/liberty/ - Liberty

Gold, Property Rights, and Physical Removal

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

CAPTCHA
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

US Election Thread

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

FAQ and QTDDTOT HHHPinochet 11/27/2019 (Wed) 11:32:59 Id: 261585 No. 926
Criticisms of right-wing libertarianism, low effort gotchas, and unpopular opinions should be limited to this thread. You aren't owed attention or a platform to speak out against our views, any new threads attacking anarcho-capitalism will be deleted. COVENANT COMMUNITIES A lot of posters seem to be ignorant on what a covenant community is and what its implications are. A covenant community is a small, homogeneous, gated community with strict controls on who can and cannot enter, who can and cannot gain residency, and what conduct must be observed within the community. In other words, it is a privatized micro-ethnostate. The idea was popularized by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, attached are some select quotes from Hoppe explaining the covenant community in his own words: >there would be little or no “tolerance” and “openmindedness” so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property. There exists a legal principle known as estoppel, which says those who do not value or abide by a certain norm are not entitled to appeal to that norm in their own defense. Commies don't believe in property rights, so they have estopped themselves from appealing to property rights in their own defense. Therefore, there is no need for a covenant community to wait until the commie commits a trespass before physically removing it.
Edited last time by sangvinivs on 07/12/2020 (Sun) 13:06:58.

give me the rundown on MMT
>>1295
It's Keynesianism but with the added assumption that it's physically impossible for the government to go bankrupt because you can always print your way out of debt. It's not a particularly modern idea, it deals more with fiscal policy rather than monetary, and it's not very theoretical.
>>1300
>It's Keynesianism but with the added assumption that it's physically impossible for the government to go bankrupt because you can always print your way out of debt
Wouldn't that devaluate the economy?
>>1319
Yes. MMTers don't think inflation is real, or that it isn't connected to the money supply. This is because MMTers have grown up under the petrodollar, i.e. the only time in history when there's a delay between monetary expansion and price inflation. Because of this they've decided that printing money won't cause inflation anymore. Yes, it's retarded.
>>1322
Elaborate more on the petrodollar and why there is no inflation now
>>1337
It's not that there's "no inflation," it just happens slower. Because nearly all oil transactions are denoted in dollars (even if the US is neither the buyer nor the seller), and because USD is the world reserve currency, there's a large amount of foreign demand for USD--any country which wishes to buy or sell oil needs to have a supply on hand. This high foreign demand in acts like a vacuum cleaner on all of the new money that's circulated into existence, keeping it out of the domestic economy. Because such a large portion of new money immediately goes overseas, the level of domestic inflation is much smaller than what you would expect from the amount of money-printing happening. This lets the federal government finance all kinds of retarded shit with moneyprinting without getting hit with hyperinflation. Being able to do that is very appealing, but it requires a supermajority of the world to be wiling to absorb that inflation on the US's behalf. If a country ever goes off threatens to go off the petrodollar, it gets hit with sanctions and (((humanitarian interventions))) until the regime decides to play ball again. This in fact explains almost all of the US's foreign policy in recent history--it's either securing Israel's territorial ambitions, maintaining the petrodollar, or both, in the case of Iran and Syria.

if you admit that it's so easy to poke holes into your ideology, how can you still believe in it?
>>1390
You can't poke holes in ideologies, you can poke holes in leftists and democrats.
>>1365
Thanks.
It's incredible how leftists don't understand this and just blame this vague thing called capitalism.

Can you elaborate and explain why this system causes the US economy to stagnate and for living standards for workers in the USA to decline(like peter schiff says)?

I know our "GDP" and "productivity" has been "increasing" but I highly doubt this is actually accurate. Our manufacturing base has been destroyed and we just have a consumer economy with no savings and lots of debt.
>>1394
>Can you elaborate and explain why this system causes the US economy to stagnate and for living standards for workers in the USA
There are more causes to that beyond just the petrodollar, quite a few actually. But the petrodollar-related effects are due to the Cantillon Effect of inflation. Inflation doesn't affect an economy evenly, the places where new money enters the economy are hurt the least by inflation. This is because they get the benefit of more dollars in their pocket before prices in the economy adjust upwards to there being more dollars in the system--the new money isn't circulating yet, most people in the economy haven't seen it yet, meaning prices are still at pre-inflation levels. That newly-created money enters the economy through the banking and real-estate sectors, meaning that inflation effectively transfers purchasing power from normie Americans into the hands of banks. There are other factors at play too, like I said before, but many of them are at least indirectly tied to inflation and the petrodollar.

>I know our "GDP" and "productivity" has been "increasing" but I highly doubt this is actually accurate.
GDP is for all practical purposes a lagging indicator of inflation. It treats consumption spending, savings, and government spending as equal, making it less than useless for measuring prosperity. An increase in wages by $10000 is treated the same as the government spending $10000 on abortions for sheboons.
>>1395
And socialists blame capitalism for this problem.

The federal reserve has created a massive amount of socialists.
>>1398
That's by design fren, it's standard MO for democratic leftists.
>do thing that creates problem
>blame problem on not doing thing enough
>do thing some more
>repeat until everyone starves
>>1408
do you have a book on this?

I want to learn more on why living standards have stagnated in America so I can refute leftists that blame capitalism on the problem

why don't more people know about this?
Why don't right wingers know about this and use it to counter leftist arguments?
>>1413
Tom Woods has some free e-books meant to systematically counter basic bitch leftist arguments, I think this is his most current one: https://aociswrong.com/
mises.org has a few articles on the subject, too, if you want something a bit quicker:
https://mises.org/wire/wages-unemployment-and-inflation
https://mises.org/library/credit-expansion-economic-inequality-and-stagnant-wages

Semi-related, on the petrodollar:
https://mises.org/power-market/how-us-wages-war-prop-dollar

>Why don't right wingers know about this and use it to counter leftist arguments?
A lot of them do, and some try. Thing is, logical arguments don't work on 99% of people. That's not how people tick, they need emotionally appealing, visceral arguments to be convinced.
>>1413
>arguing with a leftist
They choose leftist ideology based on (engineered) peer pressure and group think. Dont even bother overcoming this with any appeal to reason, because their goal was never to be reasonable but to wear the same feathers as the flock that appears to be the most well off, and to distance themselves from the flock that is (actually) being oppressed.

If my local government is proposing rain water collection tax, should I not vote against that? -- rhetorical, I know but, should I not wield the sword of the state against itself whenever possible?

t.newb
>>1471
How would allowing you the state to tax rainwater be using the state against itself?
>>1472
Using the voting process to deny the state. They want to tax rainwater collection and I vote no, fuck you; that's private property.
>>1473
You are not really denying the state anything. If it really wants it will push this over and over and over again until it passes.
The often heard argument about using the state as your own sword relates to the very power to actually initiate this process and have the means to force it through, not you monkeywrenching a particular instance this time.
>>1473
Yeah, there's no real reason not to do that. If you want to be really successful in manipulating the state you have to do a bit more than vote (getting involved in city or state-level politics is easier than you might think due to low participation levels), but if the opportunity costs of doing that are too high, and voting is the only method you have of influencing the political process, you may as well do it. The benefits are marginal, but the costs are practically nonexistent.
(113.65 KB 995x876 DOOP.jpg)

>>1476
It is nice to hear another say that. I say that ... I mean ... I got fucking blasted by ideologues back in 2008-2012 because I'm not pure but every ounce of my being is screaming to chip away at every opportunity.

I'm probably doing a bad job of describing it but, it's like, fuck, yeah NAP ... but there is this whole massive population brainwashed into stealing your shit.

So... fuck, I don't know, man. I'm sorry, I know this makes no sense; I'm pissed off and I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. Not w/out some societal collapse. Even then, fuck, nobody reads Paine, Hobbes, Hayek etc ...

What you said... You're right; get involved locally and shut stupidity down at the source.

Apparently, Pheonix from Demolition Man is an ancap protagonist:

https://mises.org/wire/forget-electoral-democracy-%E2%80%94-give-demarchy-chance
>>1536
Seems like a meme. Even assuming the system wouldn't immediately be gamed and rigged--who pulls the lever on the random number generator?--it seems like at best a lateral transition from the cancer that is democracy, instead of promising any real improvement. The time horizon of someone who gets chosen completely at random is even shorter than someone who's elected, meaning the rando rulers will be even more high time preference than the elected ones. Other things equal, higher time-preference will mean more wasteful pyramid-building, more redistributive policies, and thus more destruction of productivity. The singular advantage that this system might have is that the rando ruler isn't as likely to be corrupt as the sociopathic elected rulers who lie, scheme, and plunder their way into the hearts of voters. But the flip side of this naïveté is that random normies would be even easier for outside forces to manipulate and control. Because the "official" rulers are even higher time-preference than the elected ones, the deep state that you see rise out of democracies would only be even more powerful and even deeper rooted in a demarchy, because there are effectively no forces whatsoever keeping them in check.

I don't see a lot of utility in expending large amounts of time and effort campaigning for an unpopular system that's not a whole lot different from what we have now, and doesn't get me any closer to my desired goals. Allodial feudalism or even some kind of transitional autocracy are both more in line with my preferences as well as easier to implement.
>>1536
Demarchy is more efficient at democracy than democracy is. That's exactly why it's shit.

Hello /liberty/. I come to you with a question. I considered myself paleolibertarian for quite a while now but I am thinking about if that's the right thing to consider myself. I believe in these "covenant communities" but I also believe that government must exist as well, but must be small. However, I do believe in the death penalty for people who violate the covenants of these communities severely. What do you guys think?
>>1544
>I also believe that government must exist as well
How do you define government, and why do you think it must exist?
>I do believe in the death penalty for people who violate the covenants of these communities severely
The decisions in those sorts of cases would vary widely from covenant to covenant, but ideally punishments would be restitution in the case of aggressions, or ostracism or exclusion for degenerate but otherwise nonaggressive behavior.
In any case, I think you're fine considering yourself a libertarian, although it does depend on the extent to which you think government does exist, and what you think it has legitimacy in doing.
>>1545
I believe in government purely as a night-watchman state and to protect the rights of the covenants.

I appreciate your answer, anon.

How do you prevent covenant communities from becoming draconian like HOA's? I know HOA's have a reputation for being draconian and I would like to prevent covenant communities from turning into that.
>>1549
Draconian in what way? As long as they don't prevent people from leaving the covenant community, it should all be fine.
>>1562
Maybe it would get different if there was a shitton of HOAs, but he does have a point, most HOAs are really, REALLY prissy about almost every goddam thing. Huge documents detailing when you can park your car in your driveway, processes to obtain permits and which contractors are permitted to put up something as mundane as a retaining wall. C.f., the Avignon HOA in Kansas City for a nightmare HOA.

I guess a response would be that a lot of governments are that overbearing, but...you know, I doubt it. Some HOAs are really, really anal, petty, and Draconian.
>>1562
I mean stuff like not being allowed to hang a gasden flag and stuff like >>1565 said.

It took me months to get approval to install a ceiling fan for a room in my condo.
>>1549
>>1570
Much of what HOAs do right now is allowed because property rights aren't explicitly upheld by law, meaning they have control over things inside your home which a covenant community would not. It's also not possible to use contracts to ceaselessly bend others to your will. Rothbardian contract theory dictates that the only clauses of a contract that are enforceable are those whose violation would result in theft:
https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts
Since HOA authority would be based on contract, and contracts in covenant communities would not be nearly as all-encompassing as they are when enforced by the state, the number of "draconian" HOAs would be far lower.
>remove imports tax
>people flock to chinese products since they're cheap
>local industry dies
So much for liberty
(436.54 KB 768x576 Get_back_in_the_closet.webm)

>>1574
Disprove comparative advantage or fuck off.
>>1575
Tell me more about comparative advantage

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2020-edelman-trust-barometer-shows-growing-sense-of-inequality/11883788?fbclid=IwAR09iusXpbCQ6BM5Fmsk4MVBN3OWIk2L5E8UbQKFwjg6nWpLHKgMGP2UTfM
(350.35 KB 860x740 Study.png)

>>1578
>someone post the /leftypol/ BO sucking dick
lel, why are you asking for that? Are you some kind of homo?
(1.90 MB 480x360 pig.mp4)

>>1578
>mUh InEqUaLiTy
lmao, Imagine trying to craft an entire worldview out of envy and pettiness. Equality is a false god.
>>1578
This is what gets me about these inequality articles every goddam time. They show some data of things getting worse, and then they show some data of rising inequality; but they never connect the dots. They either don't explicitly say, "Things are getting worse because of rising inequality," and in the rare cases they do, they never explain why. It's always, "Inequality bad." This article is prime among them. They stated two disparate polls, one about more people getting income from inherited trusts, and another about people becoming more pessimistic (I feel like I should stress this, they never said that things were actually getting worse, they just stated that people think it's going to get worse), AND THEN THEY JUST LEFT IT.

That's one thing, another thing and something that also gets me about UBI is...am I the only person in the goddam world that gets depressed when I'm unemployed? I feel like I'm worthless for land's sake. Some people work hard so they can have a sense of meaning in this godforsaken (probably literally) world.

/rant

>>1581
You know, I wonder, the people who make a huge fuss about inequality, is that really it? Is all the inequality talk just envy?
>>1582
>You know, I wonder, the people who make a huge fuss about inequality, is that really it? Is all the inequality talk just envy?
Yes. Anyone caterwauling about inequality is either A) a parasite who wishes to plunder other men's wealth for himself or B) an amoral demagogue who cares not himself about inequality, but knows he can get an angry mob on his side by pointing to rich men and exploiting the feelings of avarice in their hearts. Other men having wealth does not preclude you from gaining wealth, as the market is not a zero-sum game. The poorest man in Burgerstan is richer than the wealthiest kings ever were; in many ways his quality of life is higher than that of Rockefeller in his prime. Because other men having wealth doesn't stop anyone from increasing his own, there can be no other motivation for lusting after the wealth of other man than greed.

Can someone give me the rundown about debt and why some think that it's necessary for an economy to work?
(97.98 KB 1160x420 economic-stimulus-comic.png)

>>1591
Assuming you mean national debt, the necessity of such is largely perpetuated by Keynesians who proclaim that massive government spending, even if it means incurring vast amounts of debt, is necessary to "stimulate" the economy during recessions. The idiocy of this logic is self-evident to most people, but Keynesians are trained for years to spout self-contradictory pilpul while appearing smart on the surface.
>>1595
But to who are nations indebting themselves to? Even the IMF seems to have a limit
(50.50 KB 623x416 ClipboardImage.png)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom
>>1650
How good is your math?
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measures_of_national_income_and_output
>>1651 delete your QTDNTIOT, replying here.
Home ownership doesn't mean financial liberty and asset liquidity.
Most rich people live rent free, are portable, and don't live in a fixed place. Most own multiple properties around the world and rotate rooms of hotels, vacation homes and apartments they rent.

Remember, it's about making people pay for your stay, not pay to own.
>>1652
Was this reply meant for someone else or did the rest of the post get cut off? What's the argument here?
>>1650
Because the rest of their economy is usually very liberalized. They have lower corporate taxes, far less extraneous licensure requirements, much higher scores on the ease of doing business index, and so forth. Most of the Euro countries which nationalized their healthcare system only did so after an extensive period of very laissez-faire economic policy, which allowed them to build up a surplus of wealth, which they are now draining away through socialist policies.
>>1655
Time is money. Did you click the sources of your wikipedia article, or do you not know how to calculate an answer to your question via math?
>>1653
Most people aren't rich though.
In a country with increased living standards, shouldn't poor people own their own homes instead of being rental slaves their whole lives?

Opposition to landlords is one of the primary leftist arguments, if we could demolish that, it would go a long way towards converting people.
>>1656
Thanks for answering the question. I guess the heart of what I'm asking then is how the hell can you even measure how 'free' an economy is? There's a lot of different bs regulations in the U.S., but on the flipside the healthcare system isn't nationalized like Canada's. It feels like an apples to oranges comparison that needs to be made to say which one is better.
>>1657
I'm sorry, I don't understand you.
>>1658
You're in /liberty/, we believe in ownership. The trick is to let people pay you for everything, which includes land ownership. If you own a lot, and let businesses and hotels set up shop, by taxing them you're effectively achieving financial freedom.
>>1665
What you cited defined what "economic freedom" is, and it boils down to: the ability to freely trade without restrictions. If I sell you a scam, I win while you lose: government can't interfere because I'm free to scam you, and you have to live with the consequences of the scam. The reverse is also true, and a true economic free country, the law of the jungle runs free. The more restrictions you apply the harder it is to trade and move that capital around. Thus, mathematically, if you nationalize your literal health among others, you can achieve more trade and enrich yourself. Remember treasures are ability, not spoils.
If you can get people to use your fiat currency, you win.
Force is implied.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/what-libertarianism-has-become-and-will-become-state-capacity-libertarianism.html
>>1672
Okay but how does renting benefit renters?
Wouldn't renters benefit more of they simply seized the rental units and owned them themselves?

We need a solid argument for this to defend against socialists.
>>1720
I personally think you should eventually own where you live but renters can defere quite a couple tasks to the owner such as modernizing the units or maintining them.
It's not too unlike insurance in the sense that a group of renters give up a portion of their money and ultimate ownership of the property in exchange for the owner to take care of things like covering a damaged boiler or plumbing as well as administrativ tasks like a basic house order or taking care the the trash gets removed.

>We need a solid argument for this to defend against socialists.
The short argument is that they are retarded when they go off on landlords because anyone who has so much as been in the position of maybe inheriting grannys property and halfheatedly gone through what it would take to get it up to snuff and keep it there knows that having property you can rent away isn't a money printing machine.
(47.40 KB 300x422 Karlstallman.gif)


As an ancap, is it hypocritical if I use GNU/Linux as my main OS?
(171.08 KB 750x310 GNULINUXPasta.png)

>>1748
Stefan Kinsella makes a good case that copyright and patent law is bullshit and would be bullshit in ancapistan. GNU/Linux and libre software is entirely consistent with this. If anything I would argue it's hypocritical if you ARE NOT using GNU/Linux.
>>1748
I also use a Linux distro. Like the other guy says, as far as Austrian property rights theory is concerned IP laws are fake and gay, so opposing copyright isn't hypocritical for an ancap, quite the opposite in fact. Stallman's obsession with EvErYtHiNg MuSt Be OpEn SoUrCe is needlessly autistic and retarded, though.
>>1748
Securing user freedom as in individual freedom is a must in libre software or else, how could you even have transparancy in the software that you use?. If you look back all the IP laws that have been originated from, its all started by the help of big goverment. Also this >>1750
>>1750
>>1753
>>1755
Ancap GNU/Linux distro when?

How long until 4chan starts up an operation to fake up a dossier saying that Bernie is a Chinese asset, the media runs with it, and then we end up with Trump 2.0?
>>1763
What?

>then we end up with Trump 2.0?
Sanders has all the charisma of a wet blanket. He doesn't have any of the Chad energy that Trump does, which means it isn't possible for him to build up remotely the same kind of cult of personality.

.
>>1750
>>1753
>>1755
Okay, but doesn't the GPL's requirement of including source code with binaries require a state? Honestly, TempleOS is probably the only acceptable OS for ancaps since it's in the public domain.
>>1786
>GPL's requirement of including source code with binaries
Only source code, binaries are optional for user who don't have time to compile.
>require a state?
wut?
>>1789
Require a state to enforce.
>>1790
Law, especially contract law, does not require a State to enforce.

How does a covenant community handle aggression from jews? Economic blockades, flooding shitskins into the surrounding area to smother you, etc. And how do we get there, in reality?

Also is libertarianism against racemixing yet? I don't want to be ethnically replaced, so that has been pushing me away from the ideas for the past few years. It's one thing to say that you don't want to control how others live their lives. It's another when how they live their lives controls how you live yours. Latin America is a hellhole and it always will be. A racemixed population is the death of liberty, forever. Especially since liberty is mostly the realm of European man. I just don't understand how we can have liberty when we are outnumbered by shitskins who will always want gibs.
(552.90 KB 470x1600 based berg.png)


Another one is homosexuality. How can there be liberty to be gay, when gays reproduce by molesting children? It's how they are made. So homosexuality itself is just an infinite cycle of aggressing undeveloped boys who can't meaningfully consent, are easily manipulated, and can't understand the future repercussions. Pic unrelated.
>>1800
>Coalburners won't be able to rely on the government when their sugar daddy gets thrown in prison so most realistically you'll end up with one generation of mutts
But how do we get a free society when most people in our society are shitskins who don't want freedom

>Not all fruits are made from being molested as children.
No, just the vast majority. It's not a self-correcting problem, it's an ongoing problem. It sounds like you are living in head canon here
>>1807
By expelling the shitskins and living far away from them, you tard. People naturally self-segregate when doing so isn't illegal and they aren't gaslit to hate themselves in public school.

>It's not a self-correcting problem
It really is. You kick the gays out, bar them from entry into your covenant community, and within five years the queer is dead from AIDS. The proof that faggotry is a self-correcting problem can be seen by taking a quick glance at history. Without direct subsidization of their behavior, fags weren't an overwhelming concern for everyone. So long as it was culturally verboten, and so long as people were able to express their preferences through discrimination, fags could do no meaningful harm. They either practiced their degeneracy deep underground where it only harmed other queers, or they learned to pray the gay away and do their best to live a facsimile of a normal life. There weren't any right wing death squads kicking down doors to police homos, communities and churches self regulated that behavior all on their own.

If you seriously think moral behavior is only possible by a bureaucratic state pushing it on you top-down, it may be because you're a failure of a NEET who assumes success comes from outside structures because you've never been capable of doing anything for yourself.
>>1811
White flight doesn't expel shitskins. You have to physically remove them from your continent. Having a few small covenant communities is not going to help you when you are completely surrounded by shitskins and foreign states coming down on you. You talk about naturally self-segregating when it isn't illegal. Well, it is, that is reality. You can't just skirt around the problem of getting from point A to point B.

>If you seriously think moral behavior is only possible by a bureaucratic state pushing it on you top-down
Sounds like you are arguing against someone else in your head here, maybe you ran into someone else and are projecting them onto me. I have been ancap for almost a decade. I just kept running into the problem of libertarians who were OK with racemixing, OK with faggots, and not willing to defend us against our genocide in real terms, not imaginary ones. What you say about kicking fags out being a self-correcting problem yes, it is in that theoretical setup within small covenant communities. But that is not the reality we live in and I see no vector to get there as fragmented individuals against the machine of a global media-government complex. You have to understand, your attitude of being anti-gay and anti-shitskin is absolutely not common among people who have remained libertarians. 95% of the movement that is left is completely pozzed to hell. We are against the wall here.

I will give you a real example. Ancaps already tried self segregating with projects like the free state project. What happened was that a bunch of "tolerant" libertarians moved there and made it a welcoming environment for shitskins, started ostracizing anyone who spoke out against it, and even threatening their livelihood by trying to get them fired or starting cancel culture smear campaigns. They hired Mexicans to do their roofing to save money. They did food drives for Somalians. They move up with their asian wives and mixed hispanic children. They shouted down anyone who is against our genocide as "race baiting". Is that not aggressing against me, when I cannot raise a white family and secure a legacy for my people and culture because tolerant libertarians are undermining the very fabric of society. We are being genocided, man. And libertarianism has no practical solutions. Just this constant idea of moving away into small voluntary communities, ever dwinding, ever more remote, until we end up in a HOA in Brazil, but in North America.

There is another huge problem which is that if you are outnumbered you just lose. 100 pure ancaps in a small white ethno community will absolutely be destroyed by attrition when they are blockaded and surrounded on all sides by brown gibs rats and aggressive foreign governments. Just ripe for invasion at the slightest moment of weakness.
>>1812
> You have to physically remove them from your continent.
Don't tell me you unironically believe NigSoc LARP fantasies. Shitskins need to be removed from the locale of governance which they are able to influence, at which point they cease being an issue. Insofar as one is living in burgerstan shitskins, their votes, and their criminality should obviously be kept out of burgerstan, this goes without saying. But in a covenant community the locale of governance is far more immediate, and the degree of necessary separation far smaller.

>Well, it is, that is reality
So are you talking about the politically expedient solutions of the here and now, or the sustainability of covenant communities? You're responding to two very different scenarios as if they're interchangeable. Don't be a disingenuous Jew, specify what it is you mean properly. The person to whom you were responding was speaking to the theoretical paradigm, and responding to a question asked about the theoretical paradigm. His answer would obviously be different when speaking to the most expedient solution in CURRENT YEAR+5.

>>1813
Yeah, the FSP is fake, gay, and Marxist. That's what happens when you discourage segregation and encourage immigration.
>>1817
How is a covenant community sustainable when it's surrounded on all sides by shitskins and meddling foreign governments? A town or small state cannot stand against the tide for very long. I'm not talking politically expedient solutions, since I don't believe there is a political solution. Our only chance as I see it is a massive race war to purge the shitskins, and even that will only happen once the bread and circuses stop. Libertarian philosophies are the dominion of European man, no matter how much a few based talented tenthers might try to convince us otherwise. Once we are a small enough minority to move in for the final kill, they will. And it's very close to that point in North America and Europe. So I don't see how we can talk about sustainability when we are already a minority and dwindling fast. Once the boomers are dead the demographic dropoff will be like a cliff, and the end game will ramp up for us. Liberty dead forever, just a global network of mongrel banana republics. If you want a glimpse of the future look at small "white" communities in Brazil who are losing through attrition every day, both in numbers and genetic purity which pushes them toward a regression to the mean of mestizo levels of civilizational capability.

Anyways even though I'm annoyed at the state of the liberty movement, I didn't really come here to argue. I just wanted to see if libertarians had any practical and immediate solutions to our genocide yet. You guys are way different than almost all libertarians. If I mentioned around most libertarians our genocide, or how faggots molest, they would throw a shitfit. So I imagine even you guys are shunned by most libertarians anyways. If there are practical solutions to our genocide I am all ears. Otherwise I am going to check out for a couple more years and come back again to see if anything has changed. Things are so bad that the system is becoming an implementation detail. Since we have no tools against our genocide, any system that can actually deal with the problem is what I would have to support. I don't see much point in being ancap if it means I am ethnically replaced.
>>1818
>since I don't believe there is a political solution. Our only chance as I see it is a massive race war to purge the shitskins,
Fedposting is for niggers. Bye.

Thoughts on the 2009 MIAC Report?
>>1829
>it's another "Right wingers are racist white nationalist Nazi domestic terrorists" report
Seems like business as usual these days, what's so special about it?
>>1829
It's a decade ago, but serves as an interesting historical document that the State has used in legitimizing censoring conservatives.
(80.83 KB 640x640 1581333159478.jpg)


Does anybody have the HAM radio starter guide image or link with the inexpensive hand held china crap radio and links to learning resources handy?
(695.52 KB HAM.pdf)

>>1910
Here's the HAM radio guide. No link to the radio, but the one you want is the Baofeng UV-5R Ⅲ. There should be a fair number of sellers offering them on Ebay and Amazon.
>>1911
Thanks anon, I haven't seen that PDF before but it's saved now. That was exactly the radio I was after and now it's on the way from Ebay shipped for like $28. Much appreciated.
>>1914
>but can an AnCap society truly place value in a human life?
Valuation is subjective, not objective. Therefore, no commodity or service, human lives or otherwise, would have any sort of value baked into it. "Ancap society" would not place any kind of damage value on a human life. If there were ever a situation in which a murderer is made to pay restitution to his victim's family, the nature and quantity of restitution would be determined by the judge, whom the victim and perpetrator have both hired to be their agent.
However, I find the situation as described above implausible. In most cases, a private property society would likely sentence murderers with banishment and blacklisting (under threat of death if the banishment is violated), not a restitution of damages.
>thus inefficient justice system
Considering all restitutional justice is implicitly punitive, why do you consider these two to be wholly separate things? Moreover, why is retribution inefficient? The justice system is a service provider, and the service it provides is the resolution of conflict over scarce resources. If that services is provided at a satisfying price, it is efficient. Banishment, which would be the likely sentence to many trespasses in Ancapistan in addition to restitution, would in many cases be the most satisfying outcome to a given conflict, so it's efficient despite being punitive.

>but at the same time most other answers seem arbitrarily defined/enforced.
That's always going to be true whenever you try to assign value to any commodity through any mechanism other than the price system. Valuation is fundamentally subjective, operating outside of that framework will lead to arbitrary and nonsensical answers.
(230.02 KB 726x720 1570122845219.png)

>>1914
How about; don't start shit and you won't get hit.
>>1914
There is no ancap society so I wouldn't worry about it too much
>Coronavirus is probably much larger than China is letting on.
>Disease like this are much more effective in densely populated areas.
>Respiratory diseases like this are much more effective in places where air quality is poor.
>Liberals tend to congregate in urban environments that are very densely populated with poor air quality.
>No brain, don't go down that road, where did that optimism over the power of the libertarian message go that we ca--
>START UP THE ROTORS
>Brain. No. Stop--
>PACK THE LEFTIST SCUM
>Libertarians live in cities too, in fact, it is perfectly consistent that they--
>DROP THEM IN THE OCEAN
>You're happy about death and disease?!
>LEAVE NO ONE ALIVE
>>1922
Did you have a question to ask?
>>1923
Yeah. You know any other libertarian forums that are better than this one to post on?
>>1925
Going by >>1922 reddit is probably for you
>>1928
That place sucks more than this place.

Is there a biological basis behind certain people being unable to be libertarian?

If, for the sake of argument, it was determined that people of certain identifiable characteristics (IQ, say) would never have the cognitive capacity to be libertarian, what would a libertarian society do with these 'people?'
>>1944
Wouldn't that apply to most people of color though? Where are you going with this
>>1944
They would be physically removed, so to speak. By virtue of estoppel those who do not respect a certain principle are not entitled to appeal to said principle in their own defense. Those who do not recognize property rights will be treated as outlaws were in America's Old West--banished from centers of civilization and shot on sight if they return. If certain characteristics, such as IQ, are found to be correlated with criminal behavior, the eggheads at the insurance companies would take this into account when assigning risk. If someone is judged to be a significant chimpout risk, they'd probably be barred from entry into most establishments, and forced to live in a slum with other high-risk niggers sufficiently far away from all the wypipo.
(9.72 MB 500x350 niggerfuneral.gif)

>>1944
>Is there a biological basis behind certain people being unable to be libertarian?
There is a biological basis, but it doesn't prove that certain people can't become libertarians, it only proves that they're likely to become libertarians for different reasons and respond to different rhetoric. It has to do with Jung's cognitive functions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions

Cognitive functions also play a role in your IQ, and you might even say it's a more accurate measure for intelligence. High IQ doesn't stop people from becoming anti-capitalists though, in fact, a high IQ makes it more likely for you to be a commie just as much as an ancap.

>If, for the sake of argument, it was determined that people of certain identifiable characteristics (IQ, say) would never have the cognitive capacity to be libertarian, what would a libertarian society do with these 'people?'
What >>1949 says. The despotic market-consciousness will sort them out. On the other hand, if low IQs are just harmless weirdos and aren't a net-negative to their society, they will not achieve market superiority but they might live peacefully in their own isolated corner of the market.
>>1945
If anything, wouldn't it apply to the sexes? After all:

1 - Jonathon Haidt has noted significant differences in libertarians regarding the emotionless, rational nature of their positions ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366&type=printable ).
2 - Testosterone appears to regulate political beliefs ( https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/2013Petersen_Ancestral_Logic_Politics_w_SI.pdf ).
3 - Male brain development receives a flood of testosterone that significantly redistributes their brain towards the development of the prefrontal cortex over more hyperemotional centers of their brain ( https://www.babycenter.com/0_brain-development-is-the-difference-between-boys-and-girls-a_10310673.bc?PageSpeed=noscript ).

It also explains the large male:female disparity in libertarianism. I think there's a case you could make that most female brains are simply incapable of processing libertarianism.
>>1960
True although white women are still smarter than black men
(64.76 KB 803x854 ancapfeels.jpg)

(93.59 KB 959x1219 threat level.png)

>libertarians moderate threat level
>muslims low threat
>>1969
I think "homegrown violent extremist" is a politically correct way of saying "mudslimes unaffiliated with any terrorist groups."
>>1968
This is a slightly different argument though. Because it could be the case that women have high IQ, its just something in their hysterionic, hyperemotional brain that causes them to make it untenable to "hold on" to libertarian argumentation.
>>1949
If it were women as a class that could not respect certain principles, what then? If you physically removed some 80-90% of women...it doesn't seem like such a society could last unless you had people having 20 kids each with (as the meme goes) genetically engineered catgirls or something.

More generally, what do you think is behind the fact that women are much less likely to hold onto libertarian ideas than men?
>>1973
>If it were women as a class that could not respect certain principles, what then?
Degrade and punish them, like men did for most of history.
>>1969
What are they basing that off of? The number of threats the FBI has received and had to investigate?
>>1975
The ones standing in the way of jewish hegemony over a permanent mixed race underclass
>>1975
Considering most of the first three are glowniggers, I doubt it. There's no rhyme or reason to this list besides pearl-clutching. For God's sake, they put "sovereign citizen extremists," i.e. spergs who think they don't need a license to driven, in the second-highest category.

Can anyone suggest some new or better places to get my news from ( a libertarian perspective)? I am kind of getting sick of Zerohedge.
>>1986
mises wire on RSS works fine
>>1986
A real libertarian makes his own news, and reports factually what what was observed.
Time to compete.
>>1977
You're reading it too literally. The reason for this is to condition the public and zogbots to for a final putsch to ethnically cleanse us. The demographics at the top are the only ones who could offer any resistance. Just remove "extremists" from each and you'll see what the real list is.

Homegrown (people capable of violence)
White Supremacists (read: white nationalists, read: race-aware whites)
Anarchists
Anti-Government people
Militias (read: groups of people with guns)
Sovereign Citizens (read: people who don't bend the knee to suck a hero officer's dick)
(354.41 KB 1105x987 1568535021756.png)

>>1973
>More generally, what do you think is behind the fact that women are much less likely to hold onto libertarian ideas than men?
Cognitive functions, bruh. Some people's cog. functions allow them to think for themselves, others have cog. functions that make them favour whatever looks most "official" or whatever the status quo is. According to studies, women belong to the latter category for the most part, the same people who are liberals/leftists today were fascists in Nazi Germany. Take the jungpill.
>>2001
women really hating taking risks don't they?

With all the "medicare for all"/"student loan forgiveness"/etc. were political parties in the U.S. always this

Not exactly a /liberty/-specific question, but can anyone post the image about the jew who campaigned for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM and is now campaigning for (something along the lines of) the legalization of pedophilia? I've seen the image plenty of times before, but I never bothered to save it.

Why does Hoppe use so many footnotes?
>>2061
Because he likes to hop around.

Is the reason why so many corporations are supporting nationalized healthcare is because major corps are trying to get the U.S. gov to subsidize the majority of their labor costs? Since, at the moment major corps are on the hook for most of their employees healthcare insurance costs?
>>2061
Because he's a big brain nigga and makes sure to cite his sources.

>>2064
That's definitely part of it, it's the same reason Wal-Mart and co are such fans of welfare.
>>2061
It's autism. It's just the good kind.
>>1945
>unironically using the word people of color.

Have libertarians become a lot more pessimistic--particularly relative to socialists--in the past decade, or is it just me?

Should women be regarded as property/
>>2105
I don't know, it may be just you. What I've seen is that everyone has become a lot more pessimistic, even the filthy leftists which a decade ago were screeching about the upcoming glorious age of "reason" and "logic" and no poopoo religion that could judge their degenerate shit. They have now realized that utopia is never coming and they are almost suicidal, particularly about climate change. As for libertarians, well I wouldn't expect anyone to be hopeful for anything since any form of opposition to government has gone almost unnoticed and government is pretty much becoming worse by the day. Trump may have slowed the collapse a little bit temporarily, but once he's gone I would expect things to keep getting bad quickly until shit finally hits the fan.
I don't want to be niggerpill but I personally wouldn't expect things to go favorable for libertarians at least in the following decade(s).
>>2125
I think that would violate the NAP since even though they are barely worthy of rights, women do still own their own property.

What's with commies and dumping assloads of links to the same copypastas?
>>2177
Whether it's mud pies or shitposts, commies think in terms of the labor theory of value. If you spend a long time typing many words of course it must be good.
(208.52 KB 750x1037 iGpQt6QsKRs.jpg)

>>2183
More words = higher meme value!
>>2183
>>2184
Capitalists are jews lol
>>2187
Nigsocs are niggers lol
>>2188
no u
nice ironic dubs, /liberty/friend
>>2172
That's an interesting point. I still fear that when you move down to local levels of government you'll still have corrupt pieces of shit in charge. My state government is corrupt. And then the city and county government is also corrupt due to being controlled by real estate developers, unions and contractors. The same applies for the state government. I just want to break out of that cycle.

How would a private law society aid the profoundly disabled and senior citizens? I agree that the welfare state has to be cut down to size, but I have trouble justifying getting rid of coverage for people who are essentially victims of circumstance and/or aging.

On the other hand, covenant communities are likely to be very close-knit, and thus have a very high vested interest in helping eachother out. As a result, I suppose it wouldn't be out of the question to imagine a kind of voluntary fundraising system within the community for just such purposes... but how would one distribute the resultant donations properly without reverting to bureaucracy?

TL;DR: How would an AnCap society stop Joe Blow from dying in the street just for, for example, having the misfortune of becoming paralyzed from the neck down? There are legitimate reasons why some individuals need around-the-clock care, let alone basic assistance.
>>2377
You get insured, pay X amount of money every month and in the event that you get disabled, the insurance company will take care of you. You should also have a big, happy family, or at least a community - family/community is what traditionally existed as your welfare before the state replaced all of its functions. Sidenote: When nigscos talk about how Hitler was such a saint because he cared about the German family, they are bullshitting so hard, because you can't possibly pretend to be pro-family when you are trying to replace it with the a government. Nigsocs are only too proud to mention that Hitler invented the welfare state and kikes copied the idea (which he actually copied from Bismarck).
>>2383
>In the event that you get disabled, the insurance company will take care of you.
That makes sense, especially as the presence of multiple, competing private insurance companies would make for far less of a budgetary burden than exists under a welfare state. If I understand this correctly, this is both because the companies have to compete in order to keep prices low, and because no single one of them has to (or even gets to) cover everyone in a given society. Actually, when you put it that way, I can see how it would be far superior.

>Family/community is what traditionally existed as your welfare before the state replaced all of its functions.
That's true. And the whole point of a private law society, after all, is to procure the freedom of association necessary to bring society back to a traditional, high-trust framework. Come to think of it, I suppose religious institutions might well fill that void, too.

I'm always quite pleased by the level of discussion on this board. The answers I receive are always informative, and thought-provoking, not to mention extremely compelling. Thanks, anon.
>>2390
>because the companies have to compete in order to keep prices low, and because no single one of them has to (or even gets to) cover everyone in a given society.
Yes.

>Come to think of it, I suppose religious institutions might well fill that void, too.
Yes, uwu
>>2377
>How would a private law society aid the profoundly disabled and senior citizens?
They're parasites and shouldn't expect societal support. Elderly in particular
>>2409
You dropped your svadharma, bro.
(320.77 KB 1536x2048 me in a few months.jpg)


Over time, I have become comfortable with Hoppe's view of statist immigration restriction being justified in the absence of a "natural order". I would even go as far to say that I agree with it. I now view immigration restriction in the same way I view the military: a necessary evil that would exist anyway in a free society; it should be provided by the government since it prevents competition from doing the same. It's not pretty, but the world is not simple.
One thing that confuses me is how do we determine who belongs in each country? What criteria should an immigrant meet so that they are allowed in? Should we physically remove immigrants whom are already in foreign countries; if so, which ones? Should we remove the children of immigrants born into the country? Should all immigration be stopped?
These questions are not rhetorical and not meant to criticize Hoppe's conclusion. I'm just curious to hear what you all have to say, because I'm stumped.
>>2644
Sadly on e you exit from the world of philosophy and come back to reality, like you did, you can't do anything but just hope your views are imposed.
>>2644
>One thing that confuses me is how do we determine who belongs in each country? What criteria should an immigrant meet so that they are allowed in? Should we physically remove immigrants whom are already in foreign countries; if so, which ones? Should we remove the children of immigrants born into the country? Should all immigration be stopped?
Subjective theory of value comes into play here. Whoever is owner of a given property has the right to be as arbitrary as he wishes with regard to who is allowed in. The closest "owner" to state property that we have at the moment is the net taxpayers--it's their money that was appropriated to acquire and maintain it. So immigration policy should be whatever the net taxpayers say it will be. In the US, the prevailing opinion among net taxpayers is that immigration should be more restrictive.
>>2052
found it
(745.62 KB 198x199 heh.gif)


This sounds like the exact opposite of liberty, sounds like you're just trying to co-opt that word to mean killing people who aren't white, which ain't liberty at all. Sounds like you'll say and believe literally anything if you think it'll get you closer to being able to kill people who aren't white
>>2782
To whom are you replying?
(109.65 KB 200x200 maximum happening.gif)


As it´s really happening and Robi is shutting almost all down Julay. Where we should go after?
>>2834
I'm open to suggestsions. Someone on /monarchy/ suggested anon.cafe, I don't know enough about that site to verify if it's a good choice.
>>2835
Seems comfy enough for me although I am not and expert in programming to know if it would be or not a hell to manage.
>>2837
We might have an imageboard just for us and /monarchy/ get set up in time for the close, I'll keep you faggots updated.
(320.77 KB 1536x2048 me in a few months.jpg)

>>2835
If Robi actually posts a decent guide you could set up your own as well.
Find something in Liechtenstein for the lulz.
(1.04 MB 777x1082 yukkurishitetene.jpg)

>>2835
/monarchy/ has gotten really good at relocating.
>>2839
Let's invite /abdl/ while we're at it.

I've set up a VPS with a working instance of vichan. I will let BO administer it and will only sys-admin it, as long as it doesn't get me into trouble of course.
If BO is interested, he can provide an email address so I can contact him. And a name for the domain. I'll pick an .xyz because it's cheap tho
(30.83 KB 455x500 Touhou is in Recline.jpg)

>>2850
OceanChan is coming back for real. Just use it instead. I have 1TB+ of storage :)
Vichan powered too, but where I will have PayPal support for VIP boards
>>2850
Shoot an email to kanonforward@gmail.com. Keep in mind I won't reply to you from that address, but a different one.
>>2850
>>2851
>>2852
While we're on the subject, do you goys have any objection to hoppe-sama.xyz? Figure it's a domain that will please both /liberty/ and /monarchy/.
>>2853
That sounds pretty good.
(73.24 KB 696x695 9Mtj95kVQMo.jpg)

>>2853
>hoppe-sama.xyz
Sounds good. I think Hoppe kinda represents what all three camps have in common.
>>2853
>>2874
Tried to post on the new site, but apparently proxies and/or Tor are blocked. Is this permanent, or just for the duration of the testing phase?
(48.49 KB 1147x409 Connect the Kanto.jpg)

(184.81 KB 929x670 desu adaptation.png)

>>2852
>gmail.com
It was nice knowing you.
>>2882
It's a burner account, nothing sensitive was sent or received there.
>>2880
TORposting should be fine. There was a temporary issue that prevented image posts bring done by anyone, TOR or otherwise, but it should be fine now.
>>2897
/tech/ anon here. I've retried posting on TOR, this time it didn't work. It may vary depending on your exit node IP address.
I will fix this as soon as possible.
>>2880
>>2898
It should work now.
So how many tagged along here?
>>2968 I haven't really posted on /liberty/ since before the Cloudflare takedown, but it's good to see you guys again. Really missed you.
(320.77 KB 1536x2048 me in a few months.jpg)

>>2968 Found the board on here only yesterday. Good to be back.
(378.88 KB 1224x835 15912717985981.jpg)

>>2968 I'm here. Happy Tianmen Square day, bros. >8chan.moe wew, the admin really couldn't give a fuck about the feds, could he?
Is the King back? We need help w/ the repeated posts from hoppe-sama /monarchy/, the ones that duplicated themselves. t. /monarchy/
(134.98 KB 1280x720 freeze peach.jpg)

>>2666 Source?
Are children the property of their parents? >If so, child molestation and abortion are permissible despite clearly being immoral >If not, no parent is justified in stopping their kids from doing drugs, playing in traffic, etc. Thoughts?
>>3095 Parents do not own children, as one would own a car, instead they are the default guardians of the child(who else are you going to give the baby to, a random hobo on the other side of the planet?). This also means that if you sold yourself into servitude, you can not also sell your future children in it, as you can not sell what you do not own. Now what can and can't do a legal guardian? Depends on the community, the family lives in, one might tolerate beating children, while others don't. If you move to a community you will have to abide by their standards, so a muslim family can not come in a Christian neighborhood and demand that he can do what he usually does in his country, to his children(another example would be to imagine a community were they always blast loud music at 8PM, you can't just move in there and sue them for the loud music, because the loud music already existed there before you moved in, same way you can't sue an airport for loud music, if you build your house next to the airport, and the same way for standards and morals). If the family fails to adequately care for his child, say refuse to giving him food when he is a baby, and starving him to death, then they could be held on trial, and their status of guardian over the child/baby be revoked. Who will be the new guardian? Maybe another relative, or some upstanding member of society or maybe the privately funded orphanage.
>>3095 No one can rightfully own another person's body because no one has a better link to a person's body than that person. This is no less true of parents and children. But since children are born in a state of incapacity, the people who put them in that state (their parents) have an obligation to act as stewards until such time that they develop the faculties that give them agency. This stewardship doesn't give parents the right to abuse or break their children as though their children were their property; to the contrary, it confers an obligation NOT to let such harm befall their children. Because as a steward acting on behalf of a property owner in a state of temporary incapacity, your role is to make the decisions for your children that they would have reasonably made for themselves if they had full agency
(51.20 KB 1024x860 ClipboardImage.png)

How do we determine which radio station owns what frequency in an ancap society? Does broadcasting over other's frequency violate the NAP?
>>3124 Emborderment, same as with any other private property. Radio frequencies are a scarce resource and can be treated like any other. Whoever starts using an unclaimed frequency first has usage rights for that frequency, wihin whatever radius he is able to enforce that claim.
(320.77 KB 1536x2048 me in a few months.jpg)

>>3130 I think there should be an exception for two-way radio communications like HAM radio though. We can even use it as a more decentralized alternative to the internet in the absence of the FCC.
(635.25 KB 1233x663 Rothbard on Children.png)

>>3113 This is a very good answer, and I like how it ties in to the unique role of the parents: that is, being the ones who brought the child into the world in the naturally-incapacitated state in which all children find themselves, the parents therefore are under an obligation to rear the child properly. I was worried about the idea of guardianship being somewhat arbitrary in light of private property rights, but this is a well-thought out way of looking at it. And of course, >>3097 makes a good point in that a lot of this would be left up to the covenant community in which the parents find themselves. Though it is conceivable some will likely devolve into abusive hellholes, these same communities are, by that same resultant lack of social trust, very unlikely to last for long. While we're on the topic, however, I came across Rothbard's arguments on the matter lately, and I admit I was rather surprised by them. The argument which he provides regarding the concept of what essentially amounts to a privatized foster system (Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 14, see pic related). That said, I take issue with Rothbard's argument (as I understand it presently) due to the following possible scenario: >Private law society establishes a child market in the manner Rothbard seems to describe >Sociopathic parents sell kids to the highest bidder, regardless of their intent >Eventually, actual child molesters get in on it, creating a network for child sex slavery >This same network eventually allows for the financial stability of its clients and sellers, furnishing the basis for an eventual pedo-exclusive covenant community One could say that all of this violates the NAP, as it clearly seems to do; yet at the same time, how did Rothbard not see this coming? I admit I originally read this argument somewhere else, and have not as yet had the time to read The Ethics of Liberty properly; as a result, I apologize if I misunderstand his reasoning. Nevertheless, even though such a practice violates the NAP, how does one prevent it from happening in the first place? Lastly, I am aware that Rothbard differentiates between the legal and moral rights of the parents; but all the same, doesn't starving a child to death kinda-sorta violate the NAP?
(79.25 KB 473x395 mcloving it.jpg)

I feel disgusted at the situation my homeland is right now. Due to the Covid-19 panic the government decided to create a social plan for "emergency" that is now a permanent thing. Not only that but it seems the government now wants to amper up in the welfare state and wants to give out electronics now. And you have people that dare call this constant emision as being "against the people". Not gonna lie, I got into the program merely because I wanted to try it out if I ended up in it, but I thought it was going to end when the pandemic sun settled. This is how votes are purchased and a generation of people that don't generate via labour is made. I want to kms this is disgusting
>>3156 This child thing is our Achilles heel when bringing up Rothbard to people. I don't think he thought this through properly. Every time I quote rothbard to someone, they bring up this child thing. Either way, anyone who has possession of children takes responsibility for that child and if they neglect or abuse that child they are in clear violation of the NAP. If you bring someone into this world and neglect them, you are causing harm to them. You must be required to support them until they are developed enough to be on their own. The thing is, the child wouldn't be able to sue you because they are an undeveloped child with no money, so I dunno how that would work. Maybe society would have organizations set up to arrest the parent, take them to court and save the child. Maybe private police would have a financial incentive to do this because they can sell the rights to the child to an adoption company. The courts would rule this legal. I dunno man, this is why I'm bordering on ancap/minarchism.
(1.54 MB 640x360 15921322619813.mp4)

>>3174 Traditional ancap rhetoric is not really effective, for most people it raises more questions for them than it solves. Learn panarchism and use their approach instead, they do it right.
(82.94 KB 680x505 Get off my property!.jpg)

After this weekend many people have been goldpilled on covenants.
(290.92 KB 863x1080 VrzURvW1IS0.jpg)

>>3189 Why? What happened?
>>3189 Is this about the porch boomers?
>>3193 You better believe it :-)
(331.77 KB 496x465 Colombian Cookie Doggo.png)

I understand that the primary libertarian argument against animal rights is that animals lack verifiable ability to reason, but what about their ability to feel pain? The general argument against this "appeal to pain" is similar to what I mentioned in >>3156, and as other anons such as >>3167 have agreed, this is a terrible counter-argument, in that it tries to pay lip-service to a difference between moral and legal obligations, whilst turning around and facilitating gross and destructive immorality on the level of child abuse. All other refutations which I have seen of the principle of animal rights have consisted of strawmen, such as: >If we extend these "rights" to animals, we have to do the same to plants and rocks! This is obviously not true, since plants and rocks lack consciousness or the ability to feel pain. So, how is it that one can remain logically consistent whilst admitting in one breath that animals can feel pain, yet in the other that they have no legal right not to be physically tortured? I'm not trying to sound like a tree-hugging commie here, but it seems like a primary flaw in our argumentation. I can go further in my rebuttal: >Nothing's stopping you from setting up a pro-animal covenant community or a private animal reserve Not the point; I'm asking about the theoretical consistency of ignoring animals' objective capacity to feel pain whilst being against aggressive violence, not how to save them in practice. >If you're against the exploitation of animals, you're against livestock, horseback riding, and hunting for food Not necessarily. Horseback riding, horse-drawn ploughs, herding dogs, shepherding, even egg farming... none of these things actually harm the animal in question, if done responsibly. As for hunting for food, as long as the intent is to do it as quickly and painlessly as possible, it seems unlikely to be a problem, since any number of other animals do essentially the same. But, crucially, they do it with the intent to kill quickly, not to torture. >But doesn't that mean you're alright with animals being exploited, anyway? That's not what I'm getting at; exploitation is, in theory, beneficial for beasts of burden / wool-sheep / egg-laying chickens, as they get ample recompense in the form of being fed and sheltered. Again, I'm making the argument that animals possess the negative right to be free from gratuitous pain, not that they cannot ever justifiably be exploited at all. Thoughts?
>>3306 The appeal to pain isn't reasonable because it would apply to non-self-aware creatures. You'd be constrained to respect an amoeba that recoils from a sharp edge, despite the fact that it has no awareness of self or capacity for suffering. I understand that some humans consider some non-sapient creatures cute, and even anthropomorphize them. Humans even do this with inanimate objects. Although it may be therefore valuable for some persons to treat these animals and objects in a certain way, enshrining 'rights' for them in law is a much bigger step.
>>3312 >The appeal to pain isn't reasonable because it would apply to non-self-aware creatures. Then perhaps sapience is the criterion? I refuse to believe that it is a justifiable libertarian position to be complicit in someone beating the shit out of his dog, or setting his cat on fire, etc, essentially for the same reason that libertarians draw a line between voluntary and coercive forms of slavery. >I understand that some humans consider some non-sapient creatures cute, and even anthropomorphize them. Animal kinship goes a lot deeper than that for a lot of people. It is abundantly clear to anyone who bothers to look, that a number of animals are capable of demonstrating empathy, considerable learning ability, and of course, loyalty. You can argue this is instinctive behaviour, but by that same token, you would have to argue that humans are equally instinct-driven creatures. The capacity to reason doesn't enter into this particular issue. >Although it may be therefore valuable for some persons to treat these animals and objects in a certain way, enshrining 'rights' for them in law is a much bigger step. Again, I'm discussing the theoretical validity of animal rights, not necessarily legislature as such. Also, comparing animals with inanimate objects is a strawman, as I mentioned in my previous post. If an organism can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to possess sapience (thereby implying a degree of agency) and the ability to feel pain (thereby implying that violence against it is either coercive or defensive, never passive), then such would suggest that they do, in fact, have grounds for being defended by the NAP. >But wait! Animals hunt eachother all the time, often eating them alive! That doesn't matter; we both agree that animals lack rationality on par with humans, and as such, they behave instinctually. But at the exact same time, the fact that some of the more-evolved animals possess human-like emotional potential implies we must treat them at least similarly to how one treats actual humans. Again, I'm not against things like egg-farming, animal-driven vehicles, shepherding, or even fishing (fish generally tend to lack sapience; dolphins, of course, are not fish, though sharks are, and might well be an exception here), but that's very different from animal cruelty. The very FACT that some types of animal can display human-like behaviour implies that they have grounds for protection under the NAP, insofar as gratuitous coercive/sadistic violence is concerned. I might also point out that animal torture is positively linked with sociopathy, (i.e., the pathological disregard for others' natural rights) though I'm aware that isn't a true "smoking gun", in itself.
Some questions to the /fascist/s browsing this board: - If blacks are genetically inferior, how do you explain the high IQ rates of Nigerian-Americans? - If IQ is purely genetic, what explains the rapid rise of IQ of Irish-Americans from the early 20th century to now? (or the Flynn Effect, for that matter) - If Jews are are to be blamed for modern society given their disproportionate representation in media, how is that argument different from blacks in Africa saying that white farmers and white businessowners have to be expropriated because of their disproportionate influence in African nations?
>>3313 >perhaps sapience is the criterion? Perhaps. But frankly that seems like a huge step back from your original position. Is there any domesticated animal that would be protected under this definition? There are only a handful of animals who can plausibly be considered self aware or even pass a mirror or iq test. >inanimate objects is a strawman If what we have said about sapience or self awareness is correct, my pet rock with googly eyes has the same chance of thinking "I am in pain" or "I am suffering" as the non-sapients. Except my pet rock has a name and is cute, and the carnivorous amoeba doesn't and isn't. Furthermore your position isn't clear whatsoever. Are you trying to minimize pain or minimize suffering? Are you trying to give certain species rights or certain responsibilities or both? Are exceptions being made for domestication we wouldn't make for slavery or murder? What is the logical argument for considering 'human-like' behavior (which?) the basis for the applicability of the NAP?
If ancaps want to live in a stateless society, what do they mean when they say they want property "rights"? Some kind of ethical right? If so, do they want everyone to adopt this ethical principle? How would a conflict over the usage of some piece of land for example would be settled between two or more people who don't share the same set of principles?
Would tech companies create a social credit system like China under anarcho-capitalism?
(219.92 KB 1280x1919 1561590791476-0.jpg)

(219.92 KB 1280x1919 1561590791476-0.jpg)

(219.92 KB 1280x1919 1561590791476-0.jpg)

(219.92 KB 1280x1919 1561590791476-0.jpg)

(219.92 KB 1280x1919 1561590791476-0.jpg)

>>3342 The social credit system in China only means something because it is enforced. In ancap land who would enforce it. People generally despise social credit attempts. There was some social credit company that started in the US and if I remember correctly it was a complete flop.
>>3343 Employers would like it as a way to monitor their employees' off-work conduct. I can see a smartphone app being developed for just that.
>>3344 If the employees found it intrusive enough that they didn't like it, they would leave. Plus there would most likely be rival apps to block, circumvent, and potentially hack those apps. We see this type of back and forth happening now with information gathering on the internet.
(797.69 KB 460x460 lGvbRcN5mr2webm)

>>3328 Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute. >- If blacks are genetically inferior, how do you explain the high IQ rates of Nigerian-Americans? Genetics or not, blacks have been overrepresented in crime statistics in comparison to whites and asians, even when controlling for factors like poverty. The evidence has not been in their favour, you would have to be ignorant of an extreme amount of data to support some kind of equality between blacks and other races, regardless of whether you're looking at human nature or human nurture. If you are a business in an ideal free-market society in ancapistan looking to maximize profits, you would act more cautiously with black people because (relatively) they are more of a liability than others. This is just a fact. >- If IQ is purely genetic, what explains the rapid rise of IQ of Irish-Americans from the early 20th century to now? (or the Flynn Effect, for that matter) IQ is not purely genetic but 80% of it is, and black Americans have been living in the same civilization as white Americans for centuries, so if the Flynn Effect applies, it applies to both races, you can't say that black IQ still has more growing to do unless you're talking about new immigrants from the third-world. >- If Jews are are to be blamed for modern society given their disproportionate representation in media, how is that argument different from blacks in Africa saying that white farmers and white businessowners have to be expropriated because of their disproportionate influence in African nations? Well I guess it can be argued that white people increased the quality of life of blacks in Africa as well as building their own civilizations from nothing, but Jews are a nomadic race of vampires which can't build anything of their own, and must instead infiltrate other governments and parasitize off of them to survive and prosper. Which means the real argument is "whites actually bring value, Jews don't", which means whites should be allowed to rule and conquer blacks for the greater good of everyone, but Jews shouldn't because they only corrupt and destroy everything. That's kind of a bullshit argument, but I'll give fascists credit in that they are really good at diagnosing problems a lot of the times, but they still lack the IQ points to come up with good solutions, and that's why despite being completely united in all the things they hate, they are completely confused on how to actually solve their problems, with each fascist having their own unique solutions and their own unique version of a fascist society, and this version of theirs changing radically on a daily basis.
>>3340 Property rights is when the legal system you're operating in recognizes self-ownership and property, and when someone's property is violated. eg: if someone steals your car, even if it isn't currently in your posession, it is still technically yours and you would be in the right to get it back from the thief.
>>3348 How could such a legal system exist without a state, and why should we accept to follow its laws?
>>3349 >How could such a legal system exist without a state Through confederalism based on the NAP. The country is divided into very small territories each with its own laws and rules, the territories can join or secede from the alliance whenever they want, but they agree that if one aggresses against another, then they will gang up on the initial aggressor. This is historically how it was in the Hanseatic League, a country which existed for hundreds of years without a state. >and why should we accept to follow its laws? Because if you are the initial aggressor, others have the right to punish you. You can make whatever laws you want on your own property, as long as they don't harm other people's property, otherwise they will hire some really strong people to fuck you up.
>>3334 >my pet rock with googly eyes has the same chance of thinking "I am in pain" or "I am suffering" as the non-sapients. I don't disagree. My point was more that organisms which lack at least some degree of independent thought (rocks, trees, etc.) cannot be considered "animals" as such, and therefore, bringing them up is essentially pointless. >Furthermore your position isn't clear whatsoever. I guess that's true, actually; I should clarify. >Are you trying to minimize pain or minimize suffering? Pain is essentially a subcategory of suffering, so I suppose I'm trying to minimize avoidable suffering -- that is, suffering which the owner of a given animal could reasonably avoid. >Are you trying to give certain species rights or certain responsibilities or both? Being human as we are, we necessarily must focus on the human implications of ethics -- ethics from a primarily human perspective. As such, I suppose the only way to prove the necessity of basic animal rights would be first to define them (which I have essentially just done in the last point), and then to prove that humans have an implicit responsibility towards maintaining them, such that they contradict themselves if they fail to do so. Ideally, there would be an a priori argument in favour of avoiding making animals suffer past what is strictly necessary for agricultural/hunting reasons. >Are exceptions being made for domestication we wouldn't make for slavery or murder? I don't believe so, no. Slavery is only tenable if voluntary, and murder is treated as a serious violation of the NAP. Not only that, but torture is also generally treated as a felony. There is no inherent inconsistency here, as in the case of domestication, we cannot prove consent on part of the animal; ergo, we are forced to assume that the process is involuntary. Yet because it is a beneficial symbiosis -- shelter and food in exchange for labour -- it is reasonable to assume that only unnecessary cruelty to these animals would violate the NAP, as they lack the ability (plausibly even the capacity) to voice their distaste for their arrangement. Whilst one could make that same argument in favour of involuntary human slavery, I would argue that the fact that we *can* demonstrate consent (or the lack thereof) in the case of humans, would rule the practice out; whereas, with animals, this is admittedly not the case. TL;DR, Involuntary human slavery is a violation of the NAP, since humans can indicate their level of consent; animals cannot, so involuntary domestication is not a violation of the NAP in itself. I think the true way forward here, is to examine why we view humans in an inherently-ethical fashion; that is, why we feel the need to act morally towards them in the first place. Given that the average person would generally be hesitant to torture their fellow man, this would indicate a kind of in-group preference. Yet I wonder if there might not be more to it; it seems rather inconsistent to oppose the torture of humans, but be complicit in the torture of animals, especially as one could make the argument that humans "are" animals, albeit very evolved. >What is the logical argument for considering 'human-like' behavior (which?) the basis for the applicability of the NAP? By 'human-like' behaviour, I was referring chiefly to the capacity of some animals for empathy, learning, and loyalty. You can argue that, if both man and animal demonstrate these, they are no longer inherently 'human-like', but as I mentioned earlier, this is a fruitless argument, as all ethical questions posed by a human actor must necessarily pertain first and foremost to the human experience, precisely because we cannot ourselves imagine anything else, as such. Furthermore, since the NAP is, ultimately, a human abstraction of a natural law, this means two things: >Being natural in origin, it applies a priori to all things which meet its prerequisites; >Being a human abstraction of a natural law, it is unconsciously designed to apply to human prerequisites. Ergo, the NAP applies to every organism which displays human-like behaviour.
>>3353 It occurs to me that I should clarify my last point a bit more. When I refer to the NAP as both a natural law and a human abstraction thereof, here is what I mean: >There is a difference between the thing-in-itself and the conception thereof present in the mind of an actor; >If a law is truly natural, then it can be considered a thing-in-itself; >Therefore, the axiom which presupposes the immorality of coercive force is the thing-in-itself, whereas the concept of the NAP is an abstraction found in the intellect of a human actor; >As such, though the two are effectively the same, the difference lies in the implicit assumption of the latter that it should apply first and foremost to human conditions; >There is nothing wrong with this, but it must be understood if one is to arrive at a logically-consistent solution; since we cannot change the fact that we have an implicit pro-human bias, (and nor should we, as this would be suicidal), we must therefore understand that the NAP applies first and foremost to those things which are humanoid in nature; >Yet this necessarily applies not only to physical characteristics, but also to intellectual ones; ergo, the NAP must logically apply to all organisms which are capable of a significant faculty which we normally would ascribe to an average human. >Otherwise, how can we claim to apply it to all humans? If it only applies to some organisms with human-like characteristics, but not others, then it is no longer an axiom, since it becomes conditional (one might even say arbitrary) rather than a priori.
>>3354 Animals cannot reciprocate the NAP back and so are not bound to the NAP as humans are. Humans are bound by the NAP and as such the NAP only applies to Humans.
>>3355 Did you read over my posts >>3353 and >>3354 in their entirety? >Animals cannot reciprocate the NAP back and so are not bound to the NAP as humans are. Yes, I agree; I've already alluded to as much. >Humans are bound by the NAP and as such the NAP only applies to Humans. How does this follow? As I said before, the circumstance of being human is essentially reducible to the state of possessing human characteristics; this must be so, as without said characteristics, one cannot, by definition, be human. This being the case, it would be arbitrary for someone to say, "the NAP only applies to you if you possess x amount of human characteristics", as the amount could be defined as any number upwards of 0. The only non-redundant definition of "humanity" is "possessing characteristics which are indicative of human-like intelligence". These being any of the following, as I've addressed: >Empathy >Learning >Loyalty (esp. in-group) These demonstrate a great deal of intelligence in a similar fashion to that of humans, and as such, are serious grounds for consideration along the lines of the NAP. There might be others, too. TL;DR: If you lack human characteristics, you aren't protected by the NAP. But since the exact number of such characteristics required can only be defined arbitrarily, the only logical conclusion is to apply it to all organisms which display any such characteristics. Non-sentient creatures lack such characteristics entirely; ergo, they are irrelevant. However, it is clear that needless animal suffering (defined as those acts of cruelty which are unnecessary to the symbiosis implicit in hunting and agriculture) violates the NAP, since sentient animals (or at least some of them) possess some of the same characteristics which we ourselves implicitly use to define our own applicability under the NAP.
>>3357 The NAP is founded upon Natural Law. Man is created in God's image and is his steward upon the land and is given lordship over them. If you are going to attempt to justify the NAP upon animals from a point outside of natural law, you are going to run into some big problems. An animal will never be on equal terms with a human no matter how "human-like" some may appear. If you attempt to suggest that the NAP applies to some animal based on how sentient it is, then you suggest that aggressing it or killing it is equivalent to killing or aggressing against a human. If you are worried about how humans treat animals, you can attempt to influence the market instead.
>>3359 >The NAP is founded upon Natural Law. Man is created in God's image and is his steward upon the land and is given lordship over them. Leaving aside the fact that natural law does not presuppose a religious explanation, what do you do if you run into someone who refuses to acknowledge such divine endowment? And don't just say you'll exile them from your property, because we're talking about theoretical argumentation here, not actual physical circumstances. >If you are going to attempt to justify the NAP upon animals from a point outside of natural law, you are going to run into some big problems. I'm not trying to do that. I've established that I agree that the NAP is indeed axiomatic; we differ on what that implies insofar as animals are concerned. >An animal will never be on equal terms with a human no matter how "human-like" some may appear. Why? Again, short of divine endowment, I see no reason why this should be so. >If you attempt to suggest that the NAP applies to some animal based on how sentient it is, then you suggest that aggressing it or killing it is equivalent to killing or aggressing against a human. One can argue easily that domesticated animals are bred for the purpose of being content with their existence under human ownership. On the other hand, one can probably not seriously argue that domesticated animals are content with being beaten, burned alive, starved, etc. >If you are worried about how humans treat animals, you can attempt to influence the market instead. I don't disagree with that, but again, I'm trying to come to grips with the fact that an ideology that gets so much else right, somehow necessitates being complicit in animal torture on at least a conceptual level. I'm aware that ancap is a meta-ideology rather than a true ideology as such, but for something so on-the-ball as far as individual rights and liberties go, this is a pretty bizarre flaw.
>>3361 >does not presuppose a religious explanation, Then on what objectivity do you define what is good, what is evil, what is torture? >Why? Again, short of divine endowment, I see no reason why this should be so. Because animals follow no moral law, another reason why they are separate from man. You cannot apply some morality to them when they obviously cannot follow it. A cat is not evil because it kills a mouse, it simply is acting as it should. The same if a tiger kills a man. Now if man kills a tiger, depending upon how he kills the tiger will determine if it was done good or evil. Morality cannot be applied in both directions. It only applies to Man.
>>3362 >Then on what objectivity do you define what is good, what is evil, what is torture? If something is logically deduced or induced, then generally, it is at least plausible. Once something becomes so logically obvious that one cannot contravene it without engaging in logical contradiction (as is the case with argumentation ethics, for instance), then it becomes axiomatic, i.e., natural law. It seems logically obvious to me that those actions are tortuous which result in great physical pain or psychological distress, if the actor perpetrating said actions has full foreknowledge of the probable consequences. >A cat is not evil because it kills a mouse, it simply is acting as it should. The same if a tiger kills a man. Yes, here we are entirely agreed. >You cannot apply some morality to them when they obviously cannot follow it. Why must morality be inherently reciprocal? If this were necessarily so, then: >The concept of duty couldn't exist, and neither could moral obligation, as both of these presuppose the possible lack of reward >Persons in a vegetative state would immediately be considered non-human, as they cannot follow much of anything, least of all complex morality Which leads me to... >Now if man kills a tiger, depending upon how he kills the tiger will determine if it was done good or evil. EXACTLY. It depends entirely on how the act is carried out, and for what purpose. I've said a few times that I have nothing against responsible use of animals, which I would define as "use of animals in such a way as to avoid any unnecessary physical or psychological distress on the part of said animals". Put another way, if human beings have the capacity to be moral (sociopaths notwithstanding), then would we not in turn have a moral obligation to act in such a manner across the board? That is to say, if we value our morality, we engage in a performative contradiction by not being moral. (As for my definition of morality, I would generally define it as the balance between maintaining one's personal loyalties on the one hand, and the avoidance of causing suffering on the other.) It does not matter if animals possess or lack the ability to reciprocate; the fact that they can display physical or mental distress implies strongly that it is immoral for us to provoke such distress in them unnecessarily, and that, coupled with the fact that at least some of the more-evolved ones are eminently capable of empathy, loyalty, etc., makes it a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned.
>>3364 >It does not matter if animals possess or lack the ability to reciprocate Yes it does. The NAP can only be used if two moral agents agree to it. You cannot apply the NAP onto an animal because it cannot reciprocate it back. You can apply your subjectively moral reasoning to not be mean to Mr. Great White Shark because it makes you feel good, but Mr. Great White Shark cannot agree to the NAP and so it cannot apply, and he will eat you. The NAP only applies to moral agents that agree to use it. It has to be agreed upon. >EXACTLY. It depends entirely on how the act is carried out, It doesn't mean that animals are moral agents. It only means that man can act beyond a certain boundary in his humanity. The only reason you can judge this is from a position of objective moral reasoning ie. an objective moral lawgiver. You cannot judge how mean someone is to an animal if you only have subjective standards. You might be able to make your own community with others that follow your standards, like a hippie commune, but it wouldn't apply to any one else. Go try telling the Chinese who have been eating dogs for hundreds of years that they need to stop right now and see what happens. In summary: The NAP can only be enacted by two moral agents who agree to be bound by it. Animals are not moral agents. Your feelings for animals not suffering is understandable, but it would only apply to you, unless you found others that agree to be held by your standards.
>>3365 >Yes it does. The NAP can only be used if two moral agents agree to it. If this is so, then persons in a vegetative state can be exploited or killed with impunity. The only way you can avoid this, is if you state that such persons possess latent potential due to their humanity, and the only way you could empirically define such humanity is by examining the characteristics associated therewith. Furthermore, while it is indeed true that Mr. Great White Shark will eat you if you go into his territory, going into his territory in the first place is a classic violation of the NAP, for which he would be justified in killing said trespasser. This is actually evidence that the NAP exists naturally, even if sometimes only as an instinctual reflex. If you can shoot a trespasser for breaking and entering (and I agree that you can and should), then so too can Mr. Great White Shark eat you for invading his territory. >The only reason you can judge this is from a position of objective moral reasoning ie. an objective moral lawgiver. You cannot judge how mean someone is to an animal if you only have subjective standards. If you truly believe that God gave us our humanity (and for the record, I don't necessarily disagree), then you also believe He gave us moral obligations. This being so, I find it very hard to believe that a benevolent God would wish for us to unleash pathological suffering upon His other creations. And again, if you don't believe that, empirical reasoning would strongly imply that suffering should be minimized, as I have mentioned previously. Either way, we are not dealing with subjective standards as such, so much as we are dealing with standards which one may or may not choose to follow in practice; yet that can apply to any moral standard whatsoever. There is a difference between human fickleness in avoiding what one knows to be true on the other hand, and legitimate ambiguity on the other. The latter is true subjectivity; the former is merely an illusion of the real thing. >You might be able to make your own community with others that follow your standards, like a hippie commune, but it wouldn't apply to any one else. Go try telling the Chinese who have been eating dogs for hundreds of years that they need to stop right now and see what happens. Again, you are conflating theory with practice. I am not attempting to claim that the Chinese will magically stop torturing, maiming, and massacring man's best friend as soon as I give them my interpretation of the NAP; that would be idiotic and naive. What I have been trying to do this entire time, is simply to discern whether or not the minimizing of animal suffering on the part of humans has a basis in natural law. (Which, again, I define as essentially synonymous with rigorous logical induction/deduction.) > Animals are not moral agents. Your feelings for animals not suffering is understandable, but it would only apply to you, unless you found others that agree to be held by your standards. In practice, I agree completely, save for your first statement; I could argue that morality is simply heavily-evolved in-group self-preservation instinct, in which case, anything with such an instinct is moral in some sense. I'm beginning to think we've simply reached an irreducible difference of opinion here, not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with that.
>>3366 Also, I should note that it was never my intention to exasperate any anon here; I actually really love this board. I simply am very passionate about the subject matter at-hand. I should clarify my general stance here, as well, in case anyone here thinks I'm a crypto-socialist. I see the merit in the argument that AnCap has the potential to do more good than harm for animals, especially because vet shelters, wildlife reserves, and the like tend to be privately-owned (subsidized oftentimes, but still). Rothbard's argument that such businesses tend to preserve their land's environment to protect their investment is fairly compelling, too, though not necessarily bulletproof in the case of monopolies. And, on the other hand, if the private sector CAN'T help them, then socialism is even worse at it again, for a multitude of reasons so obvious they need not be mentioned here.
>>3366 >If this is so, then persons in a vegetative state can be exploited or killed with impunity. Libertarians debate this all the time. This is also part of medical ethics and what not. However, the assumption falls upon the idea that most people would want their life to saved or extended. For example, I work as a nurse in a hospital, if a patient comes in through the ER unresponsive, the assumption is we do whatever we can to save him. The same thing guides medics in the field. A patient in a coma can be terminated by their DPOA if they do have an advance directive in place stating otherwise, but I think the DPOA overrules that. Now a patient that is in coma can be terminated by the state if the doctors agree there may be no possibility of coming out of it, even if potentially the patient might. Because after all the state is footing the bill if the patient has no insurance, so there is an incentive from the state to euthanize. >Mr. Great White Shark will eat you if you go into his territory, going into his territory in the first place is a classic violation of the NAP You are confusing the NAP with instinct. Animals are not moral agents because they act on instinct. The reason I bring God, or at least an objective moral law giver, is because least there you have some degree of bedrock to build upon to assert some moral behavior that should be directed to animals. In the case of Christianity it is being a steward of God's creation. If man takes too great of pleasure in killing and torture of animals this is sinful. However, he is still allowed to hunt them and lord over them. If you do not accept an objective moral lawgiver then everything you attempt to build upon is merely subjective. Atheists get creamed in debates with this all the time. The NAP is merely subjective as well, it is simply a governing agreement. I don't know if this article below would help you out at all. Wish there might be some other anons to give you their perspective as well. https://lpmisescaucus.com/uncategorized/animals-and-the-non-aggression-principle-stratton-j-davis/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War Apparently Argentina during the late 80s was a neoliberal free market paradise. FUCKING NEWS TO ME.
How were 19th century folk so interested in abstract principles of freedom, the gold v. silver standard, tariffs, etc.?
>>3391 They had more freedom back then. It's harder to explain to slaves how their life would be like without slavery. It's harder to explain to people living in commie countries who would give them food if it weren't made by the government, etc...
>>3372 The left loves to lie and control things. Argentina was basically a social democracy that kept printing money and getting into debt and destroying their economy.
>>3368 >You are confusing the NAP with instinct. Animals are not moral agents because they act on instinct. I've mentioned that it's possible to argue that morality is simply heavily-evolved in-group self-preservation instinct. However, we clearly disagree on this such that resolving the issue would get us into an entirely different discussion -- namely, the actual origins of ethics. >In the case of Christianity it is being a steward of God's creation. Yes, and I completely agree with that interpretation. The primary reason I was bringing up the empiricist view, is because I feel it is important to be able to situate one's arguments on as naturalistic a basis as possible, especially if one is debating, for instance, an atheist, deist, etc. >If you do not accept an objective moral lawgiver then everything you attempt to build upon is merely subjective. Atheists get creamed in debates with this all the time. True enough. >The NAP is merely subjective as well, it is simply a governing agreement. True, though it seems such a common-sense understanding that it is the closest thing we have to an objective moral standard at the moment. Nevertheless, I see your point. >I don't know if this article below would help you out at all. Some of his arguments are quite persuasive; he's quite right, for instance, in stating that the only way to stop animals from being abused by one person, is to have them possessed by a more-conscientious person. He comes dangerously close to apologetics for dogfighting, but I suppose he's correct in stating that more-stable, less-regulated economies would be less likely to lean on such sports; and not only that, but in their current state, such countries would never care one whit about the NAP, anyway.
>>3351 Aren't the territories themselves the property of some people? If so is there a larger legal system to support it? What you describe just sounds like smaller states but privatized.
>>3395 It just frustrates me so much because it's obviously a lie, and if you look at that page a decade ago or articles about the history of Argentina a decade ago, you'll see that they talk about ISI, the ridiculously high inflation, the _increase_ in regulations, etc.. Now they're lying and saying the exact opposite because they found one Marxist book that they can cite to high heaven. Fuck Wikipedia, man. Memory hole bullshit.
>>3398 >Aren't the territories themselves the property of some people? Yes. >If so is there a larger legal system to support it? The NAP acts like the cement that holds it everything together, besides that, there will private courts to enforce and interpret private laws, if that's what you're asking. >What you describe just sounds like smaller states but privatized. It depends on the definition of "state", because if a "state" is a guy with a gun defending their property, then by that logic everyone who is alive and owns a body is also a "state" in and of itself. The difference between these "privatized states" and ordinary states is that a) they can only engage in cooperative/market behaviour with other "states" in the pact, and are incapable of using force to get what they want (unless in self-defense), but more importantly: b) the relationship between the "states" and those who live in them is voluntary, ie: both the property owner and the ones using the property have to agree to the terms of how the property will be used or else there is no deal, whereas with an ordinary state, only one side (the state) gets to decide the rules by which we live and doesn't ask us if we agree with it, we are just forced to comply.
Western governments are going to ban animu under the guise of "It's cp." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyV8F6x2KvM
>>3416 A state is surely not just a guy with a gun defending their property, but even by that definition, it seems that : >then by that logic everyone who is alive and owns a body is also a "state" in and of itself. would only follow if people "own" their bodies, which implies some kind of weird person/body dualism. >b) the relationship between the "states" and those who live in them is voluntary, ie: both the property owner and the ones using the property have to agree to the terms of how the property will be used or else there is no deal Wouldn't that gives a huge power advantage to the property owners when all land become owned? And even without talking about that, isn't there a high probability that one of these "privatized states" accumulate enough weapons and troops before deciding to break the NAP and revert society to an "ordinary state"?
Does anyone have the reading guides for the "general right" and the ancap one? I recall them being posted on julay a while back.
(240.57 KB 962x622 OiFvio985GE.jpg)

(80.27 KB 734x220 elkOaqSuljY.jpg)

>>3433 >some kind of weird person/body dualism. Maybe when cyberpunk-tier mind uploading becomes a thing. We're talking about self-ownership, essentially. >Wouldn't that gives a huge power advantage to the property owners when all land become owned? Why would it? >And even without talking about that, isn't there a high probability that one of these "privatized states" accumulate enough weapons and troops before deciding to break the NAP and revert society to an "ordinary state"? There is always a probability of anything, but it's just fucking hard to get a monopoly on aggression when security production is so decentralized and highly competitive. No defense firm would want to see their competition gaining too much of an upper hand and becoming states either, so they will get each other to cooperate, the crab bucket mentality would be extreme. In the worst case scenario, assuming we do get a huge disbalance of potential aggression in favour of one group, then it's just like a lion who is 100x stronger than a hedgehog, it won't attack the hedgehog because the cost of violence is too high even if it succeeds, this is a society where anyone can own high-tech military hardware, going to war with it is just not worth it. You can get answers to questions like these from A Spontaneous Order by Chase Rachels, I'm sure there's a free pdf somewhere if you google it.
>>3372 >>3399 >>3445 Oy vey, what's your encroachment of freedom here?
>>3445 Wikipedia is trash
>>3464 Only for the less technical articles.
Is the MSM owned by China?
What do you do if your country isn't free?
(129.28 KB 1280x720 Kamina_sunglasses.jpg)

>>3493 Do the impossible, see the invisible. Touch the untouchable, break the unbreakable.
What's Pelosi's endgame? Is she trying to push the Democratic party and its machine to undermine the election with mail-in voting &c. so that the chain of command becomes confused enough at who is the winner of the election that she effectively takes over as third in the line of succession? Also, what's the chance that Biden would pick her as the VP?
>>3493 Free yourself and move.
>>3518 >What's Pelosi's endgame? Just to not lose control to either the republicans or the completely insane full commie wing of her own party.
>>3439 >Maybe when cyberpunk-tier mind uploading becomes a thing. We're talking about self-ownership, essentially. I'm not talking about those scenarios, I'm just saying that if we don't subscribe to a dichotomy between a person and a body (for example if a person is a soul or something like that), then body-ownership/self-ownership doesn't make sense. >Why would it? Intuitively, landless people could not choose to live in an unowned area if all land is owned. So while they would be free to choose a particular land owner to live on their land and obey their rules, they wouldn't be able to not obey anyone. Seems more like choosing a master than no masters.
Why has Sweden been able to keep their relatively free markets? Why haven't they gone through the same covid19 panic bullshit? What's different about their society/media/etc.?
>>3527 My understanding of this is limited, but I hear that Sweden has been relatively free-market because it tried socialist policies once in the 70s-80s and it sucked dick. As for why they did not lock down, it is because they lacked the bureaucratic procedures to do so (so the "red tape" ended up working against the state).
>>3493 Start trading in the black and gray markets and encourage others to do the same.
Hello, /liberty/. I had a few question I wanted to ask you. >Why did you leave the webring? >Isn't 8chan.moe owned by mark? >In the case of a civil war in America, would you willingly side with /fascist/ and /monarchy/ despite your political disagreements? >between /monarchy/ and /fascist/, which one do you find more tolerable? >Is race important to you? Would you accept a non-white libertarian among your ranks? What if they were race mixed? >Do you know where /clang/ and /just/ went to after 8chan fell? >if there was a political ideology that combined /fascist/, /liberty/, and /monarchy/ together, what would it be called? T. Non-white /fascist/ that can respect, understand, and even agree with some points of libertarianism and ancap
>>3639 >Why did you leave the webring Hoppe-sama died. 8moe is still basically webring. >Isn't 8chan.moe owned by mark No. >In case of civil war In what civil war would /fascist/ and /monarchy/ be a side? >between /monarchy/ and /fascist/ which is more tolerable You can have a monarchy/republic hybrids and the earliest republicans were advocates of this. There is no synergy or room for compromise with totalitarianism. >Is race important to you? No. All men are equal under the eyes of the law. >Do you know where /clang/ and /just/ went No. It's possible they never found a bunker and their anons scattered in the wind. >If there was a political ideology... Hypocritism, since it would be entirely founded on conflicting three conflicting approaches to running a state. You can pick two and try to make it work but three is right out. What's the appeal of fascism to you? How can you ensure your government respects your rights?
(3.89 MB 3756x2720 The Triumvirate.png)

(155.31 KB 771x807 civil_war.jpg)

>>3639 >Why did you leave the webring? I still browse boards on the webring, it's just a pain in the ass that all the boards I like are on different websites and there's no easy way to keep track of everything. >Isn't 8chan.moe owned by mark? Basically. >In the case of a civil war in America, would you willingly side with /fascist/ and /monarchy/ despite your political disagreements? Of course. Me and my family won't get shot if they win. >between /monarchy/ and /fascist/, which one do you find more tolerable? Both have their fair share of stupidity but /fascist/ seems to specialize in spergery, while /monarchy/ has way more larp so they're kind of even in that regard. But the fact that they were never astroturfed to shit like the old 8chan /pol/ was makes them both infinitely more pleasant to browse. >Is race important to you? Would you accept a non-white libertarian among your ranks? What if they were race mixed? Race is important, as far as I'm aware no really successful and productive societies are both multi-racial and integrated, successful societies are always either monoracial or racially segregated (either by proximity or by social custom). That being said, there's no reason to oppose cooperation between people of my race and people of other races to achieve political goals especially when a great deal of those objectives are mutually beneficial and don't have anything to do with race. >Do you know where /clang/ and /just/ went to after 8chan fell? No idea. >if there was a political ideology that combined /fascist/, /liberty/, and /monarchy/ together, what would it be called? Autism
(44.71 KB 1102x368 ethno globe.png)


(1.29 MB 1280x960 nowheretoshitpost.webm)

>>3640 I assure you, I am not here to stir up trouble or bait you. I merely wish to engage in discussion. >No. All men are equal under the eyes of the law. Are you personally against race mixing? Do you believe there are differences between the races? >No. It's possible they never found a bunker and their anons scattered in the wind. Considering that it's been more than a year and we haven't heard anything from either of those boards, it's likely they'll remain MIA for a while if not, then indefinitely. >What's the appeal of fascism to you? How can you ensure your government respects your rights? Fascism appeals to me because I feel it is one of the few ways to truly rid oneself of the terrors of the modern world. I've heard of your ideas of the covenant communities and I actually don't think it's a bad idea. What mainly concerns me is that they're only focusing on a small part of the community and not the entire country unless I am misunderstanding this and you intend an entire country to be a covenant community. In terms of how the government would respect my right, this is actually one that concerns me. Perhaps every system, including yours and mine is susceptible to corruption. The idea is a sort of council of the smartest, brightest people in the country would elect a leader and he would be a dictator. He would be able to do a lot with his power and would be required to work with the said council. I just feel that this system might be corrupted but we don't really know since modern fascist countries like Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy were all stamped out after WW2. >>3642 >Basically. If that's the case, why did the anon above you say no? >Of course. Me and my family won't get shot if they win. Thanks, it makes me glad knowing that in the up coming civil war, I won't have to be fighting against /liberty/. >Race is important, as far as I'm aware no really successful and productive societies are both multi-racial and integrated, successful societies are always either monoracial or racially segregated (either by proximity or by social custom). That being said, there's no reason to oppose cooperation between people of my race and people of other races to achieve political goals especially when a great deal of those objectives are mutually beneficial and don't have anything to do with race. Even anons on /fascist/ know it would be very difficult to win a hypothetical war against the federal government if they didn't side with others of different races. There is a lot of autism towards non-white posters there which i mainly believe it to be a D&C against the board. >Autism That gave me a good laugh when I first read it. I have a few more questions for you, /liberty/ >How do you feel about the ethnoglobe? Do you believe that because you are white the earth belongs to you? Image 1 related >I've heard that Aurelia wasn't always your board tan. Who was it before Aurelia? >How big of a problem do you believe Israel, Zionism, and Jews as a whole are? >How would a /liberty/ oriented society not fall into degeneracy >Could Timothy McVeigh be consider a libertarian terrorist?
>>3639 >Why did you leave the webring? It's either dead or dying after all that drama over on Fatchan and later Julay. It was a pretty neat idea but was poorly executed as Julay made up most of the webring. I think 8chan.moe and 9chan joining the webring would've salvaged it, but whatever. >Isn't 8chan.moe owned by mark? AFAIK, no. He only has control of /v/. He did fund this site though. >In the case of a civil war in America, would you willingly side with /fascist/ and /monarchy/ despite your political disagreements? I'm mixed race and literally autistic, so /fascist/ probably wants me dead. I don't know about /monarchy/ though. >Is race important to you? Would you accept a non-white libertarian among your ranks? What if they were race mixed? Basically what >>3642 said. There would probably still be multi-racial and multi-culture communities in ancapistan, but they would probably end up like Detroit or Brazil. As for non-white allies, most of them don't like the idea of abolishing anti-discrimination laws. >Do you know where /clang/ and /just/ went to after 8chan fell? No. >if there was a political ideology that combined /fascist/, /liberty/, and /monarchy/ together, what would it be called? Just some shitty meme ideology that could never actually exist due to all the contradictions.
>>3639 >if there was a political ideology that combined /fascist/, /liberty/, and /monarchy/ together, what would it be called? Anarchomonarchism with fascist characteristics.
Do hostile takeovers violate the NAP? Is net neutrality un-libertarian?
>>3659 If a company didn't want to open itself up to hostile takeover then it shouldn't have made itself public. I don't think net neutrality is un-libertarian. Fundamentally we agree that competition is good. There are industries where competition is costly and favors entrenched monopolies. Amending these industries with regulations to protect citizens and increase competition where it matters is fine. Not all regulations are automatically bad.
(143.15 KB 432x464 1530871358553.jpg)

>>3660 >Not all regulations are automatically bad.
>>3664 YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ANON THAT THE WORLD IS A COMPLEX PLACE AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION, NOT EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE. :^)
(27.54 KB 128x128 clown-kurukukuru4.png)

>>3659 Net Neutrality is fake and gay for the same reason all intellectual property is fake and gay. It's just cloaked in appealing language that makes casual observers think Net Neutrality implies something other than thousands of pages of regulation. There's no such thing as regulations which increase competition, that's a retarded oxymoron.
Hi there /liberty/. Can I know the difference between a covenant community, and a monarchic state? Is it that covenant communities are more voluntary, e.g. not having the death penalty?
>>3670 OP here. I apologize for not clearing up. Is the difference that laws like jailing for violation or death penalty for crimes which although contradict the covenant are not violent don't exist?
>>3659 >Is net neutrality un-libertarian? The only reason why ISPs have monopolies over certain areas is due to zoning laws. Also, in the absence of a state, there probably wouldn't even be a need for an Internet and we would probably be transmitting computer data over HAM radio or something like that.
>>3671 >>3670 There wouldn't really be a big difference between a large covenant community and a monarchic state. Covenant communities would have death penalties if they want, they are voluntary because you aren't forced to be a part of the covenant community. A covenant community doesn't have to be a monarchy either, they can be organized as democratic or as anything else, but they would not be able to impose their will on others without their consent, or imprison people within, as the first would be illegal aggression, and the second would be a territorial monopoly and the establishment of a state.
>>3674 >The only reason why ISPs have monopolies over certain areas is due to zoning laws. So I guess that, in a properly free market, the incentive for ISPs not to restrict internet traffic is to stay competitive against other ISPs who do the same? >Also, in the absence of a state, there probably wouldn't even be a need for an Internet and we would probably be transmitting computer data over HAM radio or something like that. That's interesting, actually; I wasn't even aware that was possible until you pointed this out, though I guess it makes sense. >>3680 >Covenant communities would have death penalties if they want, they are voluntary because you aren't forced to be a part of the covenant community. This is something I don't see mentioned enough. The death penalty is only un-libertarian if coercive in its application; as a result, if the citizen of a given covenant community has chosen to live there, they cannot appeal to the NAP in their defense if they commit a capital offense.
(363.29 KB 685x2157 USSR durable goods.png)

>>3674 This is true. In my area ONLY Comcast and Centurylink (which is objectively awful) are allowed to "compete" which completely skews things. They've also recently "nationalized" trash pick up here forcing every property owner to pay a $30 monthly fee to have their garbage picked up whether they need the service or not (for instance in my household we'd traditionally dropped our trash off at my dad's employer's dumpster with permission) and never gave a satisfying reason why (as if one would exist to begin with).
(204.94 KB 800x1200 9Axes Results 9-28-20.png)

How would /liberty/ r8 my 9Axes?
>>3821 >federal >authoritarian You sure you're not lost?
>>3822 >You sure you're not lost? By federal, they refer not to a national government, but rather local/provincial governments. In other words, small government. It's weird terminology, but there it is. As for authoritarian, it was simply because of my opposition to mob rule. 9Axes doesn't deal well with ancap with regards to things like property rights coming first over democratic systems and such.
In a Hoppean covenant community, if an individual moves there after having signed the necessary contracts, then starts a business and buys property there, etc., but thereafter flouts the rules of the community, he should be physically removed, right? But here's the thing: if we physically remove him, this necessarily entails depriving him of his rights to the property he owns on that land; as a result, are we not engaging in a performative contradiction by removing him, in that we are essentially redistributing his property without his consent? And if so, how do we get around this without sacrificing our right to freedom of association and disassociation?
>>3826 He signed a contract knowing full well of the consequences. Also it's not like a 1 strike rule, people would be given chances and it would depend on the severity of the crime. Also physical removal mostly means the community convincing the person to leave, first. ALSO the person would be forced to SELL their property, not just have it stolen from them. Damn, read a book.
>>3826 >But here's the thing: if we physically remove him, this necessarily entails depriving him of his rights to the property he owns on that land; as a result, are we not engaging in a performative contradiction by removing him, in that we are essentially redistributing his property without his consent? And if so, how do we get around this without sacrificing our right to freedom of association and disassociation? Because property rights are subject to the legal principle of estoppel, which states that those who do not abide by a set of norms cannot appeal to those norms in their own defense. Someone who has no respect for your property rights is not entitled to go "neener neener, you can't steal from me, that violates the NAP :^)))))." If you violate the norms of the covenant community, you best get out of dodge. >>3827 >Also physical removal mostly means the community convincing the person to leave, first. No, it means physical removal. You read a book.
>>3827 >He signed a contract knowing full well of the consequences. >Also it's not like a 1 strike rule, people would be given chances and it would depend on the severity of the crime. Yes, I am fully aware of those points. >ALSO the person would be forced to SELL their property, not just have it stolen from them. That's actually a much better way to do it; I admit that didn't occur to me for some reason. >>3828 >Someone who has no respect for your property rights is not entitled to go "neener neener, you can't steal from me, that violates the NAP :^)))))." That's a good point; for some reason I had forgotten about estoppel. What's interesting to me, is that the idea springs directly out of the NAP itself; if someone flouts an already agreed-upon contract by knowingly breaking its terms, that implies strongly that they have few scruples in continually undermining the covenant upon which their community is based, thereby distorting the intent behind said community and ultimately aggressing against the right to voluntary association which every citizen possesses. Ergo, conscious infractions against the covenant necessarily constitute a decisive break with the NAP. >If you violate the norms of the covenant community, you best get out of dodge. Yes, that's fair. Honestly, I was rather tired when I posted a few days ago; I should have thought it through more.
>>3368 But presumably, God has a mind right? If so we can't derive an objective moral standard from God's morality.
>>3835 That doesn't follow. God is the creator of the universe, including all its laws, including the moral law. It's impossible to have any kind of objective standard, moral or otherwise, that is not subject to God's will.
>>3843 Objective means mind-independent, so I don't see how a being with a mind can create an objective standard.
>>3846 Objective is independent of biases introduced by the mind. The mind of God is necessarily capable of being objective because God is omnipotent.
>>3851 By that account it's possible that it's not objective then. An omnipotent being could choose to not get rid of biases or introduce new ones.
>>3852 Biases relative to what? It's meaningless to talk about favoring one thing or another when you're literally lord of all creation, and through your will define what these standards even are, that these standards exist, and create the formal logic we use to comprehend them. This whole line of questioning sounds like Jewish sophistry.
>>3857 I don't think it's possible for any being to somehow "create" logic, it would imply an illogical state of affairs before that creation.
>>2666 Wtf, was this image deleted?
Should the disabled be physical removed to maintain a healthy gene pool?
>TARP bailout People flip a shit. >Latest trillions in bailouts What's wrong with this???
>>3934 Seriously though, this pisses me off that more people aren't upset about it. At this rate my thought process is: >Republicans win The country goes bankrupt and falls apart in a decade. >Democrats win The country goes bankrupt and falls apart in a decade (maybe a tad bit sooner). >Libertarian wins 0.0000000000001% chance of winning, but the country also has a chance of not going bankrupt and falling apart in a decade. What are your thoughts on voting? Should I bother?
>>3935 If you're in a state where voting actually matters: consider what happens if Democrats get their way. They stack the courts. Cornering people in buses and restaurants and demanding that you do a special salute becomes a legitimized form of political action, not because it is morally legitimate, but because it is pragmatically shown to work. It's fine for people to be bulldozed by cancel culture because it works. It's fine for businesses to be destroyed by both lockdowns and riots because they work. The establishment regains control of the narrative and they will do everything in their power to make sure that someone like Trump does not get elected again. My view is that Trump is our foot in the door (the one that actually has a chance at winning and isn't trying to play the role of the enlightened centrist by constantly trying to draw equivalencies between the two parties). If Biden wins, the Democrats continue to deploy these intimidation tactics and censorship measures for elections to come while claiming that we are undergoing a return to "normalcy". Since the government is "normal" again, people who direct skepticism towards the government are denounced as conspiracy theorists or far-right extremists.
>3900 if your community/municipality wants so, yeah I see no problem with it
>>3900 Autists and other retarded freaks can't think logically and shouldn't be considered people. Therefore, killing them doesn't violate the NAP.
>>3964 If we kill all of them, who's gonna post on this site?
>>1595 this comic and anyone who posts it is retarded
(111.65 KB 1097x1536 Thomas Sowell.jpg)

What does /liberty/ think about Thomas Sowell?
>>4117 Seems like one of those unironic based n-words I've been hearing so much about. Speaking of that, I was hoping back in 2015 Trump was going to pick Herman Cain as a running mate rather than Pence who was and remains something of a no-name.
>>4118 >n-word I like Thomas Sowell, but fuck off, nigger.
(35.01 KB 512x512 I CANT SEE.jpg)

>>4123 >8ddit still can't take the slightest joke, as usual ME SO SOLLY! ME POST RONG TYME!
>>4132 Liberty is pretty reddit-tier,as evidenced by the normalfag meme templates they use
dumb fuck here, how is hoppe an ancap if hes a monarchist?
Hey there again /liberty/! I've posted on your board previous, in fact this thread. these were my post. >>3639 >>3649 I'm actually here this time to ask a few questions in regards to 8chan coming back to the webring. >Why did you guys come back here? >I heard that someone called Acidman owns and operates this webring and he's the same buy who posted blacked porn of his waifu. Is there any truth to that? >Is Acidman working with a 3 letter agency?
>>4147 >Why did you guys come back here? Come back? I can't speak for other users, but I didn't leave. >I heard that someone called Acidman owns and operates this webring What webring? >and he's the same buy who posted blacked porn of his waifu. Is there any truth to that? No clue. >Is Acidman working with a 3 letter agency? No clue.
>>2383 That's pretty rich coming from a government type that has never existed and never will. The difference between you and Hitler is that he actually did something with his life, as did many other heroes. Money is a means to and end, and the present controllers of money should be burned alive and their genes should be systematically wiped off the planet down to the last protein. You would never do this because it doesn't make you (((money))). >>2782 >not capitalizing Aryan
>>4145 Monarchies historically had a reasonably-reliable respect for private property rights. It is not so much that Hoppe is a full-on monarchist, so much that he prefers monarchy to the mob-rule and gibmedats inherent in democracy. As well, in Ancapistan, he who has property, rules over it absolutely. The latter is, iirc, where the concept of "anarcho-monarchy" comes from.
>>2644 I wouldn't call it "justified"--more "pragmatic". If it were possible to delete the welfare/warfare state and actually enforce rights to life and property against immigrants (e.g. not what they do in Europe), I wonder if much vetting would even be needed, since you would cut out the demographics who are immigrating for the sole purpose of free shit.
Under anarcho-capitalism, what's stopping foreign governments from bribing businesses to serve under their will like what we are seeing right now with the CCP?
>>4163 I think that the CCP's ability to bribe businesses would be hampered for a number of reasons. If we supposed that an "ideal" anarcho-capitalist society existed in the first place (e.g. with a population that embraces the ideas of liberty and sound money), they would probably be using a stable, possibly gold-backed currency that would be immune to government interference, and it would be a hard sell to convince someone living in such a society to accept a currency like the Yuan that could be artificially manipulated at will by a party that has a precedent of being untrustworthy as fwark. Additionally, the CCP's planned-economy approach to production would likely be outperformed by an anarcho-capitalist society free of the kinds of red tape regulations, licensure schemes, cartels, and subsidies you see in the United States. On top of meaning that the CCP would not have as much economic influence as it does now, this would also make maintaining the illusion of Chinese competitiveness much more difficult on a political level. But obviously this highlights some of the problems of arguing whether anarcho-capitalism is "feasible". A decent part of making sure that an anarcho-capitalist society works is making sure that people embrace the ideas of liberty, but on a pragmatic level, it's debatable whether that should just be treated as a pie-in-the-sky ideal and whether we should simply treat the existence of a state as inevitable.
I don't get why people who are into the chicago school don't make the jump and just become austrians. Was Milton just a pressure release valve so people don't find out about Rothbard? I'll add the caveat that my knowledge about the history of the chicago school is farily limited.
"You can't enforce it. Someone with bigger guns will take over. That's partly how the state came to be. As I said there isn't an Anarchist society worth a damn for a reason. It's asking us to make ourselfs weak and venerable. The ones with bigger guns still win, giving everyone access to high-tech military hardware is just going to increase the size of the guns. All deterrence theory would point to is these new states would know become small. Imperialism no longer works by pure military expansion for this reason. Could some still take over a territory, yes and they will." Why are NigSocs like this? How would one response to this?
>>4215 Firstly, the way this is written is extremely irritating. He opens with a strong statement ("someone with bigger guns will take over") and then walks it back after introducing the caveat of "deterrence" to "could some still take over a territory, yes" (implying that the regular state of affairs would be states not being able to take over a territory). The second half of this argument also fails to discredit "deterrence". If we take the contention about "deterrence" to mean: >Any party with a nuke isn't going to be fucked with by other parties, so a state only needs to be large enough to build a nuke Under the premise that everyone have "high-tech military hardware" (say, recreational nukes), then clearly deterrence will reduce the size of the state until individuals become their own state, ergo there will be no state. Alternatively, if we take it that states are supposed to have better nukes than individuals, then clearly it is not inevitable that "someone with bigger guns" will take over under this contention. Also, Hoppe wrote on the private production of defense: https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense Aside from the above, I think the primary problem with the argument that "the state has bigger guns than you, so anarchy is impossible" is that it myopically focuses on military hardware as the sole determinant of state power. To explore this, we can ask why the US, despite having nominally the most well-funded and equipped military in the world, doesn't have unilateral control over all of it. For sure, it is the biggest whale in the pond. But many interactions, voluntary and involuntary, happen outside US influence. There are many explanations to this that rely on state militaries and "deterrence"--fear of mutually assured destruction, fear of military retaliation from other governments. But there are also political reasons--that the government may be seen as tyrannical and cruel, that the government needs to perpetuate conflict in third world countries to "justify" military spending, that the government simply doesn't care about these interactions, that the people who carry out these interactions stand in good favor with the US government, or that it would be too costly and resource intensive for the government to intervene in these interactions. We can also apply similar questions to the contention that 2A does nothing to protect our civil liberties, because in the words of Eric "Bang Fang" Swalwell, "the government has nukes". If so, why hasn't the government convinced every gun owner to turn in their guns under threat of nuking? Yes, the government has nukes, and theoretically, it is physically capable of deploying them against gun owners and vaporizing them, but is such a situation actually "possible"? Would it be politically viable? Even ignoring the contention of "deterrence" through retaliation--would the military be okay with gunning down their own families? Clearly, maintaining state power is not as simple as having the bigger gun. The fight against the state, both in its current incarnations and as an institution, is cultural. Voluntarism and anarchy win when people no longer believe the state has legitimate authority. Fighters and drones are good and all, but they are built, fueled, maintained, and operated by people--and people can change their minds. I think that in recent times, governments have recognized this. That's why they focus less on overt military control and much more on control of the media and the education system. > Why are NigSocs like this? The reason that NigSocs are prone to thinking like this (though it isn't exclusive to them) is for two reasons. Firstly, Nazi Germany is mostly remembered for World War II, so there's inevitably a big focus on military conquest. Secondly, they have bought into a particular religion of the state with a fetish for big public works projects and big military hardware. Governments are immune to market signals, and in order to establish their authority, they have to rely on the "seen"--that is why they historically have spent so many resources on constructing monuments to their own power (in the Nazis' case, BIGGER GUNS and BIGGER TANKS) with no regard to whether they actually do anything to help people economically. They justify these expenditures by saying that they have created something too glorious for the private sector to build. And they are right--the private sector would not have built these things, but that's because the private sector isn't fucking retarded.
>>4216 Thank you, I'm still new here. So I might lack in the knowledge here and there. He went back to the beginning of our arguement about covenant communites about how they'd be taken over. Basically we went into a full circle after this arguement, and I decided to just end it there.
>>4218 We're all learning, my dude.
(111.50 KB 1236x1043 photo_2021-01-12_16-14-28.jpg)

>>4221 Why has this board been *Abandoned* for some time now? Do we not have a BO anymore? Or am I tripping gold? And I meant that I was new to AnCap, I used to be a centrist till I've come here and this clicked with me more than the other ones I've read. I found I never quite liked Fascism/NatSoc and I hated Communism since I was born in an post-Communistic country where everything is fucked by unity between people is restored. I hope this place gets repopulated once again, wishes of a newbie.
>>4222 (checked) Idk. The most I can say is that people just dropped off after the multiple exoduses. If there's some secret club where all the ancaps are hiding I'm not aware of it.
>>4223 How would we solve the continued censorship of the public Internet? I know that many entities are also involved in it, including the government. Introducing a new law?
>>4224 We can say a lot about how the government is responsible for the current mess (In-Q-Tel, subsidized education, Fed funny money, discrimination/harassment legislation), but practically speaking, I don't see how we can get legislation changed at present. Ultimately defeating censorship at the government level would require a large-scale cultural/political shift, which may or may not come about as a result of the lockdowns' long-term economic consequences and the New Deal-esque nonsense that the Biden/Harris admin seems to be leaning towards. The most viable route currently seems to be alternative platforms like Gab, BitChute, and Odysee; failing that, decentralized services like ZeroNet, the Fediverse, or Secure Scuttlebutt, or IRL networking. Unlike prior deplatformings (e.g. InfoWars, 8chan), this one was noticed by at least tens of millions of people--taking down Trump's Twitter account is not something that anyone can just memoryhole. I think, in the long run, it will turn out that the social media companies overplayed their hand.
Are these people okay? What is their end goal by antagonizing Libertarians? https://www.unz.com/article/did-milton-friedmans-libertarianism-seek-to-advance-jewish-interests/
>>4238 I didn't read very deeply in the article, because the genealogy and history stuff seem to hop everywhere without any real focus. It looks like the author's economic contentions are against Friedman's support of central banking; he raises as an alternative the free banking system that Rothbard supported, which are two different approaches to banking adopted by people who call themselves libertarians. That's why he says "Milton Friedman's libertarianism" as opposed to "libertarianism". Ancaps (including myself) favor free banking by definition. The motivations of the proponents of the banking system are irrelevant to the answer.
>>4238 JFC, libertarians get called anti-semitic by the left ( https://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-long-history-racism-anti-semitism-311748 ), and they get called pro-Jewish by the right! Make up your mind, are we anti-semitic or are we shabbo goys?!
>>4248 In the middle, like the cuckservatives.
(87.93 KB 1280x720 sad anime girl.jpg)

Will this board ever be claimed by anyone? I don't have time personally and it's kind of sad seeing it abbandoned.
what the fuck is "intellectual property" ?
>>4282 Intellectual property (IP) is a classification given to the class of legally-protected rights to non-scarce goods – such as ideas, music, and the expression of patterns. The three most common categories of intellectual property are copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
>>4273 If it gets flooded by anything that's not allowed, I'll claim it under me. I'm the BO of /library/, if you guys will have me.
>>4273 /monarchy/ here to inform /liberty/ that there is no longer a personal union. The 5th king Ramses II said there won't be a personal union unless there is a plebiscite requesting personal union instead of independence from /monarchy/. However, /monarchy/ BO isn't libertarian. I don't think you'd want to be lorded over like a colony, don't you, /liberty/? The only benefit would be benevolent neglect & a colonial viceroy (volunteer) from /liberty/ to watch over you.
>>4226 I think the future is going to be federated, decentralized services like ZeroNet, etc..
>>4295 The end of an era... But now I really wonder what's going to happen to this board?
(33.25 KB 640x423 photo_2021-01-30_22-03-42.jpg)

>>4297 Nothing really, it'll continue as it has now if nothing major happens down the future, if it does I'll immediately claim it OR we could take their deal under a new personal union and periodically fix our issues as they have stated.
Old BO, just wanted to say I'm glad to see this place didn't die completely in my absence. The multiple exodous, combined with most of my activity on here just replying to the same questions again and again, just burned me out on the board and imageboards in general. I might still lurk from time to time going forwards though. Long live the new BO.
>>4370 No worries, I'll gladly give the BO status back to you if you ever feel like coming back. Nowadays, I see giving answers to the same questions again and again as initiation to our side.
Is this the most popular place for ancaps or is there a larger hub somewhere else?
>>1585 In a world where no money is printed (you know, the one that you seem to want) and there is a fixed amount of money in circulation, then one person gaining money must logically entail another losing it. Or am I misunderstanding you here?
>>3964 *neurotypicals FTFY
Would a libertarian society embrace the idea of vaccine passports? I understand that businesses would have the right to deny service and/or employment to unvaccinated (or even vaccinated) individuals, but how many of them would embrace passports without state propaganda?
>>4427 Considering how this virus has a 0.01% death rate... I highly doubt many businesses would actually support vaccine passports. It would just mean less people could come in, making them less money.
>>4428 Businesses will do it to virtue signal. You can't rely on pure profit to dictate corporate behavior when their marketing arm is listening to Twitter. They're worried vaccinated people will be turned away.
>>4427 They'd certainly be a thing, but a lot of places wouldn't use them. Without state propaganda, there most likely wouldn't be the mass hysteria there is now, effectively making the concept of requiring passes much less of a profitable idea. The only places I could see actually wanting passes are A. Businesses owned by lefty-types, and B. Social venues that have large crowds. In the case of the latter, it depends on how many people are avoiding large crowds because of the Wuflu, and again, it likely wouldn't be as many without previously-mentioned propaganda.
What would the age of consent be in your private community, Anon?
(151.31 KB 249x364 jthnybgtevfrcedswaq.png)

If liberty is more important than security and material wealth, who's gonna build the roads and stop people from having buttsex? Checkmate, libertarians.
(52.04 KB 700x400 download (4).jpeg)

Oh nooooooo, I didn't think about that. My entire ideology is ruined now, noooooooo.
>>4518 >stop people from having buttsex? We will
>>4518 kys
(148.59 KB 893x876 ihatecommiescum.png)

Also it's libertine principles that increase material wealth as well as access to essential services, faggot. Just admit you don't know jack shit about what goes on in the world around you LARPing communigger.
(608.67 KB 650x1350 lsmug.png)

>Imagine having an ideology so fucking stupid that people having buttsex is one of your biggest issues. >Imagine caring so much about what other people do that you are willing to give your money and rights to the state just to stop them. >Imagine your first approach to faggotry not being "Lmao who gives a shit". >Imagine being worried about "Muh people" or about "Muh race", when good economic policy would already intensivize people to have more children. Imagine focusing on pie in the sky concepts like race, nation or community instead of discussing actual issues and pushing for tried and true strategies that increase quality of life for everyone. >Imagine LARPing about being in some kind of great war while the state keeps fucking you in the ass. >Imagine not caring about being able to create a system where you can buy things cheaply and make money however you want. >Imagine not realising that free market is responsible for decreasing poverty and bettering the standards of living. >Imagine justifying government attrocities because you think they won't turn against you. >Imagine not understanding the mechanisms of power. >Imagine adhering to any commie-derived ideology >Imagine wanting to control people and thinking you won't be fucked over instead. <Then remember that you are libertarian and none of this applies to you.
>>4517 Depends on the child.
>>4529 If the US government actual started following the constitution it would eventually filter out the majority of niggers, mutts, and non whites in general, without actually being directed at them.
>>4554 Perhaps,if race is indeed causing crime and those problems. If race is merely correlated then still, the criminals would be punished. No matter your views on race, libertarianism is the best option
>>4528 I wish there was an uncensored version of this.
(298.83 KB 1000x1000 Water-RC-Hovercraft.jpg)

(215.37 KB 1160x773 mountain-bike-5.jpg)


(71.56 KB 800x532 Sikorsky S300.jpg)

>>4518 >b-b-but muh roads and sheeit!!!!!!!! Fuck roads, if you want a road so badly build your own.
(866.41 KB 1024x768 seasteading.jpg)

>>4600 If we have an ancap seastead we wouldn't even need roads.
>>926 I don't know what communists believe, but I did notice that they protected private property the same, if not more than the current capitalists.
>>4642 Its not private property if the owner doesn't have ultimate say over it. I'd like to see sources on what communist "private property" was "protected". >but current corporate neo-liberal states don't protect anything Irrelevant.
>>1798 Are you going to make children with one of a different race or not? If so, how many babies do you want to have?
(2.87 MB 502x574 1635362170577.webm)

in a libertarian society should people who advocate for central banking be arrested?
>>4685 No, just severely and completely mocked.
(157.57 KB 779x831 boxcars.png)

This board is being spammed by some bot posting libertarian blackpills. He's active on other sites. Just enter any of it's post into any search engine and you can see the same post being posted on other places.
>>4685 No, but if somebody like that was murdered, and I was in the jury, I'd give an innocent verdict until the end of time, no matter what my other jurors might say. >>4842 Yeah, niggerpill is everywhere, and he's incredibly uncreative.
>>5023 Niggerpill doesn't spam dead threads.
(190.67 KB 700x700 Teh Gates.png)

What's the most Libertarian OS that's humanly possible to run. >inb4 build your own from scratch I'm not that autistic, hell I don't actually plan on changing from my current setup that being Linux Mint, I'm just merely curious as to what the answer is.
>>5086 Windows 7
>>5087 >OS that actively censors you even when writing in simple text document programs Nah I'd rather not especially since they're slowly going the Mac route with their hybrid between Xbox and Wingblows becoming more prominent. Soon you won't be able to install anything outside of the (((Microcock))) store. Also I don't have over 90000 Nigabytes of RAM to spare on bloatware.
>>5086 the answer is either Tails or QubesOS tbh, although I don't think anyone would be able to run Tails on a daily basis, QubeOS with Whonix as a daily drive IS possible but dunno if it would be suitable for ya, just try it out and see. other than that, I'd say just stick to some Linux distro (sadly, IF you do wanna a "libertarian" distro, you will have to pick something you build from scratch like a Gentoo or Void) and run Whonixon a virtual machine and do all your browser (that does not have any personal identification) on Whonix (if you really don't wanna go the Gentoo/Void route, just stick to stuff like Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian then). >>5087 (((Microsoft))) and does not even receives security updates anymore.
>>5094 >does not even receives (((security updates))) anymore.

(7.90 KB 271x186 download.jpg)

Nazism is increasingly present in our lives, join the movement!
Why would a libertarian willingly be a socialist? Get fucked.
>>5218 To say one more thing, you guys have some pretty big issues with some of our major authors being Mises, Rothbard, and Block (all Jews)--right? Also, we wrote a whole book against your economic policies (Vampire Economics). Why, why would you even think to advertise here?
>>5219 >Mises, Rothbard, and Block Any evidence of them raping goyim children, supporting mass importation of brown criminals into Europe/America, trying to turn children into faggots, etc?
Jews claimed these ideas as their own but liberty predates these jews and exists independently of them. Plus, you can be racist and at the same time not have to cuck yourself for your aryan brothers, as liberty isn't just the freedom to do what you want but also freedom restrict others from doing things with you. It baffles me how against globalism nazis are , but are all in favor of those same globalist practice if its a smaller group. One can imagine if space-aliens came along, how eager nazis would be to form communes against them with niggers and jews just as much as they are eager to with different kinds of whites.
>>1337 I want you to apologize and say you were wrong.
>>5220 Bro, are you really trying to "They're not real Jews" No True Scotsman your way out of this? How much more clear cut of a case do you need than Mises?! The Nazis ran him out of the country and destroyed half his library ffs! Also, again, your economics are socialist, your policies are socialist, the fucking name of your party is socialist, and you come to a libertarian board with a libertarian message expecting libertarian support?! What kind of poorly paid FBI-sponsored agitprop are you, are you even reading the operational briefs?! Do you have any logic or thought process behind why this isn't a colossal waste of your time?
>>5229 >are you really trying to "They're not real Jews" No True Scotsman your way out of this? That's what you got from my post? Rereading what I wrote, it seems a lot more like "muh based jews" or "one of the good ones" to me. Though I suppose if raping children is a requirement to being a jew, and Mises didnt rape kids, then yeah I guess Mises wasn't a jew. That's not what I had in mind when I replied though. >>5229 >your economics are socialist, your policies are socialist, the fucking name of your party is socialist lol what nigger? im the only non-Torfag in this thread, please cite where i said i was socialist? Do you know how to read IDs?
Honest question: what made you guys so bitter that you actually bought into this bullshit? It's pretty insane tbh, like have none of you ever met non-white people before?
>>5231 Who are you even talking to? Are you asking libertarians why they buy into equality? (some of us don't btw). are you asking natsocs why they buy into racism? maybe if you stop using Tor we could have an intelligible conversation. As of now I'm not convinced >>5210 >>5218 >>5219 >>5221 >>5229 >>5231 aren't all the same guy arguing with himself
(3.66 MB 1800x2000 whats your real name.png)

>>5232 Who are you even talking to?! Maybe if you stop using an anonymous imageboard and went on twitter we could have an intelligible conversation. As of now I'm not convinced >>5210 >>5218 >>5219 >>5221 >>5229 >>5231 >>5232 aren't all the same guy arguing with himself.
Americans say that there is no possible way for the government to shut down the Internet.
>>5249 I don't say that
You have rights and then they are taken away. You can’t obey the law in a police state because everything is illegal. Being good or bad doesn’t matter because eventually the Gestapo comes for everyone.
>>5016 >Americans think >>5159 >Americans are >Americans scream >Americans think >Americans say >>5223 >Americans scream >>5244 >Americans may >>5249 >Americans say >>5254 >Americans scream >>5256 >Americans used to >>5260 >Americans said >>5263 >Americans say >>5275 >Americans say >>5276 >Americans want >>5282 >Americans scream >>5288 >Americans scream You're found out
Any libertyfags interested in having a custom CSS theme made for the /liberty/ board? If you have ideas for how the board should be designed, discuss & let me know what you want it to look like. If you also don't have a custom spoiler image, that would be another item worth discussing on the design. If you already have a custom spoiler image, please ignore this part of the post.
is there any way to contact the BO? for any private questions
(4.77 KB 1185x70 ClipboardImage.PNG)

9chan is closing down on the 14th Since there's a bunker there, you might want to archive and grab anything from there before it shuts down
>>926 What is the best book on basics of economics for someone who knows nothing about economics? btw, as a curiosity, I found out that there was a Swedish speaking Finn called Anders Chydenius, who apparently had very similar or same ideas as Adam Smith had in The Wealth of Nations. Chydenius wrote a book titled "The National Gain": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Gain https://chydenius.kootutteokset.fi/en/kirjoituksia/den-nationella-vinsten/
>>5528 You don't need a book. The only axioms in economics that are empirically proven true are: the Law of Supply and Demand: when there's more of something and it's easier to obtain, it is not worth as much Gresham's Law: bad coin drives out good, like in the old days when there were coins made of precious metal, the (((usual suspects))) would shave them down and then spend the mutilated coins, and immediately everyone hoarded undamaged coins and only spent the shaved down ones Everything else in economics is blind men in a dark room talking about a black cat that isn't there. It's all bullshit, all mental masturbation, except for, and I'm going to repeat them: things that are rare are worth more people don't like damaged goods There. I just saved you the trouble of buying and reading a book.
>>5528 >What is the best book on basics of economics for someone who knows nothing about economics? I did more research and the best book that I found was Economics In One Lesson.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply