≡ Menu

KOL312 | Libertarianism in Brief: Response to Anarchy Rising


Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 312.

Back in 2013, Michael Shanklin posted a Youtube video, Anarchy Rising: Part 2, and asked other libertarian anarchists to send in a short video response on why they are a voluntaryist or libertarian. I believe he was going to use the submitted videos in some kind of montage. He never did the montage AFAIK and he made his video private for some reason—a habit annoyingly common among libertarians: they publish some articles or other content for years, and then later they take it down or demand that the publisher take it down, when they are applying for a job or something (sometimes later, they change their mind and pester the poor publisher again and ask him to “put them back up”). Yeah. You’re so important. Whatever.

Anyway, I did a video response while taking a walk one morning. It’s only 5 minutes but provides a brief summary of how I view libertarianism. I had forgotten about it but just received a recent comment by one Steven Barendregt: “7 years later and I think this video is still the best BRIEF explanation of libertarianism that I’ve ever seen. Truly underrated video.” So I decided to add it to my podcast feed here in case anyone else finds it of interest. Enjoy.

Previous podcast episodes with Shanklin (whom I believe has since defriended me, because I was not a radical enough lifestyle libertarian or activist or some stupid libertard serioso shit like that):

Other video replies to Anarchy Rising: Part 2:

{ 1 comment… add one }
  • Jan Masek January 16, 2021, 2:07 pm

    I was listening to a debate between Robert Barnes and Alan Dershowitz recently. Barnes is great, he calls himself a populist but really is indistinguishable from a right minarchist. Dershowitz calls himself a libertarian and obviously is an extremely successful lawyer. They were arguing about forced vaccination, Dershowitz for (under certain conditions), Barnes against. I like them both.
    It was civil and nobody won but more importantly what struck me was how superficial it was. Dershowitz was arguing that since draft is legal, so is this. Or that “your freedom ends at the tip of my nose”. Barnes was focused on what kind of test should be applied in courts (strict scrutiny vs rational analysis). And they called it “principled arguments”.
    I was thinking : man, Kinsella would trash you both. You don’t know the first thing about what principle means, where rights come from (not the constitution) or why we even have them in the first place.
    Kinsella is the greatest living legal mind, far superior to even Judge Napolitano. Him, Dersh and such are great at the practice of law within the system but no insight into the principles.
    But then Kinsella throws around “shit” and “libtards” – what’s up with that?? How does a great critical deep-thinking mind square with that kind of language? 🙂 I find it funny and don’t mind, it’s just unexpected.

Leave a Reply

© 2012-2024 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright