>>266
Only one file at a time for bigger ones apparently.

That's all for now.

>>285
Oh, are we doing non-/liberty/ content too? I have some selections from other folders, as well.

>>286
Sure, why not?

>>652
Not sure I see the appeal here, seems like the usual done up legacy radio show.

>>676
Wanna get mad?
https://pics.conservativememes.com/zimbabwe-inflation-hits-high-of-290-says-economist-africa-27-41583245.png

>>680
>central bank fuckery is supposed to be capitalism
Jesus Christ...

Cantwell is such a cringe retard who cries on camera.

>>685
buT veNEzUeLA haS PROpertY riGHtS, hoW CaN yOu caLl thaT SOCIalIst?!

>>676
The fuck happened in 2017? Trump effect?

>>717
That's just how exponential functions work.

>>707
>our
>movement

Reminder that live-and-let-live is for hippie faggots.

>>730
Join or die bitch.
We're fucked without solidarity.

>>751
LARPing as an ideology isn't going to bring you solidarity, because you can't build an identity from an ideology. Does the aut-right look like it has much solidarity to you right now?

>>756
Why not? The commies do it just fine and succeed.

>>765
The commies only use ideology as a substitute for identity because they're all rootless and atomized, with no ties to their family and no children of their own. I also wouldn't say the commies have much in the way of solidarity; they're constantly infighting and have no clear direction they want to go. Their handlers just make sure to keep them separated enough that they don't destroy themselves. The reason this works for them is they're not trying to build or preserve anything. Communists are vermin, who only seek to destroy the fabric of society. Three nests of termites eating away at a house are not coordinated and have no solidarity; but the house will fall away just the same.

>>732
Back on topic, here's another clip from that same speech:

>>732
While I get the reason for this stance I don't get how you could feasibly act on this without uprooting the fabric you try to build on.
If I have a bad neighbour and start going around to other community members to ostracize him, which would involve upending his contracts with everyone so that he either moves away or at worst can't even leave his property I am right back at the rule of the mob aka direct democracy.

>>786
The difference from this and democracy is that you're not imposing coercion on anyone and you're not violating anyone's property rights. The 49% doesn't have the decision of the 51% forced on them.

>>789
Sorry but that doesn't follow at all, not only would it take one(1) wine aunt within the neighbourhood to wall you in and more or less kill you but interfering with my contracts and thus livelyhood is coercion no matter how many corners it goes around.

>>790
The wine aunt's ability to "interfere with your contracts" is entirely conditional on your contractees agreeing with her suggestion to stop trading with you. If they don't agree, she can't do anything more. If they do agree, no one can stop them, because they have every right to exit contracts to which they don't want to be a party. You're not entitled to have people contract with you, if you want handouts go to /leftypol/.

>>791
You readily agree with a heterogenous group having a different dynamic and substance compared to a homogenous onea generally better one but you deny that group dynamics exist and that otherwise willing contractors can be socially compelled to cut you off?
The problem I see is that I as a new party that would move somewhere only have a limited ability to get to know all the group dynamics that go on there, then if I buy into this place and I find that someone either wants me gone or to conform to something I don't want to and that I then realistically have to do so because buying a property is almost guaranteed to limit my options to bail out if I and the other parties can't come to an agreement.
That is to say: How does the ebin remove-meme account for fresh neighbours that realize they are not compatible with the community and want to cleanly exit it without financial ruin?

>>792
>heterogenous & homogenous
messed that up, obviously the other way around

>>792
I don't deny that group dynamics exist, group dynamics and social pressure are a wonderful thing for keeping communities homogeneous and high-trust. I deny the accusation that social pressure is a property rights violation, because this is nonsensical.

>The problem I see is that I as a new party that would move somewhere only have a limited ability to get to know all the group dynamics that go on there
Then do more research. It's not my problem if you make a major purchase without bothering to figure out if it's something you're okay with. Caveat Emptor, faggot.

>>796
>I deny the accusation that social pressure is a property rights violation, because this is nonsensical.
Good thing I never claimed that then, so far your only answer has been "lmao just have unlimited scope in your research" when it should be pretty self evident that even if I were to commit all my time and resources to this it would still not allow me to get a full account of say a neighbourhood and its dynamics as my full ability will not be equal to the full theoretical one.
Instead of trying to insult me because you seem to read some ill intent into these posts why don't you lay out in more detail how you think HHHs view wouldn't need some extra caveats in order to keep some level of regional mobility for individuals which I think is required for a populus to sort itself into homogenous communities including some human errors of say, misjudging such a community.

>>797
>Good thing I never claimed that then
why not? Whipping up an angry twitter mob to disrupt a contract between two willing parties (domain registrar, hosting provider) is a clear violation of the NAP

>>797
>Good thing I never claimed that then

Yes you did:
>>790
>interfering with my contracts and thus livelyhood is coercion no matter what

>ven if I were to commit all my time and resources to this it would still not allow me to get a full account
That's what people in the real world call a "risk." You're not guaranteed to live a consequence-free life or to not make wrong decisions. Live with the reality, start saving up to move, and be more careful next time.

>why don't you lay out in more detail how you think HHHs view wouldn't need some extra caveats in order to keep some level of regional mobility
Because I don't think I need to. You haven't to my view demonstrated anything fundamentally wrong with the theory. At best you've shown that you personally have an aesthetic disagreement with how certain situations will be handled. Human errors are a part of life, and there will be a market opportunity to minimize them. Services extant today like Zillow and Yelp are proof of this market emerging. The barrier to entry for information is getting lowered all the time for people who can't be arsed to do their own research.

>>802
>That's what people in the real world call a "risk." Live with the reality, start saving up to move, and be more careful next time.
So how does this work exactly? How much of society is required to deprive me of my means of income by exerting social pressure on my employer or contractors? Is one purple-haired BPD cunt enough? If she makes a false accusation then "society" has the right to force you to abandon your private property and vacate your land to move to a more accepting society? Even if your current society controls your profession and you don't have the economic freedom to change professions due to skill specialization? Is industry blacklisting perfectly OK with you? If an ideological monoculture forms that's vulnerable to denial-of-service or reflection attacks, you just have to give up and move to the frontier? You realize there are no frontiers left on Earth where you can just start your own society from scratch, right? It's perfectly fine to socially pressure 8chan's contract partners to cut business ties with them despite the fact that they hold effective monopolies over the services they provide?

It sounds like there are literally no benefits of a person joining your society, and any individual can be cast out at any time. Do you plan to implement some kind of codified system of laws to govern this behavior, or are you just totally fine with things the way they are now? You claim to want to create small homogenous societies based on shared culture but what's the point if the degenerates can just band together and kick you out? What's the fucking point of having a nigger-free society if the nigger lovers can just group up and demand you let niggers live there?

>>804
>hurrr ancap is gay because open borders
NEETSocs, not even once.

>>805
I just want to live in a society that either offers me some kind of benefit or leaves me the fuck alone dumbass. You're not even ancap dipshit, if you support society having the ability to strip you of your property for any reason under the thin veneer of consequence you're a fuckin socialist.

>>806
lol tripcode in the name field, disregard that I suck cocks

>>806
>if you support society having the ability to strip you of your property
lol, imagine being so retarded that this is what you think physical removal means.

>>806
>born 2 shit, forced 2 wipe
lol, no one gives a fuck you attentionwhore nigger tripfag cuckchanner. First you whine about niggers moving next door, then you whine about people not wanting niggers next door because you yourself are a nigger. Fuck off back to reddit/cuckchan/facebook or whatever shithole you came from.

>>809
my contracts and my land are my property you fuckin kike

>>810
if you don't give a fuck why do you give me so much attention when I do it newfag

>>811
>someone stops selling to you, contract broken

>>812
Not him
But didn't hoppe say they should be physically removed with violence "if necessary"?

>>811
No one gives you any attention, it's the other way round, you are just a cheap source of entertainment during the quiet times on the board.

>>812
It's the same retarded logic feminists and SJWs use:
>we're all about freedum and rights
>SELL ME THE GAY CAKE! FUND MY SEX CHANGE SURGERY! LET ME INTO THE MALE-ONLY BAR! YOU OWE ME!!!

Nigsocs are like right-wing SJWs, if you can even call them "right-wing".

>>815
>sell me the gay cake
is coercion, you're forcing the unwilling into a contract. You pinko faggots are the SJWs, inserting yourselves into a contract between two willing parties and threatening one side in order to terminate it

>>816
Discrimination isn't coercion, and neither is ostracism, fuck off.

>>813
>But didn't hoppe say they should be physically removed with violence "if necessary"?
Yes, if they're trespassers, and removing trespassers isn't coercive. If I ask you to leave my house and you don't, I'm completely within my rights to violently extricate you from the premises.

>>816
I can't tell if you think discrimination is coercion, or if you think >>815 is saying discrimination is coercion. Either way you're a retard that can't into reading comprehension.

What kind of autism went down here? If only lynxchan wouldn't create new IDs every hour or so, anons could actually tell when people enter or exit the conversation.

>>844
>If only lynxchan wouldn't create new IDs every hour or so, anons could actually tell when people enter or exit the conversation.
Lynxchan doesn't generate a new ID within a thread unless the IP changed. Anyone posting from different IDs within the same thread either have a dynamic IP or are hopping VPNs between posts.

>>845
I could almost swear that I had IDs change on me while in the same VPN session but maybe the endpoint is just using a range of outgoing addresses.

>>673
I mean yeah his show does kind of have a traditional radio show vibe to it. But, he is one of the few libertarians that's vocal about how the LP fucked up and trying to get people back to true libertarianism like Ron Paul style libertarianism.

>>1510
Is there a youtube video for this?

>>1515
Yes, here's the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFoXyFmmGBQ

>>1510
This clip is probably the only good thing to ever come out of C4SS.

>>1519
I wasn't aware this was a C4SS thing originally. I knew of it through bitbutter.

Rothbard roats Keynes:

There was a time when only murderers and thieves went to prison, but now everything is illegal and everyone is a criminal. Jailing killers and robbers with Christians, business people, and gun-owners doesn't make the unethical more moral. When everyone is criminal, society is weakened. Prison is just a university for crime that teaches you how to scam, bribe, look for loopholes, and game the system.