Even if I decide to make the effort to buy a highly exotic, completely atypical laptop, I won’t be able to avoid transferring money to Vanguard or BlackRock. For the reader of this text it is important to note that from the perspective of Vanguard or BlackRock production is vertically integrated, it is also important to note that laptops are not only consumer goods but are often enough capital goods or means of production in the Marxist jargon.

Leftists love to use the United States embargo to justify Cuba’s misery instead of acknowledging that socialism is an inherently flawed economic system that is doomed to fail.

Facebook’s algorithms, influenced by overzealous woke standards, have been flagging and deleting our posts, even when the term “chicken” was used in entirely innocent contexts.

The aim of this article is not to oppose the idea of participating in democracy. In an ideal Libertarian Order, democracy would be nonsensical and even contrary to libertarian principles, since democracy typically involves creating laws that may violate individuals’ legitimate property rights and supporting the entire anti-libertarian system of positive laws. However, given that we are currently far from achieving such a libertarian order, the purpose of this piece is to assess whether adopting democratic strategies is a pragmatic approach for libertarians. Specifically, this analysis aims to determine whether libertarian parties and campaigns are worthwhile or merely a futile expenditure of time and energy.

If you delve into the works of the great Austro-Libertarian authors like Ludwig von Mises, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Murray Rothbard, and carefully examine their annotations, you will discover that their writings are rich with intriguing sources that extend beyond economics and the libertarian framework of social theory. These incredible men were erudite scholars.

Recently, I encountered some comments on social media asserting that having children violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) and constitutes an authoritarian action. This view may appear illogical to many. However, it is not the first time I have encountered such arguments. What particularly surprised and motivated me to write this article is how some people struggled to counter this flawed argument, and even more concerning, how some were persuaded by its initial premise.

Culture is a term that refers to the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behaviours shared by a particular group or society. It encompasses the knowledge, art, language, philosophy, and social institutions that characterise a group of individuals. Culture can only be alive to the extent that people practice it. Cultural changes don’t happen by chance, and culture is always changing, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but it is always people who are acting to change the culture or to preserve it.

Javier Milei has now been elected for a quarter and the whole world could see how strongly he talks. Strongly in two ways. In his wording, first. He probably is the first president of a significant country who names the leftists like what they truly are: Evil. But more importantly, more to the point of this paper, Javier Milei is strong in his words by the soundness of his arguments. And it is easy to witness: very few people dare to argue against him, very few will counter-argue on inflation, for instance.

Socialism is fundamentally a “natural” force of attraction, and in no way a rational argument. Socialism is like gravity. It is indeed the path of least immediate effort (according to several criteria), the line of steepest immediate slope, and therefore a considerable force of attraction.

Libertarianism is growing and is becoming mainstream. The first libertarian president in History has been elected in Argentina, Javier Milei, giving even more visibility to the ideas of liberty. But the fact that presidents and other politicians that declare themselves libertarian are being elected is merely a consequence of a revolution that has been taking place for much longer than that.