Make taxation theft again.

Life creates extremely organized structures, but it does so by consuming energy and releasing heat and waste into the environment. It does not violate entropy, it creates local order at the cost of increasing total entropy. Improbable structures require work to persist.

A free society depends on the freedom to challenge even its most widely accepted ideas, on citizens capable of thinking critically, and, above all, on recognizing that no authority possesses enough knowledge to dictate the choices of everyone else.

Good morning, Nostr. What project would you recommend making with a 3D printer?

Opt out

U.S. interest payments are now 3.3% of GDP, the highest level in history 🚨 🚨

Murray Rothbard gave you the tools to dismantle the state in its own language, and he did it with a smile. Consider his observation that "the State is a gang of thieves writ large." Not inflammatory rhetoric: a precise description of an institution that extracts resources through threats of violence, then congratulates itself for providing "services" you never requested. Rothbard stripped the ceremonial robes off government and showed you the mugger underneath. His insight on taxation cuts equally deep: "There can be no such thing as 'fairness in taxation.' Taxation is nothing but organized theft." You feel the clarity immediately. Every politician who promises a "fairer tax code" is promising to redistribute your property more elegantly. Rothbard also wrote, "Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently." Civil liberties divorced from economic liberty collapse into performance. He wrote prolifically from the 1950s until his death in January 1995, building an entire architecture of thought. The man never hedged, and that discipline produced ideas sharp enough to still cut through 2026's consensus thinking without breaking a sweat.

The real GOAT. Ludwig von Mises rebuilt economics from the foundation up, and a comparison to Einstein is not flattery: it is a structural observation about what each man did to his field. Einstein rewrote physics by showing that measurements of space and time depended on the observer's frame of reference. Mises did something comparably radical in 1912 with The Theory of Money and Credit, then again in 1920 with the socialist calculation paper, and definitively in 1949 with Human Action: he showed that economic calculation is impossible without private property in capital goods, because prices emerge only from voluntary exchange. The Soviet planners in Moscow were not making policy errors you could fix with better data. They were attempting something logically incoherent, the way you cannot find a square root of a color. Stalin murdered millions chasing a mathematical phantom that Mises proved impossible before the Soviet state was even ten years old. What separates Mises from most geniuses is the range. Einstein worked physics. Mises worked epistemology, monetary theory, capital theory, business cycle theory, and political philosophy simultaneously, weaving them into a single coherent system. His 1922 book Socialism predicted the collapse of every centrally planned economy with the precision of a structural engineer predicting which wall bears load. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. The math was settled in 1922. The state, being an institution that lives by compulsion rather than consent, cannot tolerate this kind of clarity. Governments fund universities. Universities employ economists. Those economists publish papers justifying central banking, redistribution, and regulation, because tenure flows toward conclusions that flatter power. Mises spent years teaching in Vienna without a paid university position, funding himself through the Chamber of Commerce. He was excluded not because he was wrong, but because clarity about power's limits threatens the institutions that distribute tenure. You want to rank intellectual giants; let's rank them by what they overturned and what they built in its place. Mises overturned classical economics, demolished the theoretical case for socialism, and constructed a complete science of human choice on aprioristic foundations. Einstein, asked about Mises by journalist Henry Hazlitt in the 1940s, expressed genuine admiration. The greatest physicist of the 20th century respected the greatest economist. The tenured mediocrities who ignored Mises respected neither.

Ludwig von Mises sat down in 1920 and published a paper that ended the intellectual case for socialism, even if the socialists took another seven decades to notice. The argument was precise. Mises showed that without private ownership of the means of production, there are no real prices for capital goods. Without prices, you cannot calculate profit and loss. Without profit and loss, economic planners have no way of knowing whether they are creating value or destroying it. They are flying blind, spending real resources with no feedback mechanism telling them whether the factory, the railway, or the grain depot was worth building. Every allocation becomes a guess dressed up as a decree. This, he called the Socialist Calculation Problem, and nobody answered it. Oskar Lange tried in 1936, proposing that socialist planners could simulate prices by trial and error. Mises read this and was unimpressed (charitably put). Lange assumed you could reproduce the function of market prices without the institution that generates them: private property, genuine exchange, real skin in the game. You cannot fake the signal and expect accurate information. The Soviet Union spent seventy years proving Mises right. Chronic shortages, misallocated steel, surplus winter boots in Georgia in July, famine engineered by committees convinced they understood grain supply better than the price system. The USSR collapsed in 1991 under the weight of precisely the inefficiencies Mises predicted in Vienna in 1920. You are watching this play out again today, every time a government sets energy prices, rent ceilings, or pharmaceutical price caps, and then expresses shock at the resulting shortages. The calculation problem did not expire with the Soviet Union. Bureaucrats who override price signals recreate the same blindness Mises identified. Mises told you exactly what would happen.

The intellectual case against Marxism was won more than a century ago. The most rigorous and devastating blows came from the Austrian School of economics – but the strange part is that hardly anyone is taught the winning arguments. Carl Menger’s subjective theory of value, developed in the 1870s, undermined the labour theory of value on which Marx built his entire system. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk then delivered a systematic demolition of Marx’s economics, exposing the contradictions in the theory of surplus value and the so-called transformation problem. Ludwig von Mises went further still, demonstrating that rational economic calculation is impossible under socialism because without private property and market prices there is no way to allocate resources efficiently. Friedrich Hayek later extended this into the knowledge problem: the information required to run a complex economy is dispersed and cannot be centralised. And Murray Rothbard showed how Marx misunderstood the nature of capitalism by replacing voluntary exchange and entrepreneurial creation with a false theory of exploitation based on labour value and class conflict. These were not minor objections. They struck at the theoretical foundations of Marxism and, in the case of Mises and Hayek, correctly predicted the chronic waste, shortages, and eventual collapse of socialist economies. History confirmed their arguments on a civilisational scale. Yet in universities, media and political debate, these critiques remain marginal. Marx is still widely taught as a serious economist and social theorist. His errors are softened, historicised, or treated as interesting starting points. The Austrian responses are rarely given equal weight. Students can pass through entire programmes in the social sciences without encountering Böhm-Bawerk’s critique or Mises’s calculation argument in any depth. This neglect is not accidental. It reflects a deeper intellectual preference for theories that pathologise markets and legitimise expanded state power. The result is a public discourse that continues to recycle Marxist categories long after their economic foundations were shown to be unsound. The cost of that selective memory is still being paid.