Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the intellectual God of Sup Forums. He runs a society who's very basis is 'discussing politically incorrect topics'. I don't even need to say anymore.
Educate yourself user's, this is the philosophical theory of what we strive for, it may not be reached in our lifetimes but its process can begin with Trump perhaps giving more rights to states and making the federal government smaller to save money. Not to mention his political incorrectness, helping to destroy egalitarianism.
Watch the video, its not typical AnCap, its Rightist
Ryder Cooper
My problem with libertarianism is how does anyone prevent mass murderers or large groups forming conquering for land?
Jackson Gutierrez
>tfw too intelligent to swallow pills
John Brooks
just started reading the book Democracy the god that failed, it's from 2001 but parts of the intro are like a literate and articulate Sup Forums poster
also, >america not only ruined the middle east but ruined europe by removing our monarchies
James Adams
Hah same here. I recently discovered him well. He is the articulate philosopher of Sup Forums's philosophy. The only natural conclusion to a politically incorrect society apparently. (((Democracy))) is just communism-lite that will inevitably turn into communism with government size only increasing.
REPEAL THE 20th CENTURY!
Christian Cooper
Okay, I've been studying up on this.
I get the black and yellow part, the helicopter part, but why a snake?
Carter Thomas
DONT YOU FUCKING DARE TO TREAD ON ME OR MY WIFE'S SON EVER AGAIN
Joseph Ramirez
How does Libertarianism prevent the formation of states?
Logan Martin
It doesn't It's just an utopia for antisocial people like some of us
Alexander King
The statists, communists, egalitarianists have to be physically removed, so to speak
Aaron Rodriguez
>(((Democracy))) is just communism-lite that will inevitably turn into communism with government size only increasing.
The Federalist Papers essentially predicted this, and prescribed the constitution's system of checks and balances as a cure. And that system worked pretty well for ~200 odd years. Imho, however, the outsize, almost inconceivable amounts of money available to globalist titans post-NAFTA has come very close to wrecking the founders' vision, with a hopeful, but realistically probably rather slim chance that Trump may rectify things.
Bentley Diaz
This is why I am sure that Libertarianism is as said nothing but an utopia. Its required premise alone is highly utopical, as it requires a people homogenous in ideology that freely agree on libertarian values. Libertarianism requires a very strict mindset, creating a paradox in the strive for liberty. Therefore I think, that Libertarianism can not actually work outside the framework of a community or state that agrees on libertarian principle and to establish a communal entity that will enforce these ideals by getting rid of people inside the community that oppose them.
Jaxon Hill
>intellectual redpill
the minute you decide browsing Sup Forums and imageboards in general is a good way to spend your free time your brain starts turning to mush.
There are so many lectures you could be watching right now. So many books you could be reading. So many ideas worth consdiering and analysing.
Instead you worship youtube e-celebs because they make fun of muh SJWs and live in a retarded echochamber because you are alienated and were never provided a good education.
Ian Jenkins
Hans Hermann-Hoppe is not a youtube eCeleb, and I would recommend his lectures and books. Nice of you to not even read my post.
David Thomas
You ancap cats need to be more realistic about human nature.
Watch a Western sometime -- a *lot* of politics built into those (see, e.g., Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation) -- one of the ones where there's no law and order.
Shane is not one of my favorites, but it would do.
What I'm saying is, what the guy is saying in pic related is totally unrealistic. The "absence of initiatory violence" is only the norm when the state *has* a monopoly on violence in the sense of an effective police force.
Grayson Powell
>There are so many (((lectures))) you could be watching right now. >So many (((books))) you could be reading. >So many (((ideas))) worth consdiering and analysing.
Michael Thompson
Well in libertarianism I suppose city states could form but there would not be things like taxes. It would be a community of dialogue. Hoppe predicts a society of city states with perhaps different rules of who could enter there but the point is there would be no formal state other than group cooperation.
Thanks to American Jews because I can watch lectures and books from MIT and Stanford, calculus and computational maths. Jews are making the world a better place and the American economy stronger.
Ayden Williams
>American education.
Please be b8.
Henry Bailey
The problem with city states will be that somehow they will have to secure their values. So let's say one of those city states forms. It is made up of peope who all share the same libertarian values. The city states grows in population. Over time, not everyone agrees with the values completely anymore. Minorities in thought start to form. Now in an utopia, I assume, these people would be willing to split up from the city state, to either join one that fits their values, or form their own city state. But as we do not live in utopia, these people will likely feel too invested in the city state to simply leave it. Furthermore, they will be economically dependent on living in the city state. Therefore, they will want their voices to be heard, and the values of the city state to be adjusted. So what exactly can a Libertarian society do in a situation like this without restricting the minoritie's liberty? And more importantly, who decides on the meassures and who enforces them?
Evan Phillips
are you doing the MIT challenge?
Oliver Garcia
These city states of course would not violate private property so I don't see how minority groups could have any grievances since they would be free to do what they like on their private property.
But yes I suppose these city states or rather communities probably wouldn't get too densely populated to avoid conflicts.
Wyatt Jenkins
Found the kikes.
Seriously though. You can take your ted talks and meme lectures and shove them right up your ass.
Nathan Long
These communities would really only decide who would be allowed to own property in their borders. Once a person owns property, well that person cannot impose his will and affect others property, and vice versa. So I don't see how a conflict could come about.
When we talk about minority, I assume any disaffected party, not a racial issue.
Joshua Cox
I concur. Basically before the 20th century, there was more liberty in our world than what we have now under present day democracy, which is what I was referring to.
Blake Gomez
Also as is most frequently mentioned by Hoppe, any minorities who would want to decide to create a state or enforce welfare and the like would have to be 'physically removed' from society.
Alexander Hall
The issues will most likely arise in areas where people are forced to interact for their survival. Assuming that not everyone will be able to sustain themselves without any trade. >These communities would really only decide who would be allowed to own property in their borders. So there must be certain criteria that has to be met in order to aquire the right to own property, right? What happes then, when once aquired the right, one does not meet the criteria anymore?
Carson Evans
...
Thomas Barnes
Well criteria would be discriminatory on the person. This would be allowed. So if the person lets say entered the community, went from having conservative traditional views and then became a flamboyant openly gay man. Well its an interesting scenario, one could say as long as he doesn't cause trouble nothing would happen. I mean you can imagine how such a thing would be viewed in a village before the 20th century, would most likely be kept secret because it would clearly be known to that property owner based on the criteria in which he entered, that it would cause a problem.
Connor Williams
>'physically removed' from society. Isn't the most basic definition and function of a state to be the entity that upholds the rules of the society? So once societies start remove people, will this not, in the long-term, result in a similar geo-political situation which we have today, where societies fight for their rightful claims of property, with each party claiming that they act in defense, or fight a society whose values and development might endanger the own society as time progresses?
Asher Rodriguez
Perhaps yes, the key difference is there would be no state property that """"everyone"""" owns. Only private property to specific owners. And also this 'state' would by its very nature not have taxes or enforce rules on private property, since it would remove those that wish to do such things. So yes you could call it a 'libertarian state' I guess. I am no expert of course just philosophizing.
Ethan Long
> buy off politicians > AnCap society Stopped reading there
Cooper Smith
>I am no expert of course just philosophizing. I am in the same boat. So do not understand my questions as objections.
Jack Powell
I concur, wish we had some more people to discuss with, perhaps more knowledgeable, but its just us 2 now
Jack Reyes
I wonder then would there be such a "volunteer" state or government who's only purpose would be to prevent a government who enforce rules and taxes from forming. An interesting concept.