Hola Libertinus,

This week we’re covering two of the most cheerful topics imaginable: violent crime and the collapse of Western civilization.

West breaks down firearm selection like it’s an insurance policy (because it is), and Zack unpacks the real reason inequality keeps rising—and no, it’s not just because rich people aren’t taxed enough.

One essay is about how to stay alive. The other is about how to stay solvent.

Both assume the same thing: no one’s coming to save you.

So grab a drink, settle in, and let’s get dangerous.

🗞️ DISPATCHES

The Loudest Insurance Policy, Part II

So, you've made the decision to own a firearm, but now you're wondering which firearm to get.

Let's begin by going back to the risk we are looking to insure against - violent crime.

Despite what the the media would have you believe, mass shootings account for less than 1% of all violent crimes.

Now, within that tiny 1%, most "mass shootings" involve people who already know each other (think "gang shootings") and not lone-wolf types taking aim at people in a mall.

So if you're concealed carrying because you are concerned about being the the victim of a mass shooting like the kind you see on the news, and we already know that there is about a 0.4% chance of being the victim of a violent crime in general, what you're really saying is that you're looking to insure against something that has less than a 0.00004% chance of happening.

If I'm looking at this as an insurance problem, the costs aren't worth the coverage I would receive, but your mileage may vary.

So what am I concerned about?

All the other types of violent crime that are far more likely to happen - robbery, aggravated assault, etc.

The good thing about insuring against these types of risks is that the perpetrators often have low capability and intent.

They involve people who probably aren't highly trained or prepared and are just looking to make some quick money or are having a moment where their rationality has escaped them.

This is important information because traditionally one of the primary considerations in firearm selection is caliber.

Different calibers have varying sizes, power, recoil, and costs.

An important limitation to our caliber selection though is that we are specifically discussing concealed carry, meaning the firearms that shoot these different caliber types will hopefully be quite small, and subsequently quite concealable.

Small firearms + large, powerful calibers = recoil that is difficult to manage.

But on the other hand, we certainly don't want our firearm to be shooting an under-powered cartridge - after all, our lives may depend upon the ability for our bullets to stop an attacker.

This begs the question "what calibers are adequate for a concealed carry weapon?"

The good news is that we're not the first people to ask this question.

Greg Ellifritz at Active Response Training spent a decade collecting detailed information on 1,800 shooting incidents that gives us some actual data to work with in guiding our caliber selection. 

Please read Ellifritz's full article for all of the details, but what we see across the board is that there's not a clear correlation between caliber and the ability to stop an attacker, which is a counter-intuitive finding.

Most readers would be surprised, for example, that the meager .22 has a higher percentage of fatal hits than the .45 ACP.

So wait, does this mean caliber selection doesn't matter at all?

Does it mean that less powerful rounds are actually more lethal than more powerful rounds?

Well, not exactly.

Even though Ellifritz's data leverages a robust sample size, it should still be taken with a grain of salt.

For example, shooting incidents involving a .380 are probably more likely to involve civilians and subsequently less likely to involve highly motivated assailants.

Similarly, shooting incidents involving 9mm are probably more likely to involve police and subsequently more likely to involve highly motivated assailants.

Basically, the main takeaway I have from this article is that while caliber selection is usually considered extremely important to firearms buyers, the reality is that it doesn't make that much of a difference.

So, what does actually matter when selecting a firearm.

Well, the number one rule of being in a gun fight is having a gun.

That means purchasing a firearm you're actually willing to carry on you at all times, so probably something smaller and lighter than at full sized 1911.

The second most important factor is being able to effectively draw your firearm - the mere presence of a firearm is very likely to dissuade any assailants you may encounter.

This is less of a factor for firearm selection and more of a factor for holster selection and placement, but you will want to avoid firearms that would be likely to snag on your clothing.

The third most important factor is the ability to actually fire the weapon.

If the assailant does not actually see your firearm, you can be sure they will become aware of its presence when you fire it, which will dissuade the vast majority of them.

Unreliable firearms have no place in your selection process, but it is also worth noting that there are distinct differences in the ways that autoloaders and revolvers can fail, so familiarize yourself with the topic before deciding which is better for you.

For example, revolvers can still fire when pressed against an object (such as the body of someone trying to harm you), whereas an autoloader would get knocked out of battery.

Some folks are dissuaded by revolvers due to their lower capacity, but considering that only 3 shots are fired in the majority of civilian shooting incidents, they seem like a totally viable option to me personally.

Assuming you have a gun you can successfully draw and fire, the next consideration is shot placement - you need to actually be able to hit your target.

Caliber comes into play here somewhat because more powerful calibers are generally more difficult to control than less powerful calibers, which makes a compelling argument for opting for a smaller caliber that you can effectively control over a larger caliber that you can't.

Most assailants will reconsider their actions if they've been hit by a bullet, but when it comes to stopping a more determined assailant the only way to effectively do so with the required rapidity is by hitting a vital organ or the central nervous system.

You need to be capable of using your firearm to hit these vital targets, but the majority of shooting incidents occur within 3 yards, so gear your practice towards getting quick precise shots at relatively close distances.

Finally, after all of this, you can ask yourself "is the caliber I'm using powerful enough," and as we've seen the answer is probably "yes" regardless of what caliber that is.

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather be hit by a .22lr than a .45 ACP, but I'd rather be fighting against someone with a .45 ACP who was incapable of making hits than against someone with a .22lr who was on the money with their shots.

Hopefully this put the question of firearm and caliber selection into context for you in a "by the numbers" risk based approach.

Bear in mind that there are a large number of jurisdictional legal considerations when choosing to carry a firearm and when to use it in self defense, do be sure you do your research on this before implementing any of the above information. ~West

You Will Own Nothing (And It’s Not Even Klaus Schwab’s Fault)

Once upon a time, nearly 90% of Americans were farmers.

Today, it's less than 2%. The industrial revolution did that.

We didn’t riot in the streets. We didn’t burn the barns. We adapted.

Mechanization swept through agriculture, and people transitioned—relatively smoothly—into factory jobs, industrial cities, and union pensions.

But when America began to de-industrialize and morph into a so-called “knowledge economy”... let’s just say it didn’t go quite as well.

I lived in the Rust Belt for a time. It’s not pretty. Dilapidated towns. Meth. Fentanyl. No jobs, no hope.

The decaying bones of industry are still there—abandoned steel mills, decaying bridges, busted rail yards—but the economic activity left decades ago.

Even the Kmart, the one place everyone used to shop, finally gave up the ghost.

And that brings me to a recent debate and why it deserves your attention.

On one side: Gary Stevenson.

A former FX trader, now inequality crusader. Working-class background. Knows how the sausage is made.

On the other: Daniel Priestley.

Entrepreneur, small-government advocate. Hayek > Keynes.

To their credit, the conversation was mostly peaceful, but Stevenson was a touch feisty.

Two smart people, totally opposite worldviews, hashing it out in public. We need more of that.

But if you scroll through the comments, Stevenson clearly wins the crowd.

Why?

Probably because he articulates the problem better.

Rising inequality. Housing unaffordability. A rigged system. Vanishing upward mobility.

And that’s the trick: articulate the problem clearly… and people assume you understand the solution.

Stevenson’s solution?

Tax. The. Rich.

Say it again:

Tax. The. Rich.

Coming from a lefty, that’s the obvious answer, right?

But let's have a think on that, shall we?

Stevenson leans hard on this idea that back in the 1950s and '60s, the rich were taxed into oblivion and that’s why things were more equal and we had a thriving middle class.

It’s a good story.

It’s also not true.

Sure, the top marginal tax rate back then was over 90%.

But the effective rate—the amount the wealthiest actually paid?

Roughly 42% in the 1950s. Today it’s around 35%.

Not exactly Bolshevism.

So is that the magic fix?

Methinks not, if we take a page from history.

Rome tried taxing the rich. The elites bribed their way out. The middle class got crushed. Landowners eventually welcomed the barbarians just to escape the taxman.

The Dutch Republic taxed everything—beer, funerals, even bread—until their economy collapsed under the weight of sheer desperation.

Britain went full Robin Hood in the postwar era, with a 98% marginal tax rate. And famously, the Rolling Stones left—moving to the Bahamas to escape.

As Keith Richards put it...

“We left England because we’d be paying 98 cents on the dollar… We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all.”

That trend hasn’t slowed.

Between 2017 and 2022, the UK lost over 16,000 millionaires—a net outflow larger than any other country.

That wealth didn’t get taxed... it just packed up and left.

So no, taxing the rich isn’t new.

And in a declining empire, it doesn’t fix the rot. It just speeds up the exodus.

Here’s where it gets spicy…

In his book (dude’s a good writer), Stevenson shreds the elites.

He rails against the prep-school parasites—the clueless ‘aristocrats’ running the financial system and central banks. Calls them idiots. Says they inherited everything and have no effing idea what they’re doing.

And then—his solution?

Take money from the productive class... and hand it over to those same bureaucrats?

Read that again.

And… that’s reform? That’s the fix? That’ll bring back the middle class?

To paraphrase ol’ Joe (where is he these days, anyway?):

Come on, man! That's a buncha malarky!

Now, Priestley—the polite, free market guy—makes a stronger case (but he's also only half-right).

You can’t fix systemic decline with more government, so the answer, he argues, is economic freedom, entrepreneurship, and building things.

So far so good.

But here’s the problem:

Today, your competition isn’t your neighbor anymore. It’s a 19-year-old in Manila with better Wi-Fi and no student loans (and speaks great English).

Remember, the transition from industrial to post-industrial left a lot of people behind.

And now? We’re entering an even greater period of disruption...

The AI age.

And I'm not even going to pretend I even understand what's about to happen...

But I can tell you that “learn to code” sure sounds like a quaint slogan from a more innocent time.

Being an entrepreneur in this economy isn’t like starting a barbershop in 1954.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it.

In many ways, you must.

But let’s be real about what it realistically looks like.

Speaking of...

Ray Dalio has a name for what we’re living through:

Late-stage empire.

And neither you nor I can fix this.

Neither can Stevenson. Or Priestley. Or Jerome Powell. Or Congress. Or Trump. Or your favorite YouTuber.

This is bigger than any of us.

It’s Rome. It’s the Dutch. It’s the British.

Same script, different cast.

We printed money like lunatics. Inflated asset prices into orbit. Made housing unaffordable. Let wages stagnate while debt went vertical. Strangled the free market.

And when this debt bubble pops, it won’t be the banks that get wiped out.

It’ll be you and me.

So what do you do?

You don’t fix the empire. You navigate the decline.

Most people won’t.

They’ll cling to the old system. Wait for politicians to save them. Pretend the future will look like the past.

It won’t.

Average is over.

So don’t be average. ~Zack

That’s it for this week.

The odds of getting mugged on your next walk? Low.

The odds of your empire slowly disintegrating while you doomscroll the spiciest memes?

Well, that’s already happening—though few people seem to notice.

Point being…

If the downside risk is catastrophic—your safety, your savings, your sovereignty—then ignoring it isn’t just lazy… it’s reckless.

This isn’t about fear. It’s about odds and outcomes.

The most dangerous risks are the ones we don’t prepare for—because they feel too improbable, too abstract, or too uncomfortable to think about.

But when the situation goes from “that wouldn’t happen to me” to “oh $#@!”… it’s too late to hedge.

So don’t wait.

Don’t hope.

Don’t be average.

Position yourself.

Because when the probabilities are messy but the consequences are severe...

Prepared beats lucky. Every time.

Sic semper debitoribus,
~ West & Zack

👍 Enjoy this email? Please consider moving it to your primary inbox, and if you’re really feeling generous, hit “reply” and let us know what you think. Even one word will suffice. These steps will ensure you actually get the newsletter and email providers like Gmail don’t relegate us to your spam folder.

First time reader? You can sign up right here.