Skip to content
Penjams
  • Home
  • Blog
    • Conservative
    • Dialectic
    • Philosophy
      • Ethics
      • Liberty
      • Voting
      • Free-will
    • Theology / Religion
    • Story
    • Other Worlds
    • – Guest Posts
    • – Serial
    • – Poems
  • Podcast
  • Links
  • About
  • Thanks!
    • Buy Me a Coffee
    • Amazon Link (Shopping from it helps out.)
    • Guest Posting and More

Get Why Does Philosophy Matter?  for free along with my eletter here.

What is Anarchy?

Posted on May 1July 2

This is another excerpt from my episode with Dr. Gerard Casey in which we discuss his book Libertarian Anarchy. Enjoy. -P

Penjammin: How would you define anarchy in itself? Not anarcho-capitalism, but just anarchy.

Gerard Casey: Well, that's very simple. Anarchy simply rejects the idea completely that it's in the nature of things that somehow some people are destined by virtue of some quality (I don't quite know what that'd be) to rule over others. There there may be anarchists whose idea of the good life is to live in the woods and eat squirrels. it's not mine.

Penjammin: Alright. Yeah.

Gerard Casey: You don't reject community. You don't reject organization. You don't reject order or any of these things. You simply say that these are things that come about through the voluntary interactions of human beings, and not through the imposition of order top down. Now, obviously, there are exceptions to this. So clearly, in the family, if you're two year old says, “Hey, dad, I've been reading your libertarian anarchy books, and I'm going to stroll across the road by myself across six lanes of traffic.” To which your reply is “Like hell you will.” Right? …because you have a responsibility here and you have, actually, an authority, a natural authority (which must, must seem so strange for me to talk about that). But the point there is that authority is to be exercised not for your good, but for the good of those who have been given into your care. And of course, you have to relinquish that as they grow older and are in a position to accept responsibility for what they do themselves. So leaving aside those kind of exceptions, no one has any authority . . . if you're walking down the street and you see a total stranger and you give them an order, say, to tie their shoelaces or button up their jacket or something, they're going to look at you really funny.

Penjammin: Yeah,

Gerard Casey: That's. If they don't clock you one. Right?

Penjammin: Right.

Gerard Casey: …because nobody has any obligation to do anything you tell them. They're just walking along, minding their own business. This whole idea of which, to us, seems incredibly natural because we're so used to it. And one of the things I try to get my students to see was just how odd it is that some people, simply because of some arrangement with which most people have had nothing to do, namely a constitution, for example, and because somebody else voted for them, they went into a booth and put a mark in a piece of paper… suddenly these people collected in a building somewhere, get to determine what you can and can't do and what you must and mustn't do. Right. Well, it might be that what they what they want you to do and what they don't want you to do is great and so on. That's fine. But on the other hand, where do they get where do they get this authority from? …

Penjammin: Samuel, you know, at one point he anointed Dave with oil, but now is he using voting boxes? I don't think so.

Gerard Casey: Remember, you're talking to a Catholic here. We don't read Bibles, you know. [laughs]

Penjammin: I'm going to leave that one right there. You go ahead and say that. [laughs]

For more Gerard Casey, check out The Liberty Classroom and listen below.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Borders and Rothbard

Posted on April 12July 2

This is a bit of my episode with Dr. Gerard Casey in which we discuss the application of Rothbard to immigration and borders. -P

Penjammin: [Rothbard] quotes William Lloyd Garrison, who was an abolitionist, as saying, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.” Could you hash this out for us a little bit. What does that mean?

Gerard Casey: Yeah, I know where he's coming from on this. I mean, he says elsewhere in the chapter that a libertarian, you know, if presented with a button which would transform us from where we are now to a libertarian society, should be willing to push the button.

Penjammin: Yeah.

Gerard Casey: But then he goes on to say very quickly, of course, that that's not a real possibility. So it doesn't actually arise as an existential choice. So the thing about gradualism is . . .

For more Gerard Casey, check out The Liberty Classroom. Also, hear the whole episode here:

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Freedom to not vote Trump

Posted on April 5November 14

Yep. I recommended the Tim Stratton as a good account to follow. He has many merits as a public thinker and as an advocate of multiple freedoms: political, metaphysical, and (as a Christian) spiritual. But he's not perfect (wouldn't ya know it?), and right after I recommended him, he went and re-forwarded his ideas that Christians are morally required to vote for Trump and also- Well, let's just say he sounds a little Christian National*ish*. Thanks Tim! 😉 (Hey, we have to be real, and it's how he really feels. I get that.)

Well, since I recommended his work (and I still do), I get to respond to those two things, those two ideas that I most certainly do not recommend. But first, a positive: his Trumpy article represents a real effort to explicate his case in an easy to understand way. Also, it may be the best defense of voting for Trump (“I felt like I should, and here's why!”) even if it is also, unfortunately, an imperative for others to do so too.

Previously, I distilled Tim's Trump argument to this: Voting for Trump is a big offensive against a yuge evil, and Christians should do everything they can to fight against that evil. So, Christians should vote for Trump. Now, that's pretty accurate. But I think we can make it better, make it also account for exceptions to the rule that Tim admits to (exceptions like over-worked single moms who don't have the time to vote). Also, this rendering focuses on Christians who actually can vote (U.S. citizens who aren't felons and so forth):

  1. If an able Christian doesn’t vote Trump, they neglect a fight against a particularly yuge evil.
  2. If an able Christian neglects that fight, they do wrong.
  3. So, if an able Christian doesn’t vote for Trump, they do wrong.

I imagine most people sympathize with premise 2. That's where the force of the argument is. But premise 1 is far from obvious. It assumes both (a) that it is ethical to vote for Trump and (b) that voting for him would make a difference in the case of all able Christians. (Failing to do something unethical is hardly negligence, nor is failing to do something insignificant.) But first, it is not obvious that this voting for (the lesser) evil is ethical, especially if one has taken an oath to defend the constitution. (More on that linked below.) Furthermore, many able Christians live in red states where Trump will get the electoral vote, even if they vote against him. Voting for him is not likely to change anything.

So, an able Christian does not neglect a fight that is already won or lost in his state. He need not combat Marxism by contributing to (or resisting) an all but guaranteed outcome, especially if their conscience is against it. He can find more efficient and effective ways to combat Marxism.

For more on this, I have an old two-parter that responds both to Tim Stratton and William Lane Craig on a similar matter. Check it out at penjams.com/i-will-do-mine.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Ron

Posted on March 29March 30

The below first appeared in my eletter. Subscribe here penjams.com/subscribe.

There are Rothbardian libertarians advocating aggression. Now it comes with a caveat, like “under current circumstances, I [support aggression],” but still. How crazy is that? It’s extra sad because the impulse (to be marketable or to honor common sense) is good and understandable. But misguided, it's getting many to undermine the liberty movement. Or… change my mind. 🙂

What do I mean? Say libertarian border cowboy Ron Sonswan doesn’t like federal involvement in border control. He objects on grounds of aggression. He says, “They’re interfering in the local government’s work in such a way that it supports the on-going trespass [aggression] of potentially dangerous people onto the property of the good people of this town. Meanwhile, they also impede our ability to protect our own lands with violations of our rights to bear arms [aggression].”

Ron might also object to the local government’s involvement for the same reason. “Sure. Our local guys also violate our rights to arms and such [aggression] but not mine, and not as much. I don’t like that either, but it’s better than them Washington Democrats sacrificing us to their political agenda. At least the local guys don’t make things worse and expose us to other dangers in the process. They have to live here too.”

He prefers the localized efforts to that of an army under a president that makes things worse. That doesn't mean he likes it. One can prefer the lesser evil without promoting it. It seems like libertarians are forgetting that. It's special-pleading to object to some laws with a principled stance against aggression, only to advocate aggression in more extreme cases. If the principle doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of hard cases, then it's refuted and no good for the easy cases either.

“Ideally, we’d have a sizable, competent, and insured organization owned and ran by all the land owners, subject to reputable judges, whereby we took care of business ourselves. I could get behind that, but that's just not an option yet.”

Ron admits the common sense of what his live options are in merely preferring the lesser evil. He doesn’t have to promote it, to be pro-aggression (under certain circumstances), to be temporarily of conflicting principles. Still, when fit hits the shan, most anarchists sound like minarchists, and minarchists approach neocon.

. . .

And there was more, but I'll leave that for the good people on my email list. Don't forget to subscribe, and have yourself a Happy Easter weekend!

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Get Chuck Norris to…

Posted on March 4August 8

Rescue a Puppy from the Clutches of a Dragon!

Hey look up!, there is a new page on the menu bar. It is the podcast page, the page for To Drink With Elves or Dwarves! How can you not check out a podcast with that title? Am I right?

But I want to talk to you about the Thanks! page. “No! Bring back the podcast talk!” you say? Nah, this is going to be great. Look. —-v

You may not have realized this, but it's dangerous to merge economies between worlds. Yeah. I said it. It's true! Can you imagine a trans-world depression?!? No refuge! So, no. I don't bring over valuables. I don't much. I may have a couple of times, but It's not really possible the way I usually travel. I digress. So I created that to help get by when trans-world alien work dries up.

Or I just like to earn me some terran tips. I even like the mere possibility. At heart, I'm still very much the ol' street-performer I was with gyspy friends of yore in days of yore. The potential is a fun fun drive to continue to write and put out regular content. So, it's kind of like I'm internet street-performing. How fun is that?

Anyway, that's why I accept tokens of appreciation at buymeacoffee.com. (Also there's the coffee part.)* But that's not everyone's thing. If you're passionately against coffee or just short on change, there are other ways to show appreciation. From the Thanks! page:

  • With every drop in the tip cup, an act of aggression is avenged… and Chuck Norris rescues a puppy from the clutches of a dragon.
  • Amazon shopping from this link helps keep the lights on.
  • Guest-posts welcome! Often a cross-post thing works. Each person posts a favorite from the other's blog, giving author and directing info as well. It's a win-win and ensures both are happy with the content. DM or email: Penjammin at proton dot me.

Maybe some of that appeals to you. Maybe not. Either way, have a great week.

Older PostsNewer Posts

 Buy me a coffee

Recent Posts

  • Conservatives conserve nothing?
  • Religion Reboot?
  • Apples and Oranges
  • Pushy Puritans Don’t Get a Pass
  • When Lies Lash Out
  • Subjective Professory
  • Silence and Starsong
  • Neighboring Faiths
  • Systematic Philosophical Theology
  • Misrepresentation Sucks

What They Say

“AMAZING and BRILLIANT”
– The Anarchist Bible Study

“[He] has a point.”
– Norm MacDonald

“…a bit of oddballery.”
– Tom Woods

Subscribe

Terran Wisdom

(Loading...)

Penjams.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Copyright © 2026 . All rights reserved.