1420: Lysander Spooner – Nothing in the Constitution

There is nothing in the Constitution that professes or attempts to bind the posterity of those who established it. The question arises whether their posterity have bound themselves. —Lysander Spooner
Download Print Quality (3840×2010 2 MB)  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005 221 KB)
There is nothing in the Constitution that professes or attempts to bind the posterity of those who established it. The question arises whether their posterity have bound themselves. —Lysander Spooner
Download Print Quality (3840×2743 3 MB)  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372 287 KB)
There is nothing in the Constitution that professes or attempts to bind the posterity of those who established it. The question arises whether their posterity have bound themselves. —Lysander Spooner
There is nothing in the Constitution that professes or attempts to bind the posterity of those who established it. The question arises whether their posterity have bound themselves. —Lysander Spooner

There is nothing in the Constitution that professes or attempts to bind the posterity of those who established it. The question arises whether their posterity have bound themselves. —Lysander Spooner

1408: Hans-Hermann Hoppe – The State

The State dirties and taints everything it touches. Run by gangs of murderers, plunderers, and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners and propagandists. —Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Normal Quality (1920×1005 197 KB)
The State dirties and taints everything it touches. Run by gangs of murderers, plunderers, and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners and propagandists. —Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Normal Quality (1920×1372 247 KB)
The State dirties and taints everything it touches. Run by gangs of murderers, plunderers, and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners and propagandists. —Hans-Hermann Hoppe
The State dirties and taints everything it touches. Run by gangs of murderers, plunderers, and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners and propagandists. —Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The State dirties and taints everything it touches. Run by gangs of murderers, plunderers, and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners and propagandists. —Hans-Hermann Hoppe

1325: Alex Merced – Being Libertarian

Being libertarian doesn’t mean hating progressives or conservatives. It means loving individual rights enough to not force them to be like you. —Alex Merced
Normal Quality (1920×1005 236 KB)
Being libertarian doesn’t mean hating progressives or conservatives. It means loving individual rights enough to not force them to be like you. —Alex Merced
Normal Quality (1920×1372 303 KB)
Being libertarian doesn’t mean hating progressives or conservatives. It means loving individual rights enough to not force them to be like you. —Alex Merced
Being libertarian doesn’t mean hating progressives or conservatives. It means loving individual rights enough to not force them to be like you. —Alex Merced

Being libertarian doesn’t mean hating progressives or conservatives. It means loving individual rights enough to not force them to be like you. —Alex Merced

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

1295: Ayn Rand – Businessmen vs. Bureaucrats

A businessman’s success depends on his intelligence, his knowledge, his productive ability, his economic judgment—and on the voluntary agreement of all those he deals with: his customers, his suppliers, his employees, his creditors or investors. A bureaucrat’s success depends on his political pull. A businessman cannot force you to buy his product; if he makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences; if he fails, he takes the loss. A bureaucrat forces you to obey his decisions, whether you agree with him or not—and the more advanced the stage of a country’s statism, the wider and more discretionary the powers wielded by a bureaucrat. If he makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences; if he fails, he passes the loss on to you, in the form of heavier taxes. —Ayn Rand
Normal Quality (3072×3840 755 KB)
A businessman’s success depends on his intelligence, his knowledge, his productive ability, his economic judgment—and on the voluntary agreement of all those he deals with: his customers, his suppliers, his employees, his creditors or investors. A bureaucrat’s success depends on his political pull. A businessman cannot force you to buy his product; if he makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences; if he fails, he takes the loss. A bureaucrat forces you to obey his decisions, whether you agree with him or not—and the more advanced the stage of a country’s statism, the wider and more discretionary the powers wielded by a bureaucrat. If he makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences; if he fails, he passes the loss on to you, in the form of heavier taxes. —Ayn Rand
Normal Quality (3072×3840 786 KB)

A businessman’s success depends on his intelligence, his knowledge, his productive ability, his economic judgment—and on the voluntary agreement of all those he deals with: his customers, his suppliers, his employees, his creditors or investors. A bureaucrat’s success depends on his political pull. A businessman cannot force you to buy his product; if he makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences; if he fails, he takes the loss. A bureaucrat forces you to obey his decisions, whether you agree with him or not—and the more advanced the stage of a country’s statism, the wider and more discretionary the powers wielded by a bureaucrat. If he makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences; if he fails, he passes the loss on to you, in the form of heavier taxes.

A businessman cannot force you to work for him or to accept the wages he offers; you are free to seek employment elsewhere and to accept a better offer, if you can find it. (Remember, in this context, that jobs do not exist “in nature,” that they do not grow on trees, that someone has to create the job you need, and that that someone, the businessman, will go out of business if he pays you more than the market permits him to pay you.) A bureaucrat can force you to work for him, when he achieves the totalitarian power he seeks; he can force you to accept any payment he offers—or none, as witness the forced labor camps in the countries of full statism.

The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear.

—Ayn Rand

1290: Ludwig von Mises – The Essential Feature of Government

The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom. —Ludwig von Mises
Normal Quality (2770×3840 903 KB)

The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom. —Ludwig von Mises

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