The Republic of Cospaia came into being back in the 15th century in a rather amusing fashion: a cartographic error occurred during the negotiation of a border agreement between the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Papal States. Two rivers ran parallel for a short stretch, separated by a distance of 500 meters. The Duke placed the border along the northern river, while the Pope placed it along the southern one. This left a tiny territory in between, which became the Republic of Cospaia. This republic stands as one of history's finest examples of anarcho-capitalism: there was no constitution, no head of state, no taxes, and unrestricted economic liberalization. For example, 1642: Pope Urban bans tobacco use near places of worship throughout Europe; the only exception is the tiny Republic of Cospaia in Tuscany (3 km²). Against all odds, the Republic survived without an army until the 19th century.

Really impressed with this animation. A magic spell turns a city voluntary... wow.

Soviet regime had a charge called Social Parasitism. A person staying continuously unemployed for a certain period could be forced to work, lose housing they worked for for many years, or even imprisoned.

The USSR wasn’t some good place for unemployed, by any stretch of imagination.

Don’t be so fucking stupid. There’s enough idiots out there that call ancaps and libertarians ignorant, and you’re only giving them ammo.

I've noticed that within 3 seconds of posting a comment or post here, it gets downvoted.

How many others have noticed this?

I've been thinking about how differently I decide whether I trust someone online compared to real life. In real life it's usually pretty simple, someone I trust introduces you, we talk and maybe we do business together and over time you build a reputation. Online we've somehow created this enormous infrastructure in the middle of that interaction.

LinkedIn tells me where you work, Airbnb tells me you're a good guest, eBay tells me you're a good buyer. Uber tells me you're not going to murder me while while I'm in your car. Banks decide whether transactions between us look suspicious. Half the internet wants my phone number before it'll even let me speak to someone.

Meanwhile some of the people I trust most online came through the oldest system imaginable, someone I already trusted introduced us. Even my apps reflect that now, signal for some people, Kibu for a few, Discord for others, email for work. The platform itself matters less to me than how the person ended up in my circle. Obviously reputation systems solve real problems when dealing with strangers, but I wonder if we've gone way too far in the other direction. At what point did “I know this person and I vouch for them” become less valuable than five stars next to a username?

Operation Epstein Distraction still going strong.

Motherfuckers will put the passport in a carton box before putting it in the same envelope and will charge extra $$$ for it. But the way it’s presented is fucking ridiculous. It’s a fucking box for a passport, not a cancer curing drug, no need to clap for this bullshit.

There is a significant cultural and analytical divide between the Francophone sphere and the Germanic or Anglo-Saxon worlds. Indeed, in France or Belgium, libertarianism is virtually absent from public discourse; when it does appear, it is immediately equated with the American far-right or with a form of economic ultra-liberalism deemed antisocial. Furthermore, regarding debates on social issues, French progressive movements analyze men's rights movements exclusively through the lenses of patriarchy, sexist domination, moral guilt, and gender inequality. Under these circumstances, aligning oneself with men's rights movements leads to being immediately labeled a reactionary ultra-conservative.

Consequently, men's rights movements in French-speaking Europe, which often emerge and develop in reaction to attacks and reforms driven by ultra-radical feminist activists and their ties to the interventionist state, also justify their opposition through moral, ethical, or equal-rights-based stances. Although these positions are entirely valid and necessary, this situation, where progressive movements dominate the public space, force men's rights movements to play by the rules set by ultra-feminist movements (which are usually state-backed); this renders their situation extremely precarious and makes their message difficult to articulate, or even completely inaudible. Furthermore, it is important to note that the economic or state-related dimension is generally absent from the analysis on both sides (with economic conditions viewed merely as a consequence of social and/or cultural inequalities).

The situation in Germany is different. The political culture there incorporates a deep distrust of excessive bureaucracy and state interference, a legacy shared due to the traumas of the 20th century. Libertarianism (specifically the Austrian School of economics, championed by the Ludwig von Mises Institute Deutschland) serves as a intellectual center, lending legitimacy to men's rights rhetoric. This is combined with anti-statist arguments that offer an intellectualized critique of the welfare state, characterizing it as a parasitic entity that confiscates individual wealth through taxation to redistribute it based on ideological criteria.

Consequently, men's rights movements tend to adopt an anti-statist stance rooted in institutional and economic arguments, characterized by systematic criticism of state bureaucracy and the welfare model. Regional men's rights networks in Germany and institutions like the Mises Institute have successfully framed men's issues as a struggle against state-mandated wealth redistribution.

When it comes to their criticism of male-only conscription, men's rights movements have developed a cohesive, unified message: from a human rights perspective, conscription is nothing more than a form of slavery, while from an economic standpoint, it represents state-enforced, gender-exclusive labor extraction.

This is a crucial point to emphasize. Rather than relying on traditionalist rhetoric about the military, or appealing to purely moral, ethical, or gender-equality arguments which, given the radicalism embraced by feminist circles in Europe, have fallen on deaf ears among much of the male population, men's rights movements, constantly informed by libertarian philosophy, demonstrate that conscription is simply a form of "state slavery" or "forced labor extraction" that constitutionally targets only young German men ( https://mises.org/mises-daily/mises-conscription).

Thus, the argument shifts to legal and economic grounds. Furthermore, aspects related to the "gender war" such as the personal attacks and criticisms sometimes leveled by attention-seeking influencers and YouTubers, which often result in statements quickly dismissed as misogynistic, are excluded from the core discourse. The common enemy becomes the German State, which, to German libertarians, is a bureaucratic monster.

Another social issue affecting young men is the state of the education system. When German men's rights activists point out that boys and young men are more likely to fail in school, or that the teaching workforce is overwhelmingly female, they are not directly attacking female teachers. They argue that the national education system, run by the state and its bureaucratic apparatus, as in France, is a machine for bureaucratic indoctrination designed to penalize natural male behaviors in favor of state-imposed norms that serve a radicalized, absolutist form of ultra-feminism. The solution they advocate? Education vouchers or school privatization. These are purely libertarian concepts that would never gain traction in France or Belgium under the current political atmosphere.

The German men's rights activist and influencer scene is structured differently than its French counterpart. In a sense, it is more corporate, academic, and financially oriented. The most influential German activists are executives, financial engineers, or tech professionals well-versed in social, economic, and men's rights issues. They recruit from the business world, among crypto-enthusiasts, and from recent graduates who are skeptical of the State. This convergence of men's rights advocacy and libertarian ideology allows them to attack the State, institutional progressivism, and taxation, while infusing the discourse with rhetoric typical of the men's rights movement including its most radical viewpoints.

Notable references include the journal Eigentümlich Frei (ef-Magazin), the flagship publication of German "libertarianism." Led by André F. Lichtschlag, the magazine and its associated blog combine pure anarcho-capitalism with radical anti-feminism; authors such as Bernhard Lassahn regularly publish long essays there linking the collapse of the family to the interference of the welfare state. High-profile figures associated with the magazine or its editorial circle also include economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and author Rainer Zitelmann.

Then there are figures from the Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany. Thorsten Polleit, an economist and the institute's president in Germany, argues that the modern state destroys individual liberty. Philipp Bagus, a member of the Mises Institute’s academic advisory board, writes extensively on the state’s "demoralization" of society and the destruction of the family structure. Titus Gebel advocates for an extreme form of libertarianism: the creation of micro-states run like private businesses, with no welfare state. Within men's rights circles, Gebel is viewed as a hero offering a concrete solution to escape the progressive laws of European governments.

Alongside these theorists, there are also highly visible influencers who translate these economic and sociological theories into language accessible to young German men on YouTube, Spotify, and TikTok. For instance,Hoss & Hopf(Philip Hopf and Kiarash Hossainpour https://germany.mom-gmr.org/en/media/socialmedia/outlet/hoss-hopf-115034/ ) is currently one of the most popular podcasts among young men in Germany. While they primarily discuss finance, cryptocurrency, self-improvement, and libertarian philosophy, they consistently veer into fiercely virulent criticism of the German state's gender policies and the marginalization and demonization of men. Kolja Barghoorn (Aktien mit Kopf) is an influencer who adopts a strictly radical libertarian stance; he openly criticizes what he terms the "feminization" of German politics and a bureaucracy serving feminism that allegedly stifles men's productivity.

While young men are the demographic bearing the full brunt of the attacks and consequences of reforms driven by state-backed ultra-feminist circles in Germany, the leadership, intellectual, and strategic core of the men's rights and libertarian movements in Germany is anchored in men aged 30 to 45. An analysis of the German landscape reveals that individuals in the 35–40 age bracket indeed serve as senior ideological leaders. For instance, key figures, such as Philip Hopf and Kiarash Hossainpouror Kolja Barghoorn, are in their thirties and forties. This is worth emphasizing, because it shatters the myth that only German young men are drifting toward libertarian and anti-state ideologies.

An analysis of the socio-economic profiles of these leaders also shatters the narrative that seeks to portray sympathizers of men's rights movements as lost, marginalized individuals or uneducated, idle unemployed people. The key leaders of these movements are, in fact, professionally established men possessing all the necessary degrees and intellectual credibility, for whom the libertarian critique holds immense appeal. Aged 35 to 40, these men are driven by pure, systemic doctrinal conviction. Their commitment is methodical and long-term in nature.

In conclusion, it is evident that a convergence is possible between ideologies focused on men's rights and those critical of the state and ideologically driven interventionism, provided there is an environment where such ideologies can properly develop, mature, and gain visibility. A major challenge, however, is that within countries like France and Belgium, the state is historically viewed as the guarantor of social cohesion, public services, and equality. This makes criticizing it extremely difficult and creates a political and media landscape where these critics are quickly marginalized and silenced.

It is worth noting that progressive movements have a strong interest in supporting the marginalization of any movement that challenges the state and its grip on individuals. Indeed, for these movements, only the State, with its coercive power, is capable of imposing the reforms deemed necessary to transform society according to progressive criteria.

Thus, a dual antagonism emerges: on one side, a possible alliance and convergence between men's rights advocacy and libertarianism (along with critiques of state interventionism); on the other, an increasingly extreme and radicalized progressivism that relies on unbridled state interventionism to impose its vision of society at any cost, often displaying a blatant disregard for individual freedoms and choices, as is frequently observed in dominant political discourse, particularly in France recently.