1328: Ayn Rand – The Rights of Another

Any alleged right of one man which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not and cannot be a right. —Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)
Normal Quality (1920×1005 172 KB)
Any alleged right of one man which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not and cannot be a right. —Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)
Normal Quality (1920×1372 231 KB)
Any alleged right of one man which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not and cannot be a right. —Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)
Any alleged right of one man which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not and cannot be a right. —Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)

Any alleged right of one man which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not and cannot be a right. —Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)

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

1324: Walter Williams – Be Bold

It takes a bold person to be for personal liberty because you have to be able to cope with people saying things and engaging in voluntary acts that you deem offensive. —Walter Williams
Normal Quality (3840×2010 88 KB)
It takes a bold person to be for personal liberty because you have to be able to cope with people saying things and engaging in voluntary acts that you deem offensive. —Walter Williams
Normal Quality (3840×3840 125 KB)
It takes a bold person to be for personal liberty because you have to be able to cope with people saying things and engaging in voluntary acts that you deem offensive. —Walter Williams
It takes a bold person to be for personal liberty because you have to be able to cope with people saying things and engaging in voluntary acts that you deem offensive. —Walter Williams

It takes a bold person to be for personal liberty because you have to be able to cope with people saying things and engaging in voluntary acts that you deem offensive. —Walter Williams

1322: Gloria Alvarez – You Cannot Admire Dictators

If you are up for life, if you defend life, you cannot admire murderers. If you are up for defending private property, you cannot admire thieves. If you are up for liberty you cannot admire dictators. —Gloria Alvarez
Normal Quality (3072×3840 159 KB)

If you are up for life, if you defend life, you cannot admire murderers. If you are up for defending private property, you cannot admire thieves. If you are up for liberty you cannot admire dictators. —Gloria Alvarez

1316: Thomas DiLorenzo – The Most Dangerous Man

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think for himself. —Thomas DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism
Normal Quality (1920×1005 199 KB)
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think for himself. —Thomas DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism
Normal Quality (1920×1372 266 KB)
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think for himself. —Thomas DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think for himself. —Thomas DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think for himself. —Thomas DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism

1313: Karl Hess – The Radical Position is a Lonely One

The radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left — although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism. —Karl Hess
Normal Quality (3840×2010 91 KB)
The radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left — although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism. —Karl Hess
Normal Quality (3840×3840 130 KB)
The radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left — although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism. —Karl Hess
The radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left — although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism. —Karl Hess

The radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left — although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism. —Karl Hess

1312: Karl Hess – As Governments Fail

As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs, government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. —Karl Hess
Normal Quality (3840×2010 102 KB)
As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs, government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. —Karl Hess
Normal Quality (3840×3840 132 KB)
As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs, government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. —Karl Hess
As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs, government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. —Karl Hess

As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men’s affairs, government’s own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. —Karl Hess

1307: Karl Hess – Radical and Revolutionary Movements

Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself. —Karl Hess (The Death of Politics)
Normal Quality (3840×2010 112 KB)
Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself. —Karl Hess (The Death of Politics)
Normal Quality (3840×3840 141 KB)
Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself. —Karl Hess (The Death of Politics)
Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself. —Karl Hess (The Death of Politics)

Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself. —Karl Hess (The Death of Politics)

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

1303: Robert Weir – The Whip Itself

The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)
Normal Quality (3073×3840 694 KB)
The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)
Normal Quality (3072×3840 765 KB)

The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)