When I use the term anarchocapitalist instead of anarchist, I usually get odd looks. If I tell them I’m basically an ultralibertarian, they understand better. I’d prefer to use the term anarchist, but most people think of nihilist/chaotic skinheads when that term is used — give it time, we’ll steal it back.

I receive funny headlines often in e-mail, here’s a great one. “End Immigration Anarchy” from the National Review Online. I don’t read NRO, generally. Anarchocapitalists would love immigration anarchy, but immigration is an interesting debate between libertarians. Anarchocapitalists have the best solution for immigration: get rid of all immigrant controls and privatize all property. When there is no public land, there is no immigration without invitation. The U.S. is blessed with massive amounts of open land, and any immigrant who wants to come and work and profit would easily have an opportunity to buy a piece of land to live on. Immigrants who want to leech off the public taxpayer would find death and poverty quickly, the way that life should be. Don’t want to work = don’t want to live.

Often I am asked about the anarchy that exists in Somalia (and Liberia and Sierra Leone). The tragedies that occur in this “rule by the gun” country are definitely sad — but these tragedies can be expected when one realizes what the State has done to allow it to happen. In any country where the State penalizes unlicensed gun ownership, you can expect only the criminals to have guns. When the State collapses, who is left to replace them? The criminals. I am against the libertarian philosophy of finding minarchy through political changes — we’d just replace one State with another.

I would have believed that Somalia would find its equilibrium in time — and we could hope that it wouldn’t be big central governing. Already Somalia, in a state of “anarchy,” has found cellular phone services being installed, high speed networks are availabel at every cafe, and businesses are opening without licensing or regulations. With all the gains, though, comes sadness. A few days ago, the warlords and civilians elected (unfortunately) a government to take over Mogadishu, the capital, believing that more force is needed to bring peace to the area. It would have been really amazing to continue to watch the populace gain strength without a governing body, while the madmen continue to kill one another in other parts of the country.

According to SFGate.com, a judge has blocked the ban on the sale of violent video games to minors.

I really dislike the idea of someone assuming a legal title because of their age in years. There is much debate to be made in that area, but this is one place where I can never see government helping.

Video games have always been a target of politicians — they want to control manners and morality, which in the end gets them control over expression and speech. Video games are a form of art — art is expression, and expression is speech. There should never be a law censoring art or expression, even to “kids.”

If a minor is under 16, they can’t get to the mall or the store to buy the video game, in the first place. If they are getting there, the parent isn’t doing their job. Once they are over 16, I believe it can be argued that their freedoms have expanded beyond that of a child, and they should not be minors any more.

My other problem is governing what two consenting people do voluntarily. If a 12 year old is immature and the parents don’t want them buying violent video games (or beer or porn or cigarettes or heroin), the parents should be doing a better job of monitoring the child’s whereabouts. Yes, a parent must do this 24 hours a day.

I fully blame government nannyism for this “family crisis.” We have free day care (public schooling) until the age of 23. We have free food services (state paid lunches) available even for the wealthy. We have regulated babysitting services (broadcast television) so parents don’t have to interact with their children. We have regulated chaperone services (curfew laws) so parents don’t have to tend to their children in public.

You wonder why families are so irresponsible? Blame those who support these callous services — parenting is performed by the parents, by the extended family and in some cases by the church. It should never be community’s responsibility.

I don’t care about your children. I don’t know your children. Stop taxing me for your irresponsibility, I’d like to save my money to care for my children.