[Cross-posted at StephanKinsella.com]

Faith Seeking Freedom: Libertarian Christian Answers to Tough Questions (Libertarian Christian Institute Press, 2010; Amazon) is an important book written several of my Christian libertarian friends.¹ All four of the authors are intelligent, well-read, articulate, and principled libertarians. As my endorsement my notes:

Achieving liberty will require enlightening our fellow men about its eternal truths. The contributors to this volume, Christians who are also principled and articulate libertarians, argue for a more libertarian interpretation of Christian teachings, and seek to explain to fellow Christians and other people of faith the glory and morality of liberty in terms they will already relate to. Liberty is ultimately about peace, love, and cooperation, which is a message that can appeal to the 2.4 billion Christians on the planet. This is a big potential audience. This is an important book and undertaking.

[continue reading…]

1. For some podcast appearances, see KOL243 | Libertarian Christians Podcast with Norman Horn: Intellectual Property; KOL388 | Cantus Firmus with Cody Cook: Against Intellectual Property. [↩]

From the vault: Murray N. Rothbard, “Libertarians In a State-Run World,” Liberty (December, 1987): 23–25. From Laurence Vance’s article Murray Rothbard and Liberty Magazine:¹

The only controversy between Rothbard and [R.W.] Bradford [editor and publisher of Liberty] during this time appears to be over Rothbard’s steadfast adherence to the libertarian non-aggression principle. Bradford had written an article (under one of his pen names) in the second issue of Liberty in defense of Robert Nozick in which he criticized “moralistic” libertarians and a libertarianism based on “the morality of non-initiation of force.”² Rothbard replied in the next issue.³ Bradford responded to Rothbard’s reply and to the criticism of others in the following issue.⁴ There he accused Rothbard of not addressing his “central argument that the nonaggression axiom is unsatisfactory as a basis for libertarian theory.” This was followed by Bradford’s “The Two Libertarians” in the May 1988 issue.⁵ There he advocated a “consequentialist” libertarian position contrary to Rothbard’s “moralist” libertarianism. Although a major rebuttal to this was penned by Sheldon Richman in the September 1988 issue,⁶ there was nothing forthcoming from Rothbard.

[continue reading…]

1. Laurence M. Vance, “Murray Rothbard and Liberty Magazine,” Property and Freedom Journal (July 6, 2026). [↩]
2. Ethan O. Waters [R.W. Bradford], “Reflections on the Apostasy of Robert Nozick,” in the “Living With The State” feature, Liberty (September-October, 1987): 14–17. [↩]
3. Rothbard, “Libertarians In a State-Run World,” Liberty (December, 1987): 23–25, also responding to Nathan Wollstein, “The Dilemma of the Gladiators Nathan Wollstein,” in the “Living With The State” feature, Liberty (September-October, 1987): 13–14. [↩]
4. Ethan O. Waters [R.W. Bradford], “Libertarians, Moralism, and Absurdity,” Liberty (March, 1988): 14–15. [↩]
5. Ethan O. Waters, “The Two Libertarianisms” (May, 1988, p. 7). See also Sheldon Richman, “The One Libertarianism” (September, 1988, p. 53), Waters, “The Two Libertarianisms Again” (September, 1998, p. 56); Waters, “The Two Libertarianisms, Again: What Is Wrong With Richman” (September, 1988). Bradford, “The Old Liberty and the New” (February, 1999), p.23, at p.26 n. 1, says, “For a more detailed discussion of the two schools of libertarian thought, see [the Waters and Richman pieces noted above,] David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer (pp. 82-87); and “On The Duty of Natural Outlaws to Shut Up,” by Murray N. Rothbard (New Libertarian, April 1985, pp. 10-11) [“On the Duty of Natural Outlaws to Shut Up” [note: the Mises Institute version linked mangled the title, as can be seen in The New Libertarian, Vol. IV #13 — April, 1985 (pdf)] One issue, November, 1998, promised “Virkkala, ‘The Many Libertarianisms,’” but I cannot find it in the Nov. 1998 issue or elsewhere. —SK [↩]
6. Sheldon Richman, “The One Libertarianism” (September, 1988, p. 53). See also Kinsella, Richman on Inalienable Rights. [↩]

The Facebook post below, by “Voice of Reason” (the title of one of Ayn Rand’s books of collected essays) is, on the one hand, happy that the Mises Institute, via David Gordon’s review, is at least reading and reviewing books by Objectivists, namely The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom by Tara Smith et al.,¹ but also unhappy that the review allegedly mischaracterizes the book’s arguments and is intellectually dishonest.

They have no right to whine. If anything, Gordon’s review omitted the real problem with the book: it pretends to be in favor of free speech, freedom of the press, and the First Amendment, even though Objectivists support state censorship of thought, i.e. copyright. Consider: Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead glorifies IP-terrorism—Roark dynamiting Cortlandt Homes, someone else’s property, because they “stole” his “IP.”² Well suck it up, Buttercup! I know you hate competition, but too bad.³ As Benjamin Tucker said, if you want to your ideas to yourself, keep them to yourself!⁴

And consider Rand’s ridiculous claims that:

Patents are the heart and core of property rights.

Intellectual property is the most important field of law.⁵

[continue reading…]

1. See also An Excerpt from The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom. [↩]
2. Kinsella, On The Fountainhead as IP Terrorism: “I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.” [↩]
3.  Intellectual Property Advocates Hate Competition. [↩]
4. McElroy, “Copyright and Patent in Benjamin Tucker’s Periodical”; “Benjamin Tucker and the Great Nineteenth Century IP Debates in Liberty Magazine.” [↩]
5. Kinsella, Inventors are Like Unto …. GODS…..; Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, Part II: Confused on Copyright and Patent; Because of her error, Ayn Rand chose IP over real property rights, she chose death over life. [↩]

From the vault: Murray N. Rothbard, “The Rise of Statism,” Liberty (September-October, 1987): 31–32, reproduced below. One of many topics Rothbard touched on in his huge oeuvre, including his involvement with Liberty magazine.¹

Here’s the Rothbard piece, followed by some other reviews of Higgs’s great and classic book:

The Rise of Statism

1. See Tyler Kubik, “Murray N. Rothbard Bibliography: 1940s–2019,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 16, 2026); Laurence M. Vance, “Murray Rothbard and Liberty Magazine,” Property and Freedom Journal (July 6, 2026). [↩]

From HansHoppe.com

A Russian translation of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism has been prepared, as Ханс-Херман Хоппе, Теория Социализма И Капитализма. More information will be provided presently. [continue reading…]

Interesting video about the hype—both positive and negative—about AI. The real issue everyone overlooks is the growing conflict between IP—patent and copyright, mainly—and AI and technology in general.¹

Youtube notes:

CEOs claim AI replacing jobs is 18 months away. But I use engineering to show the AI infrastructure required is physically impossible to build in time. Running the power balance: 100 GW of AI energy consumption, 5–7 year turbine lead times, a 2.6 terawatt grid queue, and a data center cooling overhead that breaks their entire argument.

[continue reading…]

1. Kinsella, Whereupon Grok admits it (and AI) is severely gimped by copyright law; Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Artificial Intelligence and IP; The Patent Holocaust. [↩]

I’ve ranted before about the problems with conspiracy theories.¹

First, such theories are usually not needed; and they are usually maintained by people who have a naive view of the state. For them, if we can just get rid of the bad guys (and often they are bankers, capitalists, etc.) and elect good guys, things return to normal. As Hoppe has noted,

“democratic competition” guarantees that only the “best” thieves-fences advance into the decisive power positions, i.e., those who from the property-owner standpoint are the worst of all rulers. Democracy ensures – and all the more, the larger it is (!) – that only and exclusively bad persons, plagued by no moral scruples whatsoever and obsessed with hunger for power and megalomania, reach the top of the state – the respective “best” smooth-talkers and know-nothings who promise the “people” the most in a demagogic manner without having the slightest prospect of success therewith.²

[continue reading…]

1. Kinsella, On Conspiracy Theories; Conspiracy Libertarians, Waystation Libertarians, Activists vs. Principled Libertarians; Crank warning about Iran Nuking New York City, and A Conspiratorial Pseudoscience Manifesto on Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Holograms, and Utopia; On the UN, the Birchers, and International Law; Common Law Court and Militia Nut Material from the 1990s. [↩]
2. Democracy or Private Law Society: Hoppe’s Schweizer Monat Interview (2010), HansHoppe.com (June 9, 2026). [↩]

This YouTube video explains how cities in the twelfth century arrested criminals by detailing one particular case that may be of interest to those advocating for the private production of security and justice. The title card stating “no police, no problem” attracted my attention.

It begins with the intriguing statement that there “…were no police officers, no detectives, no fingerprints, no CCTV, and no Scotland Yard, so instead medieval cities relied on a system of collective responsibility in which ordinary people were expected to help hunt down criminals themselves.”

Then, just how were criminals apprehended without permanent, tax-funded, badged, bureaucrats on patrol? [continue reading…]

They LOVE totalitarianism, as they move to criminalize any and all criticism of Israel in America.  Pastor Chuck Baldwin explains.

From the vault: Murray N. Rothbard, “Life or Death in Seattle,” Liberty (August 1987): 39–42 (advertised as “Ron Paul and his Critics” on the cover). The modern libertarian movement is larger now largely because of Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 runs for US President on the Republican Party ticket (and more radical and Austrian, less minarchist and more anarchist, even if less well-read),¹ but he first ran as a Libertarian in 1988. In fact when I was in law school at LSU I went to him speak in a classroom on the LSU campus during this campaign (and voted for him then as well as the other two times he ran). ²

Rothbard’s discussion of Ron Paul and his campaign in the inaugural issue of  Liberty magazine, August 1987 will be of interest to the PFS audience.³ It appeared in the Politics section, along with a piece by R.W. Bradford, writing under one of his pen names, Chester Alan Arthur, “The Libertarians’ Quandary,” Liberty (August 1987): 36–39.

1. more radical etc.: Kinsella, “Stephan Kinsella on the Logic of Libertarianism and Why Intellectual Property Doesn’t Exist,” in LFFS, p. 625; Kinsella, KOL492 | Menger Institute Podcast #6: Property Rights, Patents, Anarchy, Technology, Long-Term Hope for Freedom, and the Technological Death of the State, Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (June 13, 2026), transcript around 13:23; Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025), p. 59. [↩]
2. See Kinsella, “My Years with the Mises Institute,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 2, 2026); My Failed Libertarian Speaking Hiatus; Memories of Mises Institute and Other Events, 1988–20192026; Kinsella, “Stephan Kinsella on the Logic of Libertarianism and Why Intellectual Property Doesn’t Exist,” in LFFS, p. 649; A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre, section “Objectivist Criticisms“; KOL268 | Bob Murphy Show: Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (June 10, 2019), transcript at 6:31. [↩]
3. See Laurence M. Vance, “Murray Rothbard and Liberty Magazine,” Property and Freedom Journal (July 6, 2026). [↩]

From the vault: Murray N. Rothbard, “Greenhouse defects,” Liberty (January, 1989): 13–14, reproduced below. One of many topics Rothbard touched on in his huge oeuvre, including his involvement with Liberty magazine.¹

Here’s the Rothbard piece, followed by some related commentary:

Greenhouse defects – Of all varieties of statists, I find the environmentalists the most annoying, since they take an outrageously anti-human (i.e., pro-animal, pro-insect, pro-tree) position, in the name of a High Moral Stance that everyone else seems ready to grant them. So while the rest of us are selfish, narrow-minded, and pro-human, the environmentalists take the Cosmic (i.e. non-human) View. They speak for the Universe. [continue reading…]

1. See Tyler Kubik, “Murray N. Rothbard Bibliography: 1940s–2019,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 16, 2026); Laurence M. Vance, “Murray Rothbard and Liberty Magazine,” Property and Freedom Journal (July 6, 2026). [↩]

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 13:00 — 4.5MB)

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 333.

AI-assisted audio narration of the main chapters of Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026) is available at this PFS Youtube Playlist; the mp3 files may also be downloaded in this zip file.

The first two chapters—my “Preface” and Hans’s “Introduction”—were published the week of Rothbard’s birthday here on the Property and Freedom Podcast (PFP315 and PFP314). The other main chapters will be released sequentially weekly on Mondays. The next in the queue:

18. Thorsten Polleit, “Thank you, Murray Rothbard, For Your Extreme ‘Defense of Extreme Apriorism’”

Note: These audio versions were prepared by Jorge Besada. A professionally-produced audio format is now also available from the Saif House.

The cloth hardcover edition of Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment was presented last month at 100 Years with Rothbard, Porto, Portugal, June 27, 2026. This and other formats are available at Amazon; Saif House also offers these versions as well as the professionally-produced audio version.

Tom,

I notice the Reason piece you linked to, America’s Libertarian Revolution, has in its opening paragraph an editorial comment referring to another piece in the same issue by our late mutual old friend Bill Marina:

With the beginning of the American Revolutionary War at the outbreak of Lexington and Concord, two truths about the Revolution already stand out clearly. One is that the Revolution was genuinely and enthusiastically supported by the great majority of the American population. It was a true people’s war against British rule. The American rebels could certainly not have concluded the first successful war of national liberation in history, a war against the world’s greatest naval and military power, unless they had commanded the support of the American people. As David Ramsay, the first great historian of the American Revolution, put it in 1789: “The War was the people’s war…the exertions of the army would have been insufficient to effect the revolution, unless the great body of the people had been prepared for it, and also kept in a constant disposition to oppose Great Britain. “[For a discussion of the Revolution as a majority movement, see the article in this issue by William Marina —Ed.]

That article appears to be William Marina, “The American Revolution as a People’s War,” Reason (July 1976), which argues that the Revolution was a genuine social revolution and a majority-backed “people’s war,” not a narrow colonial rebellion or minority elite project. Now in my recent PFS post Down with the Fourth of July: Reprise, I had also linked to a post about Bill: Bill Marina (R.I.P.) on American Imperialism from the Beginning, which discusses a later article by him, “The Anti-War March on Washington: The Real Issue Is Empire,” LewRockwell.com (Jan. 31, 2007; archive). As the analysis below indicates, Bill seems to have shifted a bit in his views on this issue, between the Reason article in 1976 and the LRC article in 2006: [continue reading…]

“[I]n the deepest sense, the American Revolution was a conscious majority revolution on behalf of libertarianism and against Power . . .,” wrote Murray Rothbard in the July 1976 issue of Reason magazine.

It is important to note that the English Bill of Rights of 1689 established Parliament’s supremacy over the king and abolished the absolute monarchy — 87 years before the American Declaration of Independence.  The king became essentially the ceremonial head of state and the chief executive of the government bureaucracy who needed permission from Parliament to raise taxes, impose a standing army, and much else. Real political power was in the hands of the Parliament.  The monarchy could not “rule” without the permission of parliament.  The position of king or queen evolved over the subsequent generations into the position of prime minister.

From Kinsella Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 494.

This is my interview by Alex Buxeda of at Schweizer Monat [Swiss Monthly; linktree]; recorded June 22, 2026. [Note: Professor Hoppe has been featured in this publication: “Debatte: Small is Beautiful,” Schweizer Monat (04.06.2026); Democracy or Private Law Society: Hoppe’s Schweizer Monat Interview (2010) (“Hans-Hermann Hoppe in Conversation”)]

Grok summary: We discussed why intellectual property is fundamentally incompatible with genuine property rights. Stephan Kinsella argued that patents and copyrights are not legitimate property but state-granted monopolies that violate real ownership of scarce, physical resources. He explained that ideas and knowledge are non-scarce and non-rivalrous — one person’s use does not prevent another’s — so enforcing IP requires aggression against others’ tangible property. We explored the flaws in common justifications for patents (especially in pharmaceuticals), the arbitrary nature of IP law, the myth that “creation” grants ownership, and how free competition and open knowledge flows drive far more innovation than government-protected monopolies. Kinsella also addressed the ethics of piracy, the distorting effects of the FDA and tariffs, and why emerging technologies like 3D printing and AI will increasingly undermine IP systems.

[continue reading…]

Re Tom DiLorenzo’s A Message for Americans on the Fourth of July and Rothbard: Was the American Revolution Radical?:

From the Vault, my post Down with the Fourth of July, collecting some of my previous contrarian rants against American patriotism, worship of the Founders, the Framers, the Constitution, the Declaration, democracy, rah rah rah, blah blah blah.

In particular:

•  Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day! (posted below)
• When Did the Trouble Start?, September 5, 2003, LewRockwell.com.
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Introduction” to Democracy: The God That Failed
• Rockwell on Hoppe on the Constitution as Expansion of Government Power

[continue reading…]

Happy Secession Day!

By PFS member Martín C. Gamazo. For further resources, see Stephan Kinsella, “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) and Supplemental Resources,” StephanKinsella.com (Jan. 1, 2015).

Martín C. Gamazo, “Natural Law Theory, Consequentialism, and Argumentation Ethics: A Response to Olav Dirkmaat,” Property and Freedom Journal (July 3, 2026)

Olav Dirkmaat recently published an article comparing natural law theory (iusnaturalismo) with consequentialism, arguing that the former is mistaken and the latter is the correct way to justify libertarianism.^[1] In this response, we will set aside several problems with the article, such as the fact that at no point does it present, even in summary form, a libertarian natural-law theory, such as the one developed by Murray Rothbard.^[2] We will focus on two aspects of his article: his justification of consequentialism and his critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics.

In his article, Dirkmaat states the following:

The only definitive answer to the question of whether a set of rules produces good or bad consequences is offered by the long-term survival of the collective […] Rule consequentialism must be a principle of civilizational preservation, where the continuity of society depends on the collective capacity to create wealth.^[3]

Read more>>

Laurence M. Vance, “Murray Rothbard and ‘Liberty Magazine,’” ASC 2012 (03/21/2012; recorded March 10, 2012) (mp3). The longer article is now posted at Laurence M. Vance, “Murray Rothbard and Liberty Magazine,” Property and Freedom Journal (July 6, 2026).

The Liberty archives disappeared from both its website and Mises.org a while back (not a surprise in either case, given the way libertarians operate).¹ They are now hosted at my site at Liberty Magazine Archives.

Regarding Vance’s comments here:

Steele’s statement that Rothbard wasn’t an outstanding thinker and made no lasting contributions to any branch of thought, or Skousen’s claim that today Friedman’s influence is ten times Rothbard’s.

And from Liberty editor R.W. Bradford after Rothbard’s death in 1995:

his [Rothbard’s] influence on libertarians waned, partly because of his apparent retreat toward his old nemesis, the political right, partly because of his increasing relish for ideological infighting, and partly because a new generation of libertarian intellectuals found his brand of libertarianism too simplistic.²

I am also also reminded of similar dismissive comment by Pete Boettke at Austrian Scholars Conference 1995, that Rothbard was merely a “popularizer” of ideas or something like this,³ leading to the infamous incident at ACS 1995 when Hoppe blew a raspberry at Boettke when he said this during his presentation at the big auditorium at the Auburn Hotel and Conference Center. In any case, such dismissive comments look only sillier with the passage of time, especially in this centenary year of Rothbard’s birth, events like 100 Years with Rothbard and his recent Gedenkschrift, Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026). The influence and importance of Rothbard’s ideas on the libertarian movement has only grown.

***

Murray Rothbard and Liberty Magazine

Laurence Vance

edited transcript from Murray Rothbard and ‘Liberty Magazine, ASC 2012, Mises Institute, recorded March 10, 2012 (headers added by Grok)

Murray Rothbard and Liberty Magazine: An Overview

Murray Rothbard was at the forefront of the libertarian movement for over 40 years. During this time, he made and broke many alliances and wrote for every conceivable libertarian publication, including some of his own. One publication he was associated with from the beginning of its print run was Liberty Magazine. This paper examines the relationship of Murray Rothbard to Liberty Magazine, where he began as an editor and writer, and later became an object of criticism and ridicule. [continue reading…]

1. Libertarians unfortunately somewhat becoming a pejorative. Re the dysfunctional Mises.org website, see Kinsella, “My Years with the Mises Institute,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 2, 2026), section “Pointless Name Changes, Website Changes, and Journal Confusion.”  [↩]
2. From “Rothbard Remembered,” Liberty (March, 1995): 20–26. [↩]
3. See also Peter J. Boettke, “Economists and Liberty: Murray N. Rothbard,” Nomos (Fall/Winter (1988; pdf2): 29–34, 49–50. [↩]

In addition to his ahistorical evidence for “Israel’s” claims to land in Israel/Judea, and appeals to collectivist, group ownership notions, also key to Walter Block’s defense of Israel’s actions against Palestinians in recent years is his argument its military actions are self-defense. That this is compatible with libertarian principles since libertarianism is not anti-war, it is only opposed to wars of aggression.

Block argues that just as individuals have a right to self-defense, so do nation-states. Even if they are criminal gangs. And even if they necessarily violate individual rights and the non-aggression principle when waging war: by taxation and conscription of their own citizens; by collateral damage against innocent civilians on the enemy side. I explained this in Ammous vs. Block on Israel. [continue reading…]

Several PFS members participated in 100 Years with Rothbard, held last weekend in Porto, Portugal, June 27, 2026. I will provide a more detailed report with photos presently. For now, see the links below and a few photos.

I want to here to mention a very special gift given to me and and Hans Hoppe by the event’s organizer, PFS member Manuel Ogando: an original engraving of Rothbard prepared by Manuel’s sister, the artist Madalena Ogando (Instagram @mmadalena.art; she signs Manalena, because “mana” in portuguese means “sis/sister,” her family’s petit nom for her), based on images from a Rothbard video (see below). Two unique prints were prepared: no. 1 of 2 presented to Professor Hoppe, and no. 2 of 2 given to me. I have already hung it in my office. See video of its creation below. N.b.: “Parabéns,” “Congratulations,” is used for Happy Birthday in Portugal.

Also below: A tribute video for Rothbard displayed at the event, with Hoppe’s voiceover commentary, and the 100th Birthday cake for Rothbard presented at the event, with everyone singing happy birthday (now public domain and liberated from the clutches of copyright after a pointless and expensive court battle).¹ [continue reading…]

1. Happy Birthday to You (Wikipedia); “Happy Birthday” copyright defense: Those “words” and “text” are ours; Jeff Tucker sings Happy Birthday to Me.  [↩]

That’s how libertarian author Jim Powell described the American President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt in his book Bully Boy.  Trump flew to North Dakota today to participate in the celebration of Teddy’s new presidential library.  Teddy was a New Yorker, so of course it makes complete sense that his presidential library is in North Dakota.  (You probably thought I was referring to Trump in the title of this blog entry, didn’t you?).  One thing we know for certain about this is that the library will tell you nothing about the real Teddy Roosevelt.  

Below is the text of the speech by PFS member Fernando Chiocca of Instituto Rothbard (Brazil/Brasil) at 100 Years with Rothbard (Porto, Portugal, June 27, 2026).¹ We will add a link to the video when it is eventually posted. See also Chiocca’s Prezi presentation. [continue reading…]

1. See also PFP327 | Fernando Fiori Chiocca, “The First Knight of Libertarianism” (Rothbard at 100); Fernando Chiocca, How to win the economic debate (PFS 2012). [↩]

Below is the text of the speech by Professor Adriano Paranaiba at 100 Years with Rothbard (Porto, Portugal, June 27, 2026). We will add a link to the video when it is eventually posted. PDF of presentation.

Related:

• 100 Years with Rothbard (Porto, Portugal, June 27, 2026)
  • Stephan Kinsella, KOL493 | Rothbard’s Greatest Hits: A Personal Mix Tape (Porto, Portugal)
  • Mises Portugal: 100 Years of Murray Rothbard
  • Rothbard 100, in Porto: A Misunderstood Genius in a Room of People Who Understood
• Kinsella, The Three Fusionisms: Old, New, and Cautious (Jan. 16, 2022)
• Adriano Paranaiba
  • https://adrianoparanaiba.com.br/
  • Youtube channel
  • X: @adrparanaiba

[continue reading…]

Re the recent US Supreme Court decision affirming birthright citizenship:

• Trump v. Barbara (2026)
• Trump v. Barbara, SCOTUSblog
• Breaking down the birthright-citizenship decision
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship

Excerpted from Murray N. Rothbard, “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State,” J. Libertarian Stud. 11:1 (Fall 1994; pdf): 1-10, also in Rothbard, Secession, State, and Liberty.

Citizenship and Voting Rights

One vexing current problem centers on who becomes the citizen of a given country, since citizenship confers voting rights.

The Anglo-American model, in which every baby born in the country’s land area automatically becomes a citizen, clearly invites welfare immigration by expectant parents. In the U.S., for example, a current problem is illegal immigrants whose babies, if born on American soil, automatically become citizens and therefore entitle themselves and their parents to permanent welfare payments and free medical care. Clearly the French system, in which one has to be born to a citizen to become an automatic citizen, is far closer to the idea of a nation-by-consent. [continue reading…]