>>1169
These are pretty good.

>>1169 hey liberty bros, we're revamping the cup! Come see us over at https://anon.cafe/icup/ for more details!

>>1075 Just a heads up, fellas. If you want to participate, you gotta tell us before the 3rd of July.

>>3160 That would be nice, but just the fact that ancapistan exists will make us a threat to the existence of literally every government planet, so we will essentially be at war with the whole world from day 1.

>>3161 This, unfortunately. The UN would probably get pissy right away, and claim that we were "uprooting innocent Somalis from their rightful land" or something. Then they'd claim we were trying to remake Rhodesia and re-establish le ebil raycis colonialism, and immediately we'd be public enemy no. 1. Embargoes, airstrikes, invasions... you name it. Think Ruby Ridge on a massive scale. Not that it isn't still worth trying.

>>3166 Step 1: Become billionaire Step 2: Buy all the guns, nukes, land, poulation that you need Step 3. Make ancap happen

>>1782 here's an ancap one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7FufnQf6VI

>>3030 This https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9muSB6CzNDs

cute meme girl from dangitronpaul

>>2966 Thanks OP. Bugs me that hoppe-sama is messed up now. Hopefully, it does get fixed. Keep doing your best OP.

>>2770
>debunked
cope

>>2770
If you think something should be banned, you might want to try reporting it instead of bitching in unrelated threads. Further, while le Jungian personality types can easily turn into cringe normie shit, I'm hardly inclined to call 3 posts a "raid."

>>2770
>debunked
By reddit?

>>2780
thanks /tumblr/ i enjoyed this one.
t.INTJ
If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.

>>2775
>cope
Reading pseudoscience is a form of coping actually.

>>2691
>Whenever I think really deeply about a long-term, sustainable way to 'help' someone, I nearly always end up creating some sort of business in my head.
As if that's a bad thing. You might want to check out what Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Rand have to say about the virtue of selfishness, I think they have the right ideas about helping people properly.

>>2679
>>2691
>>2692
Don´t know, "private" charity organisations almost always end up as the common (((NGOs))): False private businesses shilled by the governments to up the number of niggers and instaurare pozzed agendas in dissident countries while not doing anything worthwhile or abusing the local population in the name of "solidarity" instead of letting nature take it´s course.
We should reevaluate when we should make a helpful act and to who.

>>2691
If you want to give really badly the one place I can think of would be your local food bank. Otherwise, long term solutions help a lot.

>>2690
I thought the obesity was caused by the government subsidizing corn farmers since they put corn starch in everything nowadays.

The mental illness part seems like a big part people ignore about homelessness. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people living under bridges and muttering to themselves or screaming into the air. I think they were probably schizophrenic.

>>2669
Private company do make money from giving cherity, at least in my country. They do documentary and air it on national tv, and use the money from royalty then give it to the homeless, ect.

>>2696
Charlatans will always exist, and the state is just a very convenient tool for them. Of course you should be careful when trying to help someone else, it's your money after all; and you have much more incentive do to so if you're doing it first-hand, rather than the government taking your money and doing it in your place.

>>2146
So he sounds just like the real MLK, is what you're saying.

Looks like the Treasury Department and the Fed are synched with one another. How worried should we be?

The best way to get rid of the fed is by bombing it....in Minecraft of course

I don't actively follow cryptocurrencies but unless some already have, they need to find some solution to the problem that parties that hold 51% or sometimes less can forge transactions.

>>1194
>The problem of people treating them as stock can most likely be solved by making it easier to get and use them without straight up doxing yourself again.
That's true, it's pretty ironic how to buy crypto whose main reason for use is anonymity you have to record yourself in front of their camera and take the chinese dick up the ass.

Is Bitcoin Cash any good?

>>1194
>parties that hold 51% or sometimes less can forge transactions
I'm fairly sure they already solved that problem directly on the algorithms used. However, I don't know if said algorithm are widespread enough; they should be at least on the major currencies, but I don't really follow that closely the various implementations.

>>1184
>Then where does the crypto come from?
The thing is, the point of a blockchain (or whatever IOTA uses) is not the currency, but rather the fact that once a block is inserted, then whatever is written inside the block can't be changed.
Let me explain it with an example: say you and a friend of yours exchange some goods, e.g. you give 10 apples and receive 10 oranges from your friends.
Because you want to record this exchange so that no one can claim the exchange didn't happen or that happened differently, you place it on the blockchain and have a third person, a witness, sign it.
Now that the block is inserted in the chain and signed, no one can claim that the exchange of 10 apples for 10 pears never happened.
Now, the witness didn't receive anything directly from the exchange yet had to participate, so to compensate him for the service, a certain amount of currency is given to him. It could be an actual fiat currency (e.g. 10 american dollars), but if the witness is not physically present (like it is with the internet) then a different currency has to be used; this currency is generated by the blockchain and it's the cryptocurrency.
IOTA does not need a currency because it's not compensating a witness of an exchange; rather, it asks everyone connected to the "tangle" to witness and sign the exchange.
Basically, it's not about the money but about confirming that a certain exchange happened with certain terms and conditions and that no one can say otherwise.

Looks like Nancy Pelosi tried to sneak a digital currency bill into the recent relief bill. It got cut out but I wouldn't be surprised if they try this shit again. How worried should we be?

Not everyone wants everything so not everything is for everyone. Not everyone has contributed to the creation of every thing (e.g you can't contribute to the production of anything made before you were born). Not everyone works, see communists. The wealth of the wealthy springs from satisfying the desires of people.

Though I agree that people should read the bread book, there's no better way to see how dumb it is.

>>2407
I'm sorry anon, but gay porn is against the rules of this board.

>Small, gated, capitalistic communities? Minarchism. Physical removal? Minarchism as well.
>Anarcho-capitalism is more like a life style someone could choose to live under an anarchy.
>small authority to protect individual liberties and private properties.
Ummm... sweety...

>>2018
It's all matter on the track record anon. All it takes a slightest offer of power to government is enough to ruin a society, because government just grow bigger and bigger and so the subjugation magnitude of their power. This pattern have been going consistently thought out the history of mankind.

>>2018
Hoppeans are anarchists in favor of private governance. We're only minarchists if you change the definition of "state" to include voluntary, non-coercive contracts, and say that any form of social cohesion and authority are actually statism. Funnily enough this is what the left-lolbergs and ancoms do, which is why they incoherently screech about Hoppeans being crypto-fascists or statists, because in their diseased brains authority and social order of any sort is to be opposed at all costs.

I'm not gay. I don't want to suck a big fat NEETSoc society's dick and I don't want to suck a little shota's phimosis dick either. I don't want to suck dick period. Minarchism is like saying "it's ok to suck that dick because it's pretty small flaccid dick right now, don't worry about it growing bigger, it'll be fine! Put that whole dick in your mouth!"

>>2031
Bernie was the only candidate I truly feared, because unlike most of these other commie dems, Bernie actually believes his own bullshit, and these are the most dangerous type of politicians, the ones who actually believe they're the good guys.

The only democrat to be on the lookout for is Biden, which I'm actually not that concerned over. Biden looks like the typical Democrat, spewing shit just to get elected, and then not actually doing any of the things he said he was going to do (you know, like Obama).

Biden is worse only because he doesn't stand for anything, and worse yet only stands for centrist dem positions, nothing to be afraid of, just milquetoast meddling.

>>2033
This has me thinking, is the demand for socialism going to be inevitable? I mean the boomers will die out eventually and you have some millenials who want socialism. I am millenial as well but I hate socialism. Hell I'm not sure what the actual numbers for this are. They will eventually gain a foot hold and vote. I have this feeling that AOC will become the norm for the Democratic party and the country will become socialist eventually. That or it will collapse before it reaches it. I don't know I guess I'm being paranoid.

>>2088
It's hard to tell if it's genuine retards or bots these days but if you lurk normalfag websites like leddit and twitter most of the top comments are always people advocating for socialism. I know a lot of it are bots/bot voting to drown out people opposed to it but I think over time this will cause the younger generations to fall for this more than they already do. If you scroll way down the page or read down voted/hidden comments on these websites there are tons of people that are against these things but I think most normalfags never see those posts.

That said, even the boomers I know IRL have noticed the censorship. The bot accounts and shadow banning eventually happens to them or one of their friends and once they see it a couple of times they figure out what is going on. Most of the boomers I know are on facebook and are well aware of the soft censorship. They've also noticed the difference between what MSM says and what they're seeing on their news feeds. It would be very interesting to have access to the backend of Twitter/Facebook/Reddit just to find out how much bot activity there really is. I'm sure it makes up at least 50% of the accounts if not more. If you include accounts that don't post and just vote/like things it's probably closer to 80% or even 90%. They're basically doing everything they blame on Russia.
>Bot voting
>Fake News
>Fake accounts
>Hacking the election/voting
etc. etc.

>>1586
>fixed
Polyarchy is gay, though.

>>1587
Don't tell me what to do.

>>1610
I have recreational mcnuke for that.
;'mon punk, make my day.

>>1610
GLORY BE TO HER GRACE!

>>740
This anon makes a good point. In a political world dominated by irrational, emotive decisions most often made by leftists, everyone else is losing a significant portion of their potential audience by relying on metrics to make their arguments. The clear solution is to sprinkle in some empathetic arguments that would be relatable to the audience that these people attract. The problem with this is that it would only work on the most uneducated actors in the argument. The base of supporters for, in particular, gun control is dishonest. Take, for example, first pic relate. It presents empathetic reasoning against gun control, explicitly countering the typical "think of the children" emotive argument used by gun-controllists. However, once prompted with their own emotive arguments as counter-arguments, most gun-controllists are suddenly interested in arguing logically, and will falsely identify the argument as a slippery slope fallacy, despite the argument itself proving that the claim is not fallacious—the slope is exactly as slippery as described.

Russia's development and industrialization are not a spectacular merit of Bolshevism and would have happened under other regimes.

>>887
>>856
>>721
>>720
>>702
>>701
>WORDS
>WORDS
>WORDS
These are supposed to be spammed everywhere and easy to understand, you guys are missing the mark pretty badly.

>>888
4 of the 5 images I posted weren't walls of text, and you clearly failed to read my other post entirely. You tell me who's missing the mark here.

He seems to be a bit more active lately with videos and streams, a shame they don't seem to get translated.

>>1588
Yes, I think I tried telling him about it before on a stream. Maybe I can try on twitter, he speaks English, so you can try there too.

Sounds like a cool guy.

>>1663
Every major western city should also have something like this about twice a year, this is how we get zoomers on our side. It's not enough to just chat with other ancaps on the internet, because right now we are isolated from each other and the pace of communication is really slow compared to irl, we don't even know if we exist in the real world and we feel powerless.

Suddendly taxes on woman.

Women are only useful for sex and building a family (so your children can succeed you genetically and physically to expand your property and wealth), if none is available or too hard for you you should disregard women completely. Here you see the amount of plunder the govt. gets from women vs men.

>>1357
You've completely misunderstanding.

The guy he is replying to is making a statement about what libertarians currently say, "...libertarians will say that...", to which his answer contains no assumption about a hypothetical libertarian state existing, as it's about actual current reality.

They do teach reading comprehension in public schools, did you pass?

>>1357
The scenario in >>1317 regarding spic workers was how the proper solution for our current government, using the current tools available.

Yes, unlike the public school in which you were surely educated.

>>1344
Most of what I read was not in English so I don't really know what to recommend. I read some leftists trying to co-opt the philosophy into another cool, hip, and new leftist movement disguised under some vague 2deep4u bullshit, which is why I didn't bother with English sources, but I guess you can try reading the guys Robin Van den Akker and Timotheus Vermeulen who are supposedly the "main thinkers" of meta-modernism, but I haven't read them myself so I don't really know what they talk about. You can also check out the interviews of David Foster Wallace or even his book Infinite Jest if you have the time for it, he died shortly before meta-modernism became a thing, but his books kinda started post-irony and meta-modernism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI

>Also, how do meta-irony and post-irony relate to postmodernism and metamodernism, respectively, and why not the other way around?
Because meta-irony and post-modernism is primarily about the deconstruction of concepts, while post-irony and meta-modernism is primarily about reconstruction of concepts. Post-irony reconstructs the things deconstructed by post-modernism, this is why post-modernism has no use for post-irony, post-modern people cringe at sincerity and try hard to be cynical and distanced from sincere beliefs, and post-irony is not only cringy for them but also really frustrating because they don't have a clever way to attack it and mock it, they are forced to argue sincerely against it. I don't think meta-modernism has a use for meta-irony either unless you're willing to admit that you don't really believe in anything and aren't idealistic, in which case you wouldn't be meta-modernist.

When modernists are arguing about some opposing ideals that they have, it's like a shitflinging contest where everyone tries to get as much shit onto each other while staying as clean as possible themselves, but the post-modernist, being the loser that he is and already covered head to toe in shit, would say: "if I can't win anyway, then I will make sure everyone else will lose with me" so he dives into the most toxic cesspool he can find, and then proceeds to run towards everyone and smear them in his filth, happily accepting all the shit they throw at him instead of trying to dodge it. This is what's called "meta-irony", it's impossible to insult meta-ironists because they already made a mockery of themselves and everyone else as well. They don't believe in anything, and they don't allow anyone to believe in anything. You can't insult them by calling them weak, ugly, disgusting, contemptible, etc... because they already became these things on purpose in order to make a mockery of your strength, beauty, virtue, truth and whatever else you hold sacred. Just think about your typical hipster, bull dyke, antifa retard, or anyone being "counter culture".

Post-irony on the other hand is an end to irony and a return to sincerity. Post-irony allows for idealism again, and for you to talk about something constructively instead of just attacking things with irony or meta-irony. Post-irony is when you speak about what you believe in such an absurd fashion that people can't tell if you're being ironic or not, and they go along with it anyway thinking you were joking when you were actually totally serious. It's a very effective tool for escaping censorship and SJW thought police and it can even allow you to support socially-suicidal things like fascism in public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkLAgLDjogY

Cultural Marxism and the rampant degeneracy we have today is only possible because of post-modernism, and it's useful for libertarians to know this, because trying to explain culture via economic concepts will not give quite a satisfactory answer, you can't explain everything wrong with society with just time preference alone. If you want to know about post-modernism and its relationship with Marxism, you can check out this great lecture by based Stephen Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w

>>1372
Saved, thank you. I'm thinking of making a Youtube channel one day which will debunk blue-pills, though not necessarily in such a serious format as The Academic Agent (best economics Youtuber out there, subscribe if you haven't already) nor as snarky as AltHype. I think meta-modernism is the key to all this and helps with good memery.