Photograph via snooOG

A place to discuss various forms of liberatory politics and discuss what level of cooperation should be done with those of differing goals and views of liberation.

Apes together strong :3


4,399 Subscribers


I've given up on right-unity

The right-wing circles online I hang out in are becoming increasingly more unhinged. Many of them stopped pretending to be in favor of free speech, religious freedom, and in some cases even gun rights (they want gun ownership for white males only). They've also began calling me a "lefty in denial" because I don't think minorities should be systemically targetted by an oppressive ultra totalitarian regime. And finally, they've began turning on themselves for not being white, as in, non-whites who pretty much preach exactly what they do are getting ostracized. For example, they used to praise Nick Fuentes for "naming the Jews", but now they're starting to turn on him for being Mexican. So I give up on right-unity, lib-unity is the only way forward.

17:26 UTC


the problem with "conservative libertarians"

copied from a twitter thread i made so formatting might be a little off

i would first like to differentiate between the two types of conservative libertarians.

Type 1 is just personally conservative, basically is just "live and let live" to gay people even tho he doesnt agree with them. imo.

type 2 is much more egregious. Or the paleoconservative libertarian/paleolibertarian. Think of stuff like LPNH's social views at the extreme and just regular paleoconservative views at the more moderate level. This one is what I have a problem with.

Now a recent "mantra" in libertarian circles is "I want gay married couples to protect their marijuana plants with guns." And, to put it simply, paleolibertarians don't agree with gay marriage (or gays themselves lmao) and, at some times, marijuana

A broader term, and the term that literally got me (and I'm sure some others) into libertarianism is "Live and let live" or "we should be able to do what we want unless it harms other people" (proto-NAP).
And paleolibertarians just don't agree with this.

I like to describe paleolibertarianism as paleoconservatism with guns. Paleolibertarians just hate gay people, weed, interracial families, and overall just go against "live and let live" or "we should be able to do what we want unless it harms other people".

Now it's for this reason that I don't believe paleolibertarians are true libertarians, because they put social issues ahead of freedom and civil liberties.

The same goes for the two types of progressive libertarians: for lack of a better word, "social justice" libertarians are just as bad as paleolibertarians, for the same reasons I listed above.

15:48 UTC



14:28 UTC


What is the mutualist opinion on property?

I'm currently a market anarchist/left Rothbardian type, but I'm interested in mutualism, what are the actual disagreements between these 2 ideologys? And what is the mutualist position on landlords?

10:48 UTC


Are there any changes that y'all want here in this space?

Am giving a place here to post suggestions for change and to address grievances with the sub and to discuss what could be done to make that better for everyone.

12:55 UTC


Your stance on class struggle? (+ Description of each class and their subtypes)

Do you think classes should make a compromise, third position? Do you think it is possible to convince the ruling class, utopianism?

For these who don't know we have 7 main socio-economic classes in capitalism:

Proletariat - worker's who live from their labour, they sell their labour for bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie to survive. There are agri-cultural, industrial, service and managerial proletariat. Some workers (especially in imperial core) can gain from neoimperialism and avoid worst effects of modern economy by that, they are called labour aristocracy.

Petty bourgeoisie - people who are at same time workers and owners in some sense, most popular subclass of them are owners and operators of small businesses who work for themselves and have at most a few workers, they generally aspire to become bourgeoisie, and they don't want to become a proletarians. There are petty bourgeoisie who are much more like proletariat than bourgeoisie, that's coop member workers. Peasants were petty bourgeoisie too.

Bourgeoisie / Capitalists - they are owners of means of production, who employ proletariat directly or indirectly to work for them. They either own means of production directly or by stocks. There are three main subtypes of bourgeoisie: National, imperial and comprador bourgeoisie. National bourgeoisie are owners and shareholders of corporations in their own country, imperial bourgeoisie are owners and shareholders of transnational corporations based in imperial core, and compeador bourgeoisie are ... Libunity forbids me from saying more here...

Landlords - I don't have to explain anything here, I suppose.

Bureaucrats - Agents of the state apparatus.

---Under classes - They currenctly don't have productive and legal role in formal economy.---

Lumpen-proletariat - is a diverse group is roughly divided into those are are able to work (and constitute a part of the Reserve Army of Labour) and those who are unable to work. Examples: Petty Criminals, Homeless, Disabled, Gamblers. I generally group them into these who are and are not exploited by lumpen-bourgeoisie.

Lumpen-bourgeoisie - gerally exploit the lumpen-proletariat in organized criminal activities. Examples: Pimps, Gang Leaders, Cartel Bosses.

12:53 UTC


What really Mankho said (in comment section)

1 Comment
08:27 UTC


Fuck all laws

08:17 UTC


The "Right to Travel" Does Not Exist: A Deconstruction of Free Movement Advocates

The “right to travel” is a common appeal to authority used in debates among libertarians and non-libertarians alike. I think this stems from a lack of information regarding the subject or the “sovereign citizen” types in the larger libertarian community who have been known to invoke this in discussions about licensing. It has, in essence, become a functional misnomer, even to the extent these same people are saying that violating this supposed “natural right” is a violation of the Non-aggression Principle. Which is an interesting perspective considering that the Non-aggression Principle is downstream from property rights.

Let’s break down the phrase “right to travel” by looking directly at the terms.

First, let’s look at what rights are. Essentially, rights are nothing more than ethical principles, which are entitlements to be left alone, that we derive from property rights or to be more accurate, from our very existence. (more on this in a future article) For instance, we have a right to not be enslaved, we have a right to not be stolen from, and we have a right to life. However, we do not have a right to other people’s property or labor. This is the difference between a state-granted privilege and a contracted or “natural right.” A state-granted privilege or a contracted right can only come from the state or another person through force or a contract respectively. For instance, a “right” to a cheeseburger can only ever exist under a contract, or by the state forcibly taking that cheeseburger from the producer and giving it to you.

Next, we should define travel. Travel is merely the journey from your current location to another over private, unowned, or state-controlled property. I think most if not everyone can agree with that definition. Now allow me to break off into a tangent on this by saying in a completely private society, there would be no state property. All property would be privately controlled or unowned. With the population as it currently sits the non-existence of unowned property, at least on this planet and especially within the united states, is a foregone conclusion in a practical sense. Meaning unowned land simply does not exist today, it either comes under the purview of the state or is controlled by private interests.

Some will object here and say: “the state doesn’t own that land!”, to which my reply is “how so?” There never seems to be a well-thought-out answer because these individuals don’t understand what ownership is.

Mises defined ownership as the full control of the services that can be derived from a good. Ownership is simply the exclusive control of a scarce resource, while a property right is a valid claim to the exclusive control of a scarce resource. These distinctions are important and are very rarely properly understood. So yes, the state does in fact own that land. It just has no valid property right claim to it.

“None of the various forms of social theory deny property rights; each version will specify an owner for every scarce resource.5 If the state nationalizes an industry, it is asserting ownership of these means of production. If the state taxes you, it is implicitly asserting ownership of the funds taken. If my land is transferred to a private developer by eminent domain statutes, the developer is now the owner. If the law allows a recipient of racial discrimination to sue his employer for a sum of money, he is the owner of the money.”

  • Hans-Hermann Hoppe

So, the phrase “right to travel” implies we have a right (legal or ethical principle to be left alone) to travel across (state or privately owned) property. So, do we have a right to do that? I don’t think we do. Let’s break this down to the three areas of property we can traverse, as mentioned above.

I do not think it is ethical to say you have an exclusive right to travel across state-owned property, because that property was appropriated with money that was taken from people unjustly. So, therefore, that right to travel across that state-controlled property would not exist if not for the state, because in a free society that property would be privately owned. Therefore, the “right to travel” across state-controlled property cannot be a natural right, because it can only exist as a privilege from the state.

Do you have a right to go on public transport? Do you have a right to use public healthcare? Do you have a right to welfare? If the answer to these is no, and one is consistent, it is clear that a person would also not have a right to travel on state property.

Similarly, to state-controlled property, I do not believe it would be ethical to claim an exclusive right to travel across someone else’s private property as this would violate basic property rights which are derived from self-ownership and are directly related to the Non-aggression Principle. That is unless you have a contract and since this “right to travel” across private property is a contracted right, it, therefore, cannot be a natural right, and thus refutes the idea that the “right to travel” is a natural right in the context of private property.

Furthermore, the existence of state property naturally and continually interferes with private property. As the right to private property would naturally include the existence of privacy, discrimination, and exclusivity. However, under a state, this does not exist because state-controlled property such as roads, sidewalks, “public” thoroughfares, public transit, common space, laws against discrimination, and more infringe upon that. Forcing, by monopoly, the travel of others along a road, sidewalk, bus, etc.; through, over, or adjacent to private property that is state-controlled is a violation of property rights. This simply would not happen or exist in a society in which property rights were enforced.

Lastly, we come to “unowned property”, which as described above does not currently exist on Earth. This, in contrast with the other two, I do believe to be ethical to traverse across without a contract. This unowned property constitutes an unowned resource and can be used by anyone crossing it for whatever means they feel are justifiable, as long as they are not harming anyone else in the process. So, we can deduce that the only true and natural “right to travel” is across unowned property. Thus, it becomes obvious that the “right to travel” can only ever exist in the context of unowned property. And the implication or enforcement of a “right to travel” across private or state-controlled property, and not its inverse, is a violation of property rights.

So, the next time a “libertarian,” or anyone for that matter, says they or others have a “right to travel” ask them what kind of property they are traveling across. Since we know, for now, the answer is either going to state-controlled property or private property, their argument that a natural “right to travel” exists, is now easily proven false.


19:24 UTC


Mutualism’s Support for the Exploitation of Labor and State Coercion

Mutualism claims to oppose the exploitation of labor, i.e., the theft of any part of its product. But when it comes to labor that has been mixed with land, it turns a blind eye and comes out foursquare on the side of the exploiter.

Thus, to elaborate on the case I presented in my last post, “Mutualism: A Philosophy for Thieves,” let us imagine that our legitimate land owner—legitimate even by Carson’s standards—has spent several years clearing or draining his land, pulling out stumps, removing rocks and boulders, digging a well, building a barn and a house, and putting up fences to keep in his livestock. It is this land that he agrees to rent to a tenant, or, what is not too different, sell on a thirty-year mortgage, which he himself will carry, on the understanding that every year for thirty years he will receive a payment of interest and principal.

The tenant or mortgagee signs a contractual agreement promising to pay rent, or interest and principal, and takes possession of the property. Being a secret mutualist, however, he thereupon proclaims that the property is now his, on the basis of the mutualist doctrine that, in Carson’s words, “occupancy and use is the only legitimate standard for establishing ownership of land.”

This is a clear theft not only of the land, but also of the product of labor. A worker has toiled for years and is now arbitrarily deprived of the benefit of his labor, and this in the name of the protection of the rights of workers!

Mutualists cannot help but be uncomfortable with cases of this kind. And because of this, they don’t mention them. Instead, they assert that land is unique, because it is not the product of labor. But in all cases of this kind, which are so common as actually to be the norm, major features of the land clearly are the product of labor.

After he has been robbed, mutualists tell the worker to be content with getting the thief’s moveable property, but not “his” real estate. Well, farmhouses, barns, wells, and the improvements in the ground itself that are products of labor, are not moveable. And yet they are just as much the product of labor as any manufactured product. And the worker who created them has the only legitimate claim to them in these circumstances.

The mutualist fraudster who has violated his contract is clearly a vicious exploiter of labor. And Mutualism is on his side.

Mutualists pretend that there will be communities in which such behavior is accepted and routine, and chide opponents for their lack of knowledge of anthropology for not understanding this. They do not care to admit that the only thing which can enforce such a practice is the threat of physical force against those who would put an end to it, i.e., for all practical purposes, the existence of some form of tyrannical state. Yes, mutualists are “anarchists” who turn out to be statists!

It is possible to see why this must be so by starting with a condition in which there is no government. In this state of affairs, our exploited worker-victim easily proves to his neighbors that a “lying, thieving mutualist” has stolen his land and deprived him of the benefit of years of work. If his neighbors have neither been lobotomized nor castrated, they will probably contemplate lynching this “mutualist.” In any case, they proceed with our victim to his land and are ready forcibly to evict the “mutualist.” What will stop them from doing so and thus putting an end to any practice of Mutualism’s depraved concept of “property rights”?

The only thing that will stop them is the threat or actuality of greater force exerted by mutualists, i.e., by a mutualist armed gang. If the mutualist gang has its way, it constitutes a de facto mutualist state, which must continue in existence indefinitely in order to uphold the mutualist concept of “property rights.”

Mutualism thus ends in nothing more than a state dedicated to the violation of property rights.

And, of course, it is worth pointing out that there is nothing genuinely “mutual” about “Mutualism.” It is a system designed to protect thieves, who gain at the expense of victims, who lose. Mutuality of gains requires the enforcement of voluntary contracts. It requires that the tenant or mortgagee pay the landowner or mortgagor what he has promised to pay. He gains, and only by honoring his contract can the other party gain too. Abiding by contractual agreements can legitimately be called “mutualism.” In contrast, the doctrine of “Mutualism” is a self-desecration.


This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.

All Rights Reserved ©

11:30 UTC


I'm a Libertarian, now what?

Recently I've deconstructed my political beliefs. It's becoming increasingly more difficult to justify Authoritarianism as Authoritarian actions often involve the threat of violence. So I'm a Libertarian, but now what? How do I determine whether to be a Right-Libertarian or Left-Libertarian, and how would a Libertarian society ensure that animals are treated fairly instead of being farmed? (No hate to near-eaters, it's just I'm an ethical vegan and have no idea how that would translate to a society where the state saying you can't do something will be far less effective than under Authoritarianism)

19:02 UTC


What does "unity" mean to you?

This is a sub called libertarian unity, but what does that actually mean in practice to y'all?

10:35 UTC


Perfect video for this sub

06:01 UTC



whats up

04:32 UTC


Can you guess which libertarians said these quotes without googling them?

  1. "I'm not a “pacifist.” I fight, as we all do, for the triumph of peace and of fraternity amongst all human beings; but I know that a desire not to fight can only be fulfilled when neither side wants to, and that so long as men will be found who want to violate the liberties of others, it is incumbent on these others to defend themselves if they do not wish to be eternally beaten; and I also know that to attack is often the best, or the only, effective means of defending oneself. Besides, I think that the oppressed are always in a state of legitimate self-defense, and have always the right to attack the oppressors. I admit, therefore, that there are wars that are necessary, holy wars: and these are wars of liberation, such as are generally “civil wars”—i.e., revolutions."

  2. "For there are at bottom but two classes, — the Socialists and the Thieves. Socialism, practically, is war upon usury in all its forms, the great Anti-Theft Movement of the nineteenth century; and Socialists are the only people to whom the preachers of morality have no right or occasion to cite the eighth commandment, “Thou shalt not steal!” That commandment is Socialism’s flag. Only not as a commandment, but as a law of nature. Socialism does not order; it prophesies. It does not say: “Thou shalt not steal!” It says: “When all men have Liberty, thou wilt not steal.”"

  3. "When, among a hundred men one man dominates ninety-nine, it is iniquity, it is despotism; when ten dominate ninety, it is injustice; it is oligarchy; when fifty-one dominate forty-nine (and this only theoretically, for, in reality, among these fifty-one there are ten or twelve masters), then it is justice, then it is liberty."

  4. "Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental----indeed foundational----fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations. Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism."

  5. "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

  6. "A Palestinian State would have to be a sovereign state among nations, and not accept any sort of special demilitarization, and it could not barter away the just rights of Arab brethren despoiled by Israel in 1947-48. This renunciation of just claims to stolen lands within Israel is what Zionists are always referring to as "recognizing Israel's right to exist." And that is why this renunciation or "recognition" is the heart of the Palestinian problem."

  7. "His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit...the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two... The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens."

  8. "Even though the details of the framework aren’t settled, won't there be some rigid limits about it, some things inalterably fixed? Will it be possible to shift to a nonvoluntary framework permitting the forced exclusion of various styles of life? If a framework could be devised that could not be transformed into a nonvoluntary one, would we wish to institute it? If we institute such a permanently voluntary general framework, are we not, to some extent, ruling out certain possible choices? Are we not saying in advance that people cannot choose to live in a certain way; are we setting a rigid range in which people can move and thus committing the usual fault of the static utopians? The comparable question about an individual is whether a free system will allow him to sell himself into slavery. I believe that it would."

18:37 UTC


Recently, the state seems to have gained much more power over us, I wonder what has enabled it.

17:56 UTC


Pirates were (partly) libertarians

Pirates of the Golden Age of Piracy were organized criminals. As well as having crew members assigned certain duties, pirates found a way to reduce conflict among themselves and maximize profits. They used a democratic system, spelled out by written "articles of agreement", to limit the captain's power and to keep order on board the ship.

Articles of agreement See also: Pirate code Pirate articles were based on the chasse-partie created on buccaneer ships in the 17th century. The chasse-partie determined the division of plunder among the crew as well as other rules. 18th-century pirates built upon this concept and created their own version of "Articles of Agreement." Before setting out on their expedition, pirates wrote their articles alongside the election of a captain or quartermaster. The articles needed the consent of every crew member, and "all [pirates] swore to 'em" sometimes on a Bible or whatever was at hand.[6] During the election of a new captain, men who wanted another leader often drew up separate articles and sailed away from their former crew-mates. Pirate democracy was flexible but unable to deal with long-term dissent from the crew.[7]

One description of the ritual of the pirate's code was in Alexandre Exquemelin's Buccaneers of America, published in 1678. Pirates called a first council (which included all crew members) to decide where to get provisions. Then they raided for supplies. Afterward, food rations were determined (with the captain receiving no more than any man). A second council decided on the articles of agreement, which were put in writing.[8]

These articles of agreement served four purposes:

They specifically designated shares of the plunder for each crew member. Shares of the plunder were spelled out on the basis of each crew member's skills and duties. Captain and quartermaster typically received one and a half or two shares; gunners, boatswains, shipmates, carpenters, and doctors typically received one and a quarter or one and a half shares, and all others one share each.[9] Some of the plunder went into a "common fund" to provide for severely injured men (who had lost their sight or their limbs). This, in turn, promoted loyalty among the crew because they knew they would be taken care of.[10] If the value of the plunder was questionable, they would sell it before dividing the money among themselves. This prevented conflict between crew members and also prevented the quartermaster from hoarding the most valuable items.[6] The articles prohibited activities that would cause conflict between crew members, such as excessive drinking, gambling, stealing, and bringing women (or boys) on board. Some, like Bartholomew Roberts' articles, also prevented crew members from settling arguments with duels while on board the ship. They outlined punishments for various offenses. Punishments included marooning, whipping, slitting of ears and noses, and for severe crimes, death. They created rules for the general safety of the ship. Usually, articles also required members to keep their weapons in good working order. Also, since fire was especially dangerous on ships, some pirate articles forbade activities such as firing guns or smoking in areas of the ship that carried flammable goods, such as gunpowder.[6] Articles also described incentives like bonuses for productive crew members and thus prevented each man from allowing everyone else to pick up the slack.[6]

Counter-culture to normal maritime life and labor Piracy was usually voluntarily chosen, and it was a way of life that challenged the society pirates left behind. Most pirates came from the lowest social classes and went out to sea in search of a better life as well as loot and treasure.[13] As well as these pragmatic and economic reasons, the "spirit of revolt against common oppressors", the oppressors being the governments and societies of nations, helped create pirate democracy. Pirate democracy was a counter-culture, created by common sailors, to the traditional organization of maritime life and labor.[14]

On most merchant and Navy vessels, there was a hierarchy with captains holding the highest authority, then officers and at the bottom, ordinary sailors. On these ships, a captain had complete control over every aspect of life on his ship, including the division of food, wages, labor assignment and discipline. Thus, it was easy for a captain to become abusive and use his authority to take advantage of his crew.[6] John Archer, who sailed with Edward Teach, before his execution explained his stint as a pirate: "I could wish that Masters of Vessels would not use their Men with so much Severity, as many of them do, which exposes us to many Temptations."[15]

Colonel Benjamin Bennet wrote of pirates to the Council of Trade and Plantations in 1718: "I fear they will soon multiply for so many are willing to joyn with them when taken." Sailors on seized ships joined pirates because of the appealing "prospect of plunder and 'ready money,' the food and the drink, the camaraderie, the democracy, equality, and justice, and the promise of care for the injured."[16]

Another appeal of piracy came in the limiting of the captain's power over the crew. Pirate Francis Kennedy puts it succinctly: "most pirates, 'having suffered formerly from the ill-treatment of their officers, provided carefully against such evil' once they arranged their own command."[17] Thus, pirate democracy came with a series of checks and balances that protected the rights of the crew.

Checks and balances Piratical checks and balances proved quite successful. According to Captain Charles Johnson, owing to the institution of the quartermaster, aboard pirate ships "the Captain can undertake nothing which the Quarter-Master does not approve. We may say, the Quarter-Master is a humble Imitation of the Roman Tribune of the People; he speaks for, and looks after the Interest of the Crew."[6]

The dual executive was a distinctive feature of pirate organization.[18] A quartermaster, along with the captain, was elected by the crew. The presence of the quartermaster divided the immediate authority on the ship into two, so one man couldn't have complete control over the crew. Also, the captain had to keep in mind that he only ruled because his crew allowed him to. A captain could be pulled from his position by a majority vote of the crew for various reasons, including: cowardice, poor judgment, abusive or controlling behavior (called predation) and other behavior that the crew believed infringed on their interests. The captain also lived like the rest of the crew; he had no privileges in lodgings or food and drink.[6]

However, the ultimate, highest authority on the ship was the pirate council, a group that included every man on the ship. The council determined where to go for the best prizes and how arguments were to be resolved.[19] Also, discipline was dealt out on the basis on "what Punishment the Captain and the Majority of the Company [believed] fit."[10]

Pirates took their democracy beyond their ship as well. Upon seizing a prize, pirates administered the "distribution of justice" and asked the crew of the captured ship about their captain's nature. If the crew complained that their captain had been cruel, the pirates tortured and then executed the captain. A kind captain was often released and rewarded.[20]

Brotherhood on the seas For the most part, Western pirates did not prey on one another and were always willing to help out fellow pirates. For example, in April 1719, Howell Davis and his crew sailed into the Sierra Leone River, alarming the pirates commanded by Thomas Cocklyn until they saw the Jolly Roger. After a while, they saluted each other with cannon. Other crews “often invoked an unwritten code of hospitality to forge spontaneous alliances.”[22]

The Jolly Roger, the most famous symbol of every pirate's experience of death, violence and limited time on Earth, was used to terrify targets but also to identify fellow pirates.[23] Pirate fraternity was further expressed by threats and acts of revenge against nations targeting pirates.[24]

Anti-libertarian part:

Forced labour Not all people on board were there voluntarily or had voting rights. Almost all pirate ships would have a considerable amount of forced labourers on board (usually 10%-60%). Typically captives from ships that refused to join and sign the code, but were of some use to the crew. These were practically slaves and did not have voting rights.[21]

19:35 UTC


Remake I found of Gadsden Flag.

16:34 UTC


History of gazden flag

The flag is named after Christopher Gadsden, a South Carolinian delegate to the Continental Congress and brigadier general in the Continental Army,[4][5] who designed the flag in 1775 during the American Revolution.[6] He gave the flag to Commodore Esek Hopkins, and it was unfurled on the main mast of Hopkins's flagship USS Alfred on December 20, 1775.[5][7] Two days later, Congress made Hopkins commander-in-chief of the Continental Navy.[8] He adopted the Gadsden banner as his personal flag, flying it from the mainmast of the flagship while he was aboard.[5] The Continental Marines also flew the flag during the early part of the war.[6].

Christopher Gadsden (February 16, 1724 – August 28, 1805) was an American politician who was the principal leader of the South Carolina Patriot movement during the American Revolution. He was a delegate to the Continental Congress, a brigadier general in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina, a merchant, and the designer of the Gadsden flag. He is a signatory to the Continental Association.

While Gadsden vehemently supported John Adams, who was opposed to slavery and promoted a gradual approach to abolition, the U.S. National Park Service writes that "by 1774, Christopher Gadsden owned four stores, several merchant vessels, two rice plantations, a residential district in Charleston called Gadsdenboro, and a large wharf on the Cooper River."[2] Of all the colonies, South Carolina received the highest number of slaves from Africa, and most of these came ashore on Gadsden's Wharf.[3] Gadsden himself held slaves, as did many rice plantation owners in South Carolina who used the labor of enslaved Africans to grow and sell agricultural products. In A Forgotten Founder: The Life and Legacy of Christopher Gadsden, Kelcey Eldridge states that, "at the time of his death, he owned enough slaves to 'divide my Estate real and personal as well as my negroes as otherwise into nineteen equal parts or shares'"; but it is unknown just how many enslaved people he purchased, owned, or used.[4]

Conclusion: Gazden flag has very anti-libertarian orgins: creator was slave owner, trader and general in the army, and flag was used for warships.


11:55 UTC


Is orginal meaning of symbol important?

For example is using symbol, which was authoritarian/supremacist/fascist ok if used with other meaning?

View Poll

12:32 UTC


Who should control law, police, military, courts, prisons etc.?

09:59 UTC

Back To Top