very first way in which neolibertarian and neoconservative are total antonyms. Neoconservatives are so socially and culturally conservative as to be uptight squares about it. They cite violence in works of fiction and profanity in music as evidence of Western Culture having been totally ruined by corruption. Neocons also act like one cannot be moral without being religious.

Neolibertarians are the opposite of all of this. We see the freedom to view fictional violence and hear profane music as examples of freedom of expression being taken exactly as seriously as is meant to be. As neolibertarians, we generally look at the mass media, at secular morality, and at organized religion as Thomas Jefferson did:

  • “If it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pockets, then to me it’s not degenerate behavior.”

And yes, I am very likely paraphrasing Jefferson enormously. But yes neolibertarians are immensely culturally liberal on cultural stuff.

Economic And Social Policy

Neolibertarians like me are adamant advocates of free markets and laissez-faire. Neoconservatives on the other hand are absolutely not. Instead they support stuff like income tax, inheritance tax, and the welfare state which have nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with vile corporatism.

The only economic policy we have in common with neocons is they favor equality of opportunity and oppose equality of outcome, and so do we.

Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy and National Defense is a policy field wherein we neolibertarians are ‘similar but different’ from neoconservatives.

We do agree with neocons that the US military might needs to employed around the world to defend the individual rights of the American People. However, neocons say it is in the interests of the United States to do democracy promotion around the world and regime change, unprovoked.

Neocons accept the fact that Thomas Paine was the first to find (and Rudolph Rummel the first to verify) about constitutional republics being far more peaceful and despotic monarchies being far more warlike, just like neolibertarians do. But then neocons try to use this fact to justify doing unprovoked wars just to go imposing democracy overseas. Us neolibertarians don’t do that, we instead use this fact to justify encouraging America to have a clear taste in friends, constitutional republics only.

Also, there is a huge difference in how we’d like our nation to handle militarily defeated enemies. Neoconservatives favor keeping troops in defeated enemy land for nation building and democracy promotion. Neolibertarians like me prefer drafting a constitution for a defeated enemy to abide by and to unconditionally surrender to.


Hopefully people now get the differences. Thanks for the read;


What’s So Great About A Permissive Society?


Something minimalist, like the Golden Rule or the Non-Aggression Principle, would be the only limit to human activity in a permissive society

Permissive Society goes Hand in Hand with Free Market economics

Exactly what is a permissive society, before we begin? Well, according to the book “The Permissive Society: America, 1941 – 1965“, a permissive society is a society of making itself increasingly libertarian about its cultural norms.

The only crimes classed as crimes in a permissive society are acts of physical coercion.

A Permissive society is often seen as a free society wherein social and moral freedom is included with political and intellectual freedom.

Consistency Thing

Remember when I did my piece about how absolute freedom of expression is mandatory to human decency? Well, by the logic I put into that post, the permissive society is the decent society, even though things like M-rated games and R-rated films are minimally regulated if at all.

This is also despite the fact that permissive society means inclusion of freedom from religion within freedom of religion, and freedom to dress revealingly included within freedom of choice.

And to add personal plugs, this is despite the fact that permissive society means freedom to listen to metal music and to enjoy Medieval-like Fantasy universes, even R-rated or M-rated ones, is granted.

How exactly is this consistent? Well, the more freedom is given the more self-control is needed by the individual. To be given character education and to be taught to focus on one’s own self-destructive traits is necessary. And from what I hear from Dave Rubin’s chat with him, Yaron Brook wrote books and essays that I look forward to reading and linking to in future pages. Brook wrote stuff all about how physical coercion crimes like murder and arson and such are self-destructive.

By Libertarian Principles…

A permissive society is the way to address cultural elements, and in fact the Western world’s Age of Enlightenment saw permissive society become the norm of Western Culture.

Of course, this is not a call for anarchy, but rather this is a call for people to take some time to think about how a permissive society is far superior to any kind of substantially restrictive society. There is a need for a Constitutional Republic, and that need is for an entity to protect individuals from physical coercion. I have spoken at least every time I wrote here about foreign policy about that being the legit style and role of government.


Really think about this. Permissive society does require individual self-control, but what permissive society does in results is it makes government corruption almost nonexistent. I say almost because human nature is severely deeply flawed. Thanks for the read,


Why I Am A “Market Liberal” On Social Issues


Every one of the Founders, if here today, would espouse market liberalism on social issues to.

Being a Market Liberal is in every way a superior take on social issues vs being a Christian Conservative, I say

From what I can gather, I take it most Americans are market liberals on social issues but have no idea what the difference is between that and a social liberal. But what is that difference?

  • Market Liberal: Aka classical liberal; person who unconditionally endorses personal and political freedoms and wants a republic with rule of law and gives priority the economic freedoms of laissez-faire.
  • Social Liberal: Person who wants to balance individual freedom with social equality, and thinks government should have a role in addressing social issues.

So now I am going to explain why I am a market liberal and what that means to me.

Why I Espouse Market Liberalism

My reasoning for taking in market liberalism as my social issues philosophy consists of diverse motives, every one of them liberty-focused.

The first reason is because it is more appealing to an Atheist like me than Christian Conservatism is. It truly has room for the facts of life we know as evolutionary biology, climate change science, and the sciences one learns from comprehensive sex ed.

Just as well, every single one of the Founding Fathers of America espoused Market Liberalism not just on the social issues of their day but also in domestic policy arenas in general. The very huge majority of them, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were Deists, with a few Christians and a few Atheists here and there.

Reason number two is because social liberalism allows for far quicker corruption by far-left progressivism than market liberalism allows for. Market liberalism in fact prevents corruption by the far left.

What Market Liberalism Means to me

At least to me, market liberalism on social issues means keeping the government our of social issues and letting the free market determine social issues according to the laws of supply and demand.

Supply And Demand, if you don’t already know, is the following simple laws, as I explain with a screen cap.


I took this of a website that has way too many ads but at least has this intellectually honest breakdown.

Lengthy but Excellent article on this topic here.

How about we use gay marriage as an example. Marriages of every kind would have been both privately owned and legal if government stayed true to the Founders instead of betraying them to outside influence.

According to polls gay marriages would have been getting more affordable as time went forward because there was more demand over time, and supply as far as I can tell was never changed.

On abortion, public opinion seems to indicate that there is slightly low demand and the supply seems to be the same as was. Therefore I predict abortions would not exactly be affordable under market liberalism. This is me, a guy who strongly opposes tax dollar funding of abortion, calculating this.

Here in the modern age, evolutionary biology appears to be far greater in supply and in demand than creationism. So thankfully evolutionary biology would be a lot more affordable to promote than creationism had government stayed true to the Founders instead of betraying them once the last of them passed away.


I can go on with forever more examples of the primacy of market liberalism, but I think I shall stop right just here. Thank you all readers,


Properly American Style And Purpose of the Federal, State & City Governments


Yeah, I don’t think any of the Founders had any interest in spying on everyday America.

Government has both a purpose and a style to fulfill

Yes, I am still a libertarian, that simply means I favor a free-market, small-government, secular-humanist republic. And a republic is government by elected individuals who abide by the rule of law. And I am going to show you exactly how the style of American government in general is supposed to be a constitutional secular humanist republic. But I will also cite evidence of the purpose of America’s constitutional secular humanist republic, which is to provide defense and to hold all of humanity to the same moral standard.

Style of Government

Libertarians must examine, in deciding what American foreign policy and domestic policy should be, what the style of American government is to be.

According to James Madison, and citing the Constitution as evidence, American government in general is set to be a republic, as are the state and city governments. Article Four Section Four is what says this claim about this country.

Concerning my claim about secular humanism, there are two elements of evidence to support that claim. The first is Article Six of the Constitution which forbids making organized religion a qualification for public office.

The second element is something Thomas Jefferson said, with influence from Thomas Paine. As a deist, Jefferson despised clerics and said that “America is on no account a Christian nation.”

Role of Government

The purpose and role of government in America is, according to the constitutional Preamble, to provide for the common defense of people.

Just as well, the Declaration of Independence establishes legal equality for humanity, and entitled it to free trade and to freedom from slavery. See this very simple source here.

Misuse of Government

Let us list what US government is not supposed to be.

  1. It’s not to be a Judeo-Christian theocracy
  2. It’s not to be the corporatist nonsense it currently is
  3. It’s not to be the Alt-right absurdity Donald Trump might make into
  4. It’s not to be the democratic socialism like Bernie Sanders wants it to be
  5. It’s not to be any kind of power-hungry empire thing like Clinton, Obama and both Bushes make it to be
  6. It’s not to be the sort of porcupine-defense republic Ron Paul and the LP want it to be

It is supposed to be a constitutional, secular humanist republic that militarily provides for common defense and diplomatically stands for all humans to have free markets and civil liberties.

Which leads us right into what government is not to do.

  1. It’s not to force democracy on all foreign countries everywhere
  2. It’s not to dump free food on countries who are having famines
  3. It’s not to bribe foreign governments to behave a certain way
  4. It’s not to build schools and holy temples such as churches or mosques on foreign soil
  5. It’s not to force Judaism, Christianity or other organized religion onto atheists and deists like with Creationism and with Abstinence-Only Poisons

It is supposed to provide for common defense while advocating for all humans to have free markets and have civil liberties.


I think I have clarified to the world what the style and role of US government is supposed to be, lawfully. Thanks for the read, readers;


What Is The Point of A Republic?


This portrait of Thomas Jefferson, who knew the necessity of a republic, is also the front cover of the novel I’m currently reading: Emperor of Liberty.

Republics Often Don’t Get Credit Where Credit Is Due

Republicanism in its original form has nothing to do with the modern US Republican Party. As a matter a fact, a republic is a government that’s made of elected representatives including an elected president or elected chancellor.

The idea of a republic was first thought up in vast opposition to monarchy across Europe by the West’s first libertarian activists in the 17th Century.

Proper libertarians first gained their rise to prominence by monstrously purging the UK of despotic Monarchy via the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Why do I summarize that event this way? Because the fact of humanity is about Permissive society, Republic, Minarchism, Free market, all these things I am a hardcore libertarian for holding dear. They’ve only become the norm where the laissez-faire republic types launched ruthless Civil Revolts.

What Is The Purpose of a Republic?

Looking over to the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, and the Constitution by James Madison, it is pretty clear what the purpose of a republic is. The purpose of a republic is to provide for the Common Defense of its people, and also to assert that all humans are equally entitled to economic freedom and to personal liberty.

So to be frank, the purpose of a republic is not to steal money from the active and donate it to the lazy. It’s not to shower poor countries with food and fluid as they are having famines. It’s not to forcibly change monarchies into republics unless a monarchy aggressively provokes a republic into defensive war. And it’s absolutely not to keep Regressive Left types feeling good through safe spaces and tigger warnings. And no, I do not care that they’re actually called trigger warnings.

Bottom line, the morally correct kind of government is a republic, and the duties of a republic are to provide for the common defense for its people. And to assert that all humans are equally entitled to economic freedom and to civil liberties.

Self Defense And Defense Of Others?

I have elaborated on Constitutional Egoist foreign policy some time ago, so the purpose of a republic can be summarized with the phrase ‘self defense and defense of others’. The whole reason any republic exists is to defend humans from despotic aggression.


Republics are the best kind of government, and anarchy is no alternative. Libertarians often get wrongly confused with Anarchists, but the reality is ‘libertarian regime’ is a realistic phrase, and it’s inherently synonymous with ‘republic’.

But anyhow, thanks readers for reading,