Skip to main content
search

This article is especially aimed at people who have landed on Denationalize.me by chance and do not know who we are, what we talk about or what values we stand for.

At Denationalize.me we start from the fundamental principles of freedom, private property, the natural rights of the individual and anarcho-capitalism. Since the media and many individuals insist on labelling libertarians and anarcho-capitalists – quite wrongly – as extreme right-wingers, we would like to clarify the situation once again with this article.

Not many people are really familiar with the concepts we are going to discuss here, but do not worry: we are going to explain them in a simple and understandable way.

You do not have to force good ideas

If something is imposed under threat of any form of aggression, it is because no one sees it as intrinsically good. If it were obviously and naturally good, it would not have to be imposed by force.

We are against ANY kind of coercion, abuse, and authoritarianism. Contrary to what States and politicians try to force upon us, who believe that social peace will be achieved through state control and equality (making us all equally poor and dependent on States), we believe that the way to a better life for all people on the planet is through increasing wealth and prosperity, something for which so far only one way is known, letting free capitalism work (as opposed to crony capitalism, full of subsidies, regularisations, and protectionism).

We are in favour of voluntary exchange, division of labour and specialisation and the peaceful coexistence of people on the basis of respect for private property without interference from third parties; all ultimately within the framework of contracts only between the parties involved —so that any outside party has absolutely no power over such agreements.

We advocate a free society based on private rules, organisations, and institutions, in an adaptive and flexible way, that benefits most the parties involved: those who create the value and those who pay for the value. We want private institutions that maintain order and a system of rules that allows us to change those rules, increase profits, dissolve systems that no longer work and introduce new and better ones —without attacking anyone unfairly or under duress. In this article we will not go any further into this libertarian vision.

Justice does not mean that everyone gets the same (that would be communism): justice means that everyone is responsible for their own life (both successes and failures) and should take care of their own life without attacking or forcing others, or making them responsible for the lives of others.

People live in pursuit of happiness, not necessarily in pursuit of profit maximisation. Generally, people prioritise comfort over profit. Naturally, profit is often associated with comfort, but only to a certain extent. Happiness, satisfaction, and fulfilment cannot be “delivered”, as they are intrinsic, subjective, relative, and entirely personal (within a private property ethic). There is only a list of goods and services, and money is the facilitator of the exchange of those goods and services with which people produce happiness for other people and buy happiness for themselves —even if the happiness is something intangible like free time with children and family.

We consider you a sovereign individual like any other, free of any debt to society. You are absolute, and not inferior to the collective. You are more than the sum of your parts, unlike the collective, which is less than the parts that make it up.

We reject the idea of a leader, a politician, an imposed state direction, a ruler, and a legislator. We believe that people are perfectly capable of living in peace without state intervention. The presence of coercion leads to the absence of peace and prosperity.

So, are we on the right or on the left, are we extremists or are we in the centre?

The concept of right and left

This Manichean definition of reality has ceased to make sense in contemporary society, but it has become a commonplace and remains as such.

The terms “left” and “right” were established during the French Revolution of 1789, when the members of the National Assembly were grouped together according to their political orientation: supporters of the existing kingdom sat to the right of the President of the Assembly, while revolutionaries sat to his left.

From a historical point of view:

  • On the right, the conservatives: “We must leave everything as it is“. It was the king’s task to maintain the institutions of monarchical power. Conservatives were in favour, for example, of wars to expand and consolidate power and hegemony.
  • On the left, the liberals: “we must change things“. They were the “radicals” because they argued that the king had no divine mandate to rule and that slavery was completely wrong and immoral. Wars had to be ended and markets had to be opened. Over time, the liberals gained ground, and so some of them moved from the “left” to the “right” because they wanted to leave things as they were at the time (as they considered them sufficiently liberal). Unfortunately, they abandoned change before they had achieved total freedom and the disappearance of the State.

In a nutshell:

  • The right has always been associated with the ultimate imperialism, where the king’s paws touch everything and the rest of the people are his subjects, the property of the monarch.
  • The left always thought the king was insane and wanted to “liberate” the people from this controlling tyrant.

In the meantime, a movement began to form that attempted to unite the two factions:

  • Using the king’s absolute power and total force (right)
  • To “free them all” (left)

This movement led to (Marxist) socialism. However, by definition, this does not work either, since the people would simply shift power from King X to “King” Y. That cannot be called genuine liberation.

It is all a matter of opinion, because King X thinks he is doing the right thing and the best thing for the people, as does King Y. And this is what causes all the problems, because it is subjective opinions that determine your life, while your own opinion about your life has no say whatsoever.

There is no freedom as long as a superior leader or institution is in power as a coercive force, full stop.

You can try to twist, bend, turn this sentence upside down… whatever you want: it will always remain true.

We repeat: there will never be freedom for individuals as long as there is a leader or a supreme institution that considers itself to have absolute power over all people and considers itself better and more capable of directing their lives.

Perhaps now you will understand the reason for our name: welcome to the Denationalize.me blog!

But the story continues:

The third “group” broke the game, because on one side there were those who defended FREEDOM and on the other side those who defended the STATE… and in the middle was placed this third group that defended FREEDOM THROUGH THE STATE.

And as this third group found much sympathy among the poorly educated workers through a simple populist discourse (remember that we are talking about the 19th century), these socialists became the NEW LEFT. In this way, they pushed out of the scene those who defended freedom beyond the State.

There were now two “States” pitted against each other: State on the right against State on the left in an endless duel of opinions that ultimately led to several world wars —in which, in fact, both sides were wrong, for only one can be wrong in such a conflict.

And this is what still prevails today.

In other words: is freedom to be found on the left or on the right? IT IS NEITHER, because right and left invoke the State and freedom abhors and rejects the State.

Right-wing and left-wing extremists are practically the same, because both want to defend the absolute power of the State. The spectrum cannot be linear if one considers that freedom exists only and exclusively without the State, and disappears as the State applies its power.

The funniest thing of all is that the representatives of the right – with Otto von Bismarck at their head – came up with a “brilliant” idea in the face of the growing influence of the socialists who were moving closer to the working class and gaining more and more social representation:

“If within our totalitarian State we start giving back to the workers some of the money in the form of privileges like those we deprived them of, they will side with us”.

Otto von Bismarck was so “clever” that he thought that if he gave workers health care, for example, they would work, pay taxes, vote for him, favour the right and the socialists would suffer a humiliating defeat.

In other words, a highly convenient bribe.

Congratulations, the welfare state has just been born!

While you were exploring what was on offer from left to right, the State has been squeezing you from top to bottom.

Far-right liberal?

It is completely wrong to say that socialism/communism and fascism/Nazism are extremes of the same linear spectrum. The truth is they are almost like twin brothers always fighting each other.

You cannot defend both freedom and the State at the same time.

Either you defend freedom or you do not defend it. It is not enough to defend freedom a little, or to defend it only on the issues you like.

It is not enough to defend, for example, the right to bear arms while opposing same-sex marriage. If that were the case, you would not be defending freedom. When it comes to gun rights, you are on the side of liberty, but when it comes to marriage, you are on the side of the State in wanting the State to enact strict laws against same-sex marriage. This means that you are defending one aspect of the State, or in other words, you are defending the State.

They do not even have to be ideas from such different and distant spheres: there can be ethical and moral contradictions on issues such as taxation. You cannot be in favour of taxes, even low taxes, if you stand for freedom. If you think that tax rates of 10% or 15% are fine but 42% or 73% are too much, you are not for freedom: you would be for low taxes, and that means vehemently believing that the government has an immeasurable, magical, undeniable right over other people’s property, money, houses, cars, even their families, what their children learn, and everything else.

The fundamental right that everyone enjoys is the right to their own person. The fact that one is in a financially less privileged position while others have more financial means can be seen as an incentive. It shows that it is possible to achieve financial success by working well and offering valuable products and services to the public. It illustrates the opportunity to find financial recognition through one’s own efforts and value creation. It is the perfect union of freedom and the free market.

But let me finish with the issue of freedom before turning to business, specialisation and the division of labour in a free market:

Freedom is not about exchanging a government that forbids you to do what you like for one that forbids others to do what you do not like.

That is not the freedom we defend. It is not the freedom of party A through coercion or robbery of party B. We seek freedom for all, and this can only be achieved if we live and let live, if we stop considering it our right that others give us what we want to receive (housing, work, health, education or whatever).

Defending party A or party B or party C, etc. is like choosing between buying six eggs or half a dozen eggs: it’s the same thing, only the approach with which they curtail individual freedom is different. By definition, no party stands for freedom, even if they stand for a State with LESS POWER or INFLUENCE. That government would still defend that there should be a State to regulate “certain things” (whatever they are), and that is where the battle of opinions would begin. For where does the regulation of those “certain things” begin and end?

Since we defend private property and left-wing socialists are squarely against private property, people incapable of seeing things beyond black and white put us at the opposite extreme to the left: for them we are right-wing, and nothing could be further from the truth! This kind of qualification comes from a thinking limited by the linear spectrum that we have already dismantled in this article.

Misleading rhetoric and propaganda contribute to mass confusion: for example, the anarcho-capitalist president Javier Milei in Argentina is always labelled “ultra-right-wing”, although you now know that this label is totally misleading.

People unfamiliar with the nuanced definitions of political ideologies might confuse anarchism and Nazism due to a basic misunderstanding.

“People who cannot imagine order without coercion always end up favouring power over freedom”.

Jeffrey Tucker.

A concrete example of the difference in positions: although there are Eurosceptic parties in almost all countries that take a critical stance towards the European Union (such as the AFD in Germany, the National Front in France, or the Northern League in Italy), the underlying principles and arguments differ considerably. These parties reject the EU on nationalist grounds, based on the idea that one nation is superior to others. Our rejection, however, stems from the conviction that the European Union is a cartel-like entity that does not serve the free market and direct exchange between producers and consumers: we see the EU as an institution that operates through monopolistic regulations for the benefit of certain members, which we believe undermines freedom and fair competition —and because laws are made by governments and governments are illegitimate. The European Union is nothing more than a European “macro-State” or is on its way to becoming one… as if the individual States were not enough already!

It is an ideological paradox to say that you are in favour of social freedom but not of economic freedom, or in favour of economic freedom but not social freedom, or that you support a little bit of each.

A polarised debate between right and left impoverishes semantics and impedes understanding, as well as totally limiting our options. It is a bit like if I offer you the choice between being locked up in a house with or without a garden, but we do not even consider that another option would be not to be locked up at all.

The term “libertarian” is often confused with “opposition”, because in the old days it used to come down to who was against the king and who was for the king. However, being the opposition means not wanting THIS king, but MY king, who I think is better and who I like better.

This position has nothing to do with freedom, because in our eyes, everyone is his own king and cares only about his own life… because your life is yours!

In fact, there are only two groups; and since “right” and “left” originally referred only to the seating arrangement in the room from the king’s point of view, these terms are meaningless today.

The real questions we should be asking ourselves are the following:

  • Do you favour collectivism or individualism? Do you support the group or the individual?

Or to put it more bluntly:

  • Do you want others to control your life or do you strive to control your own life without trying to control the lives of others, because anything else would be hypocrisy?

This is the group that is in favour of the existence of the State (black circle):

In favour of the State

(Whether led by Party A, Party B or Party C)

[TURQUOISE BLUE] They are in favour of restricting freedom, which implies that they are in favour of more state intervention.

[RED] Who really is the State and why does it make so many laws?

[BROWN] They support the idea of a minimalist State that limits itself to a few tasks in order to guarantee citizens 80% freedom.

[ROSE] They are in favour of a balanced State that guarantees “moderate freedom”.

[GREEN] They are convinced that freedom can only exist within the framework of state structures.

[PURPLE] They despise politics because they find it boring, but they are interested in it as soon as they perceive personal privileges that bring them particular advantages. However, they choose to spend most of their time on more entertaining things and ignore political issues.

[LIGHT BLUE] They have never seriously considered the concept of freedom because they have never questioned the role of the State. This attitude is due to the fact that they were taught at school that without the State there would be absolute chaos.

And this is the pro-freedom group (yellow circle):

In favour of freedom

(There is no freedom as long as there is an absolute leader or institution in power).

In some political discourses, there is a tendency to classify all political beliefs according to a simplistic left-right and good-bad criterion. This leads to mistakenly lumping together very different ideologies when they share only one characteristic, which is the rejection of the current political system.

The state is the great sham in which everyone wants to live at the expense of others. As long as you stay inside the black circle, freedom is out of reach.

Here are some other interesting and well-argued articles from our blog that complement this article:

You are no more “anti-social” than anyone else for not wanting to pay taxes. Anyone who forces you to pay taxes under threat of any kind of violence is “anti-social”. And anyone who applauds it, participates in it, or simply looks the other way is also “anti-social”. Do not let yourself be stigmatised just because you care about your freedom.

OK, I understand… but what is this anarcho-capitalism?

Anarcho-capitalists favour a society based on voluntary agreements, private property, and the free market; in which all relationships are based on mutual consent and in which individual freedom and the right to property are considered the highest values. We argue that competition promotes quality and innovation, as well as reducing costs. In such a society, private companies, cooperatives, and other voluntary organisations would provide these services.

Some people are good at doing one thing, others are good at offering something else… it is a division of labour where each person is looking for what someone else offers. Specialisation makes it possible to offer even more value and benefits to customers.

We are convinced that private companies and individuals can provide services such as security, justice, and other public goods more efficiently and fairly than the State.

We have already said that the object of every human being is the pursuit of happiness. To illustrate this point, let us take the example of education.

Education is defined and mandated by the State from A to Z.

In most parts of the world, creating and implementing a different education system is simply a crime. People must use the government-imposed system, under threat of prosecution and loss of custody of their children (!).

The only way to achieve variations and improvements in the education system is to pray 100 Our Fathers and 200 Hail Marys, do 30 somersaults and 4 pirouettes, try to lick your elbow morning and night and bathe in oregano with coconut oil every other Thursday —all in the hope that one day MPs and Senators will take an interest in “your opinion” when developing laws. Praying and hoping sounds pretty depressing, don’t you think?

In other words, people are forced to participate in a system that does not necessarily work for them, regardless of whether the services provided are efficient, whether they meet their needs or whether people care about them at all.

In fact, there is no penalty for mistakes made by the politicians responsible for designing and administering this system. Neither right nor wrong matters in a state-imposed construction.

  • Being against absolute state control of education does not mean wanting there to be no education.
  • We advocate that education should enable everyone to create and innovate, where ideas for new systems are welcome and can be incorporated into working models.
  • Teachers, parents, schools, scientists and, in short, everyone should be able to participate with the good intention of adding value.
  • Everyone should be able to contribute their ideas FREELY and make a proposal for an education system.
  • Different systems should be able to work in parallel so that people can participate FREELY in what they prefer according to their own interests.
  • Naturally, there will be systems that work and systems that will not, depending on the results people seek in this FREE society.
  • Note that FREE does not mean FOR FREE

Because… what is a good education?

Good education is an extremely broad, specific, and subjective concept. What is important is that you have the freedom to create something, as well as to choose and determine.

This is anarcho-capitalism at its purest.

When the State intervenes and introduces a structure and system of rules in which participation is mandatory, taking away people’s free choice, decision-making power, and autonomy; it prevents society from functioning in a way that offers everyone the opportunity to pursue happiness.

How we arrive at anarcho-capitalism is a problem of economic calculation, as there are many unknown subjective factors and many possible paths that consider the arbitrary human actions of individuals with different values.

If we were to give an “opinion” on “how things should be”, we would be no better than any politician or king. No person, no party, no State can predict the spontaneous order of things. Even with the most modern technology and cutting-edge artificial intelligence, myriads of information are missing that the decentralised market mechanism can naturally provide.

However, we know the real ways to fight for freedom:

  1. Accessing state power and dissolving it from within: a difficult and frankly improbable option, since every State rots from within. If we consider that more than 50% of the population are net recipients of the State, people who receive more than they give, the democratic path through politics is absolutely hopeless.
  2. Individual and unilateral action: i.e. going outside the system. This is what we at Denationalize.me advocate as a starting point. Depriving the State of our resources in order to undermine the power of the government. Building parallel structures in your own life through the flag theory is also part of this strategy.
  3. Contractually free private cities and peer-to-peer economy with digital currencies: people who have left the system (following course of action 2) set up their own parallel structures with others. We can only support this pathway as long as the courses of action and decisions always remain voluntary.

“The man who does not value himself cannot value anything or anyone”.

Ayn Rand

Because your life is yours!

Did you like our blog article?

Support us by purchasing our products and services. Or build up a passive income by recommending us as an affiliate! And don't forget to check out Christoph's travel blog christoph.today!

Read additional blog articles:

Filter

ALL BLOGSINVESTMENTS

Top 10 countries in which to apply for a real estate loan as a non-resident

May 15, 2024
Getting a credit or loan from a bank as a non-resident is not easy. In…
ALL BLOGSLIFESTYLE

The best countries for gambling and betting

May 6, 2024
Have you ever wondered how you can optimise your taxes if you have a business…
ALL BLOGSLIFESTYLE

Globalisation as a career springboard: how digital nomads and freelancers are succeeding all over the world

May 4, 2024
We are proud to publish on our blog a very special article written by Dirk…
Close Menu