Hoppean Libertarianism General

Statecucks BTFO edition.

Also filling my libertarian meme folder, gonna appreciate any help.

Bump

R O A D S

>claims to be a libertarian
>praises one of the most authoritarian dictators ever

retards cant into private property

lolbertarian
kek

This, I really hate this meme.

>roadcucks still can't even tell the difference between ancapism and libertarianism
Do you even know how funds for roads are generally begotten, dear roadcuck?

He purged communists. Nothing wrong with that, it is necessary that communists are cleansed for true libertarianism. He also then proceeded to redemocratize and now Chile is one of the most prosperous countries in South America.

helicopter bump

>it is necessary that communists are cleansed for true libertarianism
This is authoritarianism.

>killing is okay when we do it

>Right wing dictatorship admirer
>Libertarian
What

...

(((Mises)))

He killed commies and protected the free market, dipshit

Hoppe is not needed at the moment. His system can only deal with few bad apples - but right now half of the fucking barrel is poisoned. We can give his ideas a test run after we've cleaned up the world for good, and for that we need fascism, or even better, tradinionalist imperialism.

>Its okay to expand the government if youre dealing with commies
Fuck right off if you think any totalitarianism can work with libertarianism.

>I kill people based on their political beliefs
>I prevent people from acquiring different political beliefs
>I am not an authoritarian
>I am not doing what all other totalitarian states did ever
Why do you feel such a need to call yourself a libertarian? ffs, just admit you aren't.

Hoppean libertarianism makes fascism look tame tbqhfam

libertarians who believe in unlimited free dildo are in performative contradiction and intellectual inconsistency. Libertarianism is based solely on private property and contract of division of labor.

Youre not libertarian if you dont allow freedom of beliefs political and religious.

If we want a libertarian society, we have to eliminate those who threaten to take it away.

Their political beliefs include forced egalitarianism and deny of property rights.
They attempt to infest modern society with these ideas.

Killing them is an act of self defence.

The state should be abolished but as long as one exists, it is preferable it is one that makes leftists fear for their lives.

It does in some areas, not necesseraly so much with (true) traditionalism though. In any case, I think there is quite literally no time to implement it though - it is much easier to gain allies and (public) support for fascism/national socialism or traditionalism at the moment, whereas Hoppe's ideas would have to quite literally masquerade as fascism anyway (in order to sell it to the masses, since they won't be able to understand it), so I'd just go with fascism in the first place and then worry about putting a Hoppean spin on it after WW3 is won.

"you are not a libertarian if you dont believe in unlimited free dildo and polyamory"
you dont know what you are talking about. Utilitarianism isn't libertarianism; its communism.

You just become a statist monster and we know that power corrupts.
If they try anything we kill them. Persecuting them with a state secret police goes against libertarianisms values

i posted the mises quote here btw

Were talking about libertarianism, not your obsessions with dildos.

what is your definition of libertarianism

Saved. I love fresh throwing leftists from helicopter memes. I only have this one to share.

Maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing the value of political freedom, voluntary association, and the importance of individual judgment.

11/25/16

I'm not a person that would be generarly triggered by memes, but this hijacking of libertarian imagery by right ring authoritarians rustles my jimmies hard.

Killing Marxists is like killing feral hogs, it's ok when ANYONE does it.

It reeks of attempted subversion by collectivist fascists and authoritarians. Not all collectivists wear red or pink.

Is this a democracy?

>doesn't want to be cucked by government
>wants to be cucked by corporations instead

Lolbertarianism in a nutshell

Hoppe snake is a great meme. No bully.

Being a libertarian is about reducing violations of negative freedoms to the max. If you think it's okay to kill people because they don't agree with you, you're not a libertarian.

Government in libertarianism is there to protect the individual. Were not ancaps. Besides government cucking involves paying for schools to teach your kids how to use buttplugs or arresting you for saying something mean on the internet.

This exactly how Hitler justified his prosecution of political opponents

Hitler was a true libertarian after all

Democratic Republics are most in line with libertarianism

DELET THIS

this is a utilitarian notion and is completely arbitrary you have no logical foundation for your society and it will degenerate into socialism always by definition.

What is the basis of negative rights? Private property. You cant make a logical case to both limit and protect private property.

Don't worry leaf. We only bully communist and heretics. :3

no government is consistent with libertarianism
socialism is the antithesis of libertarianism
if monarchy is private government, the public (socialist) government would be democracy and will always degenerate into socialism whenever you give the majority the ability to redistribute the wealth/ property of the minority.

JPII and Hoppe would have been bros.

ofc, Hoppe understands the value of a conservative community and lowering of time preference as the basis for civilization

...

He's a symbol for physical removal.

more based hoppe

...

What is private property?

Thiel will be attending Hoppe's Freedom and Property society conference September this year.

Leftists already crying racism and relating to Trump

In simple terms personal ownership

What is personal ownership? Why are you dividing yourself into parts?

I love how paleolibertarianism proudly and without shame stands on the shoulders of almost 3000 years of western civilization.

property ownership means the exclusive control of a particular person over specific physical objects and spaces.

I dont understand what you mean dividing yourself into parts

people have forgotten the basis for civilization in the age of democracy and secularism.

Ok, I thought you meant something different.

Can't that control be divided up between different people. Imagine some theater: on tuedays, group X can use it; on thursdays, it's group Y; etc. That is, rights of use over a particular thing are not concentrated on a single individual but on several.

No it cannot. The original owner can rent out or sell based on contract but someone will retain ownership at all times. There is no such thing as public property in a libertarian society. This avoids any conflict over proper use or tragedy of commons.

The question he's asking is more fundamental than what you can DO with private property. He's asking why private property property exist. The reason being: Private property is a natural and essential out of Natural Law.

To clarify he's asking the why and how it exist. You have to answer those question before you can say what it is.

no my definition is apriori and is not based on natural law.

example:
Your body is your private property based on original appropriation and exploitation. To argue that private property does not exist you would be in a performative contradiction as if your body was not your own you would not be able to speak.

But if you rent something, you're doing exactly what I said. If you own the theater and you rent it out to different groups, you're ceding your right to use that theater on that given day to that given group.
Note you defined property ownership as " the exclusive control of a particular person over specific physical objects and spaces". If I can cede that control to other parties, then according to this definition, I would temporarily lose my ownership over that good. Do you want to rephrase your definition?

>libertarian
>authoritarian dictatorship
Pick one.

And even if he wasn't a dictator and symbol of authoritarianism/statism, he's still a general.
Army is a state institution, and salaries of the officer corps are paid from the taxpayer money. So when they are praising Pinochet and his "helicopter rides" they are shilling for the state, even when they think they aren't.
Libertards just cannot avoid getting self-owned all the time, can they?

no.
You do not cede ownership. You grant temporary use. When you rent an apartment do you own the apartment or is it still owned by the landlord?

This is my point. So, what is property ownership?

Not Hoppe, but you're being obtuse. If I'm renting out my theater, I'm permitting someone to use it for X amount of time with whatever restrictions are given. That doesn't come close to exclusive control over specific objects and places.

Your definition is based on 2 thing. Discovery first and force.

It's not wrong perse only incomplete. You're describing an observation of how people can maintain private property. You're ignoring what private property actually is.

Pinochet was in no way a libertarian, but he is a symbol for the removal of commie filth from society. Even libertarians could appreciate his method of leftist removal by helicopter.

Neither you nor the rentee have exclusive control. If by renting that means you are not allowed to use your property for a given limited amount of time, your control is not exclusive. And the rentee's control is obviously not exclusive since they have to ask you to have it.

Im doing this of the top of my head i dont have the definition on me.

Private property is exclusive control
the rest is functionality.

it is exclusive. Think about it mate.

The owner may choose not to rent to you or he may add in clause whenever tenant is being dense and cant understand basic english he will get evicted from the highest floor.

the tenant cannot rent out the same property without permission from owner.

Not when I can tell them to pack their shit and get out.

Have you never rented an apartment before?

I'm talking about what happens after the contract is signed not before.
That extra clause you mentioned has to be specifically added. That means you can revoke the rentee's right of use of the property you own under a specific circumstance.

This depends on the contract.

It depends on the contract. In most countries, you can't without compensating the rentee. This is like you signing a contract with your employers for 1 year and after 2 months he fires you for no reason.

I did. That's why I think you are oversimplifying this too much.

Hitler removed commies as well, would libertarians praise a totalitarian regime because of this? As if the enemy of your enemy should necessarily be your friend.

Time preference and marginal utillity post 1

Thanks for the image.

It's very true really though, communists aren't people.

The owner is the exclusive owner.
You are a tenant.
What is the conflation?

I posted the mises quote here :

Post more sneks

>communists

...

>The owner is the owner
good tautology

What I want is for you to define what property ownership is. You guys alluded to "exclusive control". I said the control wasn't exclusive, you disagreed. So, I want you to define what you mean by "exclusive".

>killing authoritarians
>authoritarian
jej

Every authoritarian is authoritarian on a particular direction. If you don't follow it and are instead an authoritarian in a different direction, he will want you dead.

Im stuck with tautology because you are not grasping basic definitions. This is not an origin of language discussion.

Can the tenant ever have exclusive control?

No. I'm saying neither the tenant nor the owner have exclusive control.

Yeah

I asked only about the tenant.

Now can the owner have exclusive control given he rents to no one?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is still alive, someone should ask him what he think about all these dorks rallying around "physical removal principle" libertarianism

It depends on how the rights are laid out. My general answer is no. You can't do whatever you wish inside or with your property.

If we want a communist society we have to eliminate those who want to take it away
ftfy

...

Corporations are a legal entity, a derivative of the state.

Hitler never believed in free market economics. Why are you so triggered?