1443: Gene Epstein – The Evils of Capitalism

The evils of capitalism are simply the evils of social trends and the evils and the misdeeds of human beings. We are going to misbehave; there will be evil in the world. Capitalism is, by far, the best system for channeling human wishes and incentives into the best outcomes. —Gene Epstein
Normal Quality (1920×1005 239 KB)
The evils of capitalism are simply the evils of social trends and the evils and the misdeeds of human beings. We are going to misbehave; there will be evil in the world. Capitalism is, by far, the best system for channeling human wishes and incentives into the best outcomes. —Gene Epstein
Normal Quality (1920×1372 312 KB)
The evils of capitalism are simply the evils of social trends and the evils and the misdeeds of human beings. We are going to misbehave; there will be evil in the world. Capitalism is, by far, the best system for channeling human wishes and incentives into the best outcomes. —Gene Epstein
The evils of capitalism are simply the evils of social trends and the evils and the misdeeds of human beings. We are going to misbehave; there will be evil in the world. Capitalism is, by far, the best system for channeling human wishes and incentives into the best outcomes. —Gene Epstein

The evils of capitalism are simply the evils of social trends and the evils and the misdeeds of human beings. We are going to misbehave; there will be evil in the world. Capitalism is, by far, the best system for channeling human wishes and incentives into the best outcomes. —Gene Epstein

1437: Nick Freitas – If You Don’t Agree with Them

If you don't agree with them on policy, you're a sexist, you're a bigot, or you're a racist. The moment they claim that, with no evidence, other than we don't agree... then they don't get to lecture us on compassion, tolerance, or open debate. —Nick Freitas
Download Print Quality (3840×2010 2 MB)  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005 217 KB)
If you don't agree with them on policy, you're a sexist, you're a bigot, or you're a racist. The moment they claim that, with no evidence, other than we don't agree... then they don't get to lecture us on compassion, tolerance, or open debate. —Nick Freitas
Download Print Quality (3840×2743 3 MB)  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372 286 KB)
If you don't agree with them on policy, you're a sexist, you're a bigot, or you're a racist. The moment they claim that, with no evidence, other than we don't agree... then they don't get to lecture us on compassion, tolerance, or open debate. —Nick Freitas
If you don't agree with them on policy, you're a sexist, you're a bigot, or you're a racist. The moment they claim that, with no evidence, other than we don't agree... then they don't get to lecture us on compassion, tolerance, or open debate. —Nick Freitas

If you don’t agree with them on policy, you’re a sexist, you’re a bigot, or you’re a racist. The moment they claim that, with no evidence, other than we don’t agree… then they don’t get to lecture us on compassion, tolerance, or open debate. —Nick Freitas

1337: Ayn Rand – The Right to Enslave

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave” —Ayn Rand
Normal Quality (3840×2010 90 KB)
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave” —Ayn Rand
Normal Quality (3840×3840 249 KB)
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave” —Ayn Rand
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave” —Ayn Rand

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave” —Ayn Rand

1336: Ayn Rand – A Guide to Rights

The rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do. —Ayn Rand
Normal Quality (3840×2010 102 KB)
The rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do. —Ayn Rand
Normal Quality (3840×3840 147 KB)
The rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another.
The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do. —Ayn Rand
The rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another.
The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do. —Ayn Rand

The rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another.
The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do. —Ayn Rand

1327: Stephen Kinsella – The Non-Aggression Principle

The libertarian approach is a very symmetrical one. The non-aggression principle does not rule out force, but only the initiation of force. In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else's use of force. If they do not use force you may not use force yourself. There is a symmetry here. — Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist
Normal Quality (1920×1005 288 KB)
The libertarian approach is a very symmetrical one. The non-aggression principle does not rule out force, but only the initiation of force. In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else's use of force. If they do not use force you may not use force yourself. There is a symmetry here. — Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist
Normal Quality (1920×1372 370 KB)
The libertarian approach is a very symmetrical one. The non-aggression principle does not rule out force, but only the initiation of force. In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else's use of force. If they do not use force you may not use force yourself. There is a symmetry here. — Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist
The libertarian approach is a very symmetrical one. The non-aggression principle does not rule out force, but only the initiation of force. In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else's use of force. If they do not use force you may not use force yourself. There is a symmetry here. — Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist

The libertarian approach is a very symmetrical one. The non-aggression principle does not rule out force, but only the initiation of force. In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else’s use of force. If they do not use force you may not use force yourself. There is a symmetry here. — Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist

1326: Stephan Kinsella – To Be An Anarchist

To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view. —Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist
Normal Quality (3840×2010 101 KB)
To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view. —Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist
Normal Quality (3840×3840 137 KB)
To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view. —Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist
To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view. —Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist

To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view. —Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist

1305: Jeff Deist – A Position of Humility

Because we all see the world differently, we don't know what's best for everyone. That is precisely why we are libertarians. We start from a position of humility, not hubris. —Jeff Deist
Normal Quality (3840×2010 80 KB)
Because we all see the world differently, we don't know what's best for everyone. That is precisely why we are libertarians. We start from a position of humility, not hubris. —Jeff Deist
Normal Quality (3840×3840 111 KB)
Because we all see the world differently, we don't know what's best for everyone. That is precisely why we are libertarians. We start from a position of humility, not hubris. —Jeff Deist
Because we all see the world differently, we don't know what's best for everyone. That is precisely why we are libertarians. We start from a position of humility, not hubris. —Jeff Deist

Because we all see the world differently, we don’t know what’s best for everyone. That is precisely why we are libertarians. We start from a position of humility, not hubris. —Jeff Deist

1304: Henry Hazlitt – The Neglect of Thinking

Every man knows there are evils in the world which need setting right… to most men one in particular stands out vividly… it stands out with such startling vividness that they lose sight of other evils. To the Socialist this evil is the capitalistic system; to the feminist, it is the subjection of women; to the clergyman, it is the decline of religion; to the staunch Republican it is the Democratic Party, and so on, ad infinitum. I, too, have a pet little evil, to which I am apt to attribute all the others. This evil is the neglect of thinking. And when I say thinking I mean real thinking, independent thinking, hard thinking. —Henry Hazlitt
Normal Quality (3007×3840 646 KB)

Every man knows there are evils in the world which need setting right… to most men one in particular stands out vividly… it stands out with such startling vividness that they lose sight of other evils. To the Socialist this evil is the capitalistic system; to the feminist, it is the subjection of women; to the clergyman, it is the decline of religion; to the staunch Republican it is the Democratic Party, and so on, ad infinitum. I, too, have a pet little evil, to which I am apt to attribute all the others. This evil is the neglect of thinking. And when I say thinking I mean real thinking, independent thinking, hard thinking. —Henry Hazlitt

1275: Albert Camus – The Alibi of Tyrants

The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. —Albert Camus
Normal Quality (1920×1005 211 KB)
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. —Albert Camus
Normal Quality (1920×1372 273 KB)
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. —Albert Camus
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. —Albert Camus

The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. —Albert Camus

1273: Walter Block – Libertarianism is Neither Left nor Right

Libertarianism is neither of the left nor of the right. It is unique. It is sui generis. It is apart from left and right. The left-right political spectrum simply has no room for libertarianism. Think of an equilateral triangle, with libertarianism at one corner, the left at a second corner and the right at the third corner. We are equally distant from both of those misbegotten political economic philosophies. No, better yet, think in terms of an isosceles triangle, with us at the top and the two of them at the bottom, indicating they have more in common with each other than with us. —Walter Block
Normal Quality (3840×2010 555 KB)
Libertarianism is neither of the left nor of the right. It is unique. It is sui generis. It is apart from left and right. The left-right political spectrum simply has no room for libertarianism. Think of an equilateral triangle, with libertarianism at one corner, the left at a second corner and the right at the third corner. We are equally distant from both of those misbegotten political economic philosophies. No, better yet, think in terms of an isosceles triangle, with us at the top and the two of them at the bottom, indicating they have more in common with each other than with us. —Walter Block
Normal Quality (3072×3840 738 KB)
Libertarianism is neither of the left nor of the right. It is unique. It is sui generis. It is apart from left and right. The left-right political spectrum simply has no room for libertarianism. Think of an equilateral triangle, with libertarianism at one corner, the left at a second corner and the right at the third corner. We are equally distant from both of those misbegotten political economic philosophies. No, better yet, think in terms of an isosceles triangle, with us at the top and the two of them at the bottom, indicating they have more in common with each other than with us. —Walter Block
Libertarianism is neither of the left nor of the right. It is unique. It is sui generis. It is apart from left and right. The left-right political spectrum simply has no room for libertarianism. Think of an equilateral triangle, with libertarianism at one corner, the left at a second corner and the right at the third corner. We are equally distant from both of those misbegotten political economic philosophies. No, better yet, think in terms of an isosceles triangle, with us at the top and the two of them at the bottom, indicating they have more in common with each other than with us. —Walter Block

Libertarianism is neither of the left nor of the right. It is unique. It is sui generis. It is apart from left and right. The left-right political spectrum simply has no room for libertarianism. Think of an equilateral triangle, with libertarianism at one corner, the left at a second corner and the right at the third corner. We are equally distant from both of those misbegotten political economic philosophies. No, better yet, think in terms of an isosceles triangle, with us at the top and the two of them at the bottom, indicating they have more in common with each other than with us. —Walter Block