It Looks Like A Crazy Guy Just Walking Around In The Snow …

Truly stunning! Seems like he must use some kind of pre-programmed GPS guide or something like that.


… Then You Zoom Out And.. Whoa


Simon walks over layers of fresh snow in special shoes to create his mind-boggling art.



” It’s possible you’ve never heard of Simon Beck, but after today, you won’t be able to forget him or his wintry works of art. Simon is an artist and is most well-known for making incredibly delicate and detailed art in the snow, just by walking over a fresh snowfall. He literally walks miles in the snow to create these pieces. And the part that blows our minds? He could spend hours upon hours creating one design, just to have it be covered by snowfall or blown away by the next day. But he still makes them.

  Simon walks over layers of fresh snow in special shoes to create his mind-boggling art.”

That’s Simon above . Doing who-all knows what you say ?

Doing this …

It's just hard to believe that he spends countless hours making these...

Simon’s creations have to be seen to be believed … absolutely stunning .

View original post 1 more word

Merry Christmas, Happy Natalis Invicti, Happy Saturnalia!

“The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: “Merry Christmas”—not “Weep and Repent.” And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form—by giving presents to one’s friends, or by sending them cards in token of remembrance….”

Ayn Rand

An Objectivist Refutation of Anarcho-Capitalism (Market Anarchy)

Free Market Revolution

A work discussing Ayn Rand’s morality in relation to the fight for freedom. This book is not the source of this essay.

Many people who consider themselves libertarians also consider themselves “anarcho-capitalists.” (AnCaps) They don’t believe there should be a government with a monopoly over the use of retaliatory force in a given geographic area. Yet Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism advocates for such a monopoly government. AnCaps believe that Objectivism is misguided, because they hold there is a contradiction between advocating for the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and advocating for a governmental monopoly that is prepared to use force to exclude competitors.

This essay will show how Objectivism is right, and there is no contradiction between upholding the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (NIFP) and advocating for a monopoly government. It will show that a certain kind of governmental monopoly is necessary for the protection of people’s individual rights; that is, the protection of people from initiatory and unjust coercion. I think you’ll find that an Objectivist critique of anarcho-capitalism is rather different from other criticisms of anarcho-capitalism and anarchism.

[Note: A summary of this essay appears at the end. But please read the whole essay before criticizing.]

We Currently Live Under Market Anarchy and the “Market in Force” Has Failed: Now What?  [Permalink]

So what is “market anarchy?” At the most basic level, what market anarchists think they are advocating for is to “let the market decide” what sorts of measures are taken for the retaliatory use of force against aggressors. In other words, they think they are advocating for unrestrained individual choice in the use of force. They think that, if only individual choice were “freed from a state,” the result would be smaller, Private Defense Agencies (PDAs) and/or private Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs).

But if “market anarchy” means “unrestrained individual choice in the use of force,” then there is literally nothing that any individual–or any private defense agency–could do that would stop a condition of market anarchy from prevailing. The unlimited discretion in the use of force that AnCaps assign to each individual client of a defense agency, also applies to the individuals that compose the defense agency. So people can choose to have a defense agency that permits the mutilation of babies’ genitals, the killing of children for “dishonoring” their families, that punishes theft by dismemberment or death, that preemptively kills suspicious neighbors, and this is all covered under the label “market anarchy.” Similarly, any defense agency can collect taxes, coercively regulate business, arbitrarily abduct its clients to walled compounds, restrict sales of guns, conduct wars of aggression and crush other defense agencies, all under the label of “market anarchy.”

So, actually, the entire world is in a state of market anarchy, by the above definition. Those AnCaps in the territory of the USA are entirely free to form their own defense agencies and compete for clients with the giant, bloated defense agency that is the US Federal Government. The “market in force,” which is “unrestrained individual choice in the use of force,” has produced this behemoth. Defined this way, the AnCap “free market” has chosen a coercive state as its defense agency. And it should be plainly obvious to any reasonable AnCap that, in this current market, start-up defense agencies cannot hope to compete with the US Government. Humans started stateless, then got into tribal wars with each other, and later formed states as their DROs that startups can’t possibly compete with. Where were the anarchic “market forces” that were supposed to prevent this from happening the first time? This is a “market failure” at its most spectacular.

Continue reading

A Reddit Discussion of Anarcho-Capitalism (Market Anarchy)

Capitalism-The Unknown IdealThis post is an adjunct to an essay refuting the theoretical basis and practicality of “anarcho-capitalism” or “market anarchy.” It is a reproduction of a discussion on a public area of reddit. I am Sword_of_Apollo and I am debating Liber-TEA, a proponent of anarcho-capitalism.

RobO2112: A truly Objectivist government wouldn’t be in the business of telling people what to do and how to do it; government, as understood by Objectivists, has one purpose and that is to protect the rights of individuals from coercion and fraud, and nothing else. So it’s kind of an odd question. To an Objectivist it would read like, “What would an Objectivist government do with people who do not consent to having their rights protected from force and fraud?” And I have to venture that the answer would be, “nothing, so long as they do not violate anyone else’s rights.”

Liber-TEA: But what if I disagree with the application of that, or I disagree with a particular law ideologically?

Sword_of_Apollo: Then you have to speak, reason, persuade. If the government allows people to opt out every time they disagree, then any criminal can get away with murder by invoking the fact that he disagrees with the idea that what he did should be punished. If the government allows people to opt out at all from its ultimate authority, (even if they have not yet committed a crime) then it has nullified its own ability to protect rights.

If the person sets up laws that are coercive, and the government says, “Oh, we’ll just make a compromise between your laws and ours,” then imagine what kind of destruction would be wreaked on justice.

What would a “compromise” look like between one law system that protects children from honor killings, and another that allows them? The parents get to cut off the child’s right arm and completely destroy her genitals?

Liber-TEA: And what if you can’t persuade me?

Continue reading

Yaron Brook: Shrugging the Stigma of Success

In this recent talk at the University of Texas-Austin, Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, discusses the general American attitude toward success in business and how it is influenced by traditional moral ideas. But does traditional morality really make sense? Is it reasonable? Dr. Brook argues that it doesn’t and it isn’t.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

For anyone who found this talk interesting, I highly recommend reading the book, Free Market Revolution, which Dr. Brook co-authored with Don Watkins.


Related Posts:

How Business Executives and Investors Create Wealth and Earn Large Incomes

Wealth is Created by Action Based on Rational Thought

What Caused the Financial Crisis: It Wasn’t Capitalism or Deregulation

Wealth is Not Money — Monetary Wages vs. Real Wages

The Nature of the Morality of Rational Egoism: Short Notes