How is libertarian left possible?

I don't understand how wanting a socialized economy, in which businesses are forced to work "for the public good", is not an authoritarian concept.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UTVbZ-Df7AQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Confederalism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

dude, you like, just, want to work for the greater good of others . Being selfless is cool my dude

Have you considered the fact that businesses are not people?

If you wear enough fedoras and smoke enough weed it's easily possible.

dude if we all just like work together and like be socialist and stuff, it'll work out bro

>tfw no dom lib-left gf

is anyone forced to work for businesses? live off the land you citified dumbass.

>I want to smoke pot, suck nigger dicks and collect welfare
t.libertarian left

The left is always authoritarian. The issue is that people think that the modern right wing is right wing when in actuality they are still left wing even if they are less left leaning that the actual left. So yeah, you are right OP.

Daily reminder that anyone not in the purple quadrant should be hanged.

Business are ran by people and those people pay the taxes to fund leftward economic policies. Those people follow the regulations set in place to control businesses.

Of course, once you get really far-left economically, then all industry must be nationalized and this is necessarily authoritarian.

who's gonna pay for it, asshole?

youtube.com/watch?v=UTVbZ-Df7AQ

The leftist ideology cannot be dissociated from autoritarianism.
Liberterian left doesn't exist, but the retards who want to smoke weed everyday without having to work somehow think they are libertarians.

>in which businesses are forced to work "for the public good"
That's not how it works you fucking retard. Socialism is not the same as communism you stupid Amerikike.

By necessity, such a society quickly turns red.

Honestly this.

well logically you can't get to any of the corners without an overabundance of resource. the square should be circled, to represent that if you're "Lawful Good" you must make concessions from law to good and vice versa

...

This. Left libertarianism is a paradox.

Socialism is partial communism. Instead of taking 100% of what you produce they take 60%. What's funny is that the "right wing capitalists" take 45%.

>If I chop someones head off is bad, but if I only chop his hand off its ok because its less. lul

technically that is exactly what tax is, and it is a neccessary evil.... currently

Forcibly taking and transferring people's money is an authoritarian act.

>b-but we're not taking all of your money, just 60% of it!!

Fuck off. Still the use of force and coercion.

Controlling narratives. The lib-left focus on social control alongside an economic policy.

It's not possible. You can't redistribute wealth by force and still consider your society to have economic freedom.

>far left
>nations and businesses
You may want to do some reading on this subject.

The libertarian-left is only possible in very small groups.

The requirements are that society at large is libertarian-right and then you and a group of like-minded individuals form a commune. The ability to leave the commune needs to exist and there needs to be a method of kicking people who don't actually participate out. Otherwise it gets bogged-down. Those are the major failings of any attempts to force widespread adoption of it. You either get people who do nothing and expect to live a comfortable life at the expense of others or people aren't allowed to leave if they don't like how the thing is run.

You guys decide to pool your resources to build a water tower.
One guy grows potatoes while another guy raises chickens.

Most examples of this are highly religious. The Amish or Mennonites, for instance.

They still trade with the outside world, but within their community, they just do what they can together. The easiest method to fund such a venture would be through sales of software or other intellectual properties to people outside the commune.

ill do it for free

Only if they attempt to violate your rights, user. Then it's fair game. :)

Close to the center in the green square are non-randian libertarians.

They may not have a problem with single payer healthcare or social security. They see the monopoly man as potentially just as bad as the stalin man, or the hitler man or the theocracy man.

The green square away from the center seems to be people who won't admit the possibility of winners and losers but won't try to mandate a 'solution' like the red square people will. These are the Noam Chomsky's who seem to think everyone can win but won't ever come up with a real solution that could work because no such ti8ng ecxists

>how is Libertarian Left possible

Ask the Harper Conservative Party.

>believe in a free-unregulated global access to the market
>believe that government is hired for the well-being of citizens, but not fully responsible for their mistakes

By the end of it, he slowly turned into a Lawful-Good Leftist Fascist

He was such a good man.

Libertarian middle is the ultimate red pill. This is true arachno-decapitalism that everyone mistakenly attributes to lib right

They do it all the time. But they don't realize it because they lack principles and logic. But just like we don't punish little children who dont know any better we dont punish stupid statists who dont understand shit (95% of the western population). Just hide your money so they cant take it, just like you would hide knives from a toddler.

Libertarian left is shit like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania or other communes. It's functionally impossible as an independent entity because any non-state entity will be conquered or controlled or bullied by the state.

Such left-libertarian communes are kind of like monastic communities were in the past minus the industrious hardworking monastic communities. They exist for a select few to achieve their pseudo-gnostic liberation from the evils of the material world but are only possible by parasiting upon said material world.

Because freedom for people is not the same as "freedom" for businesses. Some might say they are in direct conflict with eachother.

I understand that anarcho-Communism is something on paper, but to say you will have no government and everyone will share in their work without government is a fantasy in any society more than a couple hundred people.

Anarchy is anarchy. Anything you attach to it, be it Communism, capitalism, or anything else is a fantasy without an enforcement mechanism.

Harper is an interesting individual. He's originally from Toronto and was actually a member of The Young Liberals. When asked about it, he said he "grew up". His biggest success was reigning in more socially conservative MP's. "Abortion? Gay marriage? Fuck that. We're not rehashing these arguments".

Despite acting fairly authoritarian, you can tell he still has libertarian leanings by virtue of his treatment of Maxime Bernier. Of all MP's, he's one of the very few that was actually given a "long leash".

>should be

We have to organize and authoritize for a bit to do it.

That's a pretty nice video, user. I really wish more people could calmly discuss things like this, rather than just yelling people down.

>only purple quadrant is free from hanging
>have to violate the NAP to hang others just for being in a different quadrant
>leaf

Rake yourself

If your business is successful at all (without graft or cronyism) it is almost by extension benefiting the public at large. Profits are progress.

Small transparent government that taxes to fund basic needs while preserving personal responsibility. You don't legislate cultural problems like faggots, drugs and abortion. If your culture is degenerate the government can't save it by banning shit.

Even starting down the path of striving for libertarian right results in corporate oligarchy and monopolies right away. Oligarchies can take control of a nation in under a decade in those kind of conditions. One of the main reason we need a government is to counter the oligarchs that are always ready to turn us into feudal serfs.

Both authoritarian squares are more practical than the libertarian right.

The green section does not exist. A lot of the 4x4 grid doesn't exist.

It's just a map of values that relate to politics

what else doesn't exist then annon?

People are businesses and businesses are people. It's easy to pretend you are regulating "business". It has a "public good" turn to it. In fact you are forbidding people from buying or selling, and I should say exchanging in general.
Since the spread of joint stock companies of very complex structures, it is very easy to pretend that the business is not made of people contrary to a small shop, but that's a complete non argument.

Why is your education so good?

post your compass result and your flag

The up down scale measures social progressiveness, not authoritarian tendencies, dude.

user...

NatSoc is much further NW than that.

Good goyims

anarcho-communism. Look up Rojava in Syria, its (sort-of) happening right now. Basically its tiny commie community cells that work together in super decentralized fashion.

Goyim is already plural of goy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Confederalism

Apparently no one here reads, but that is expected of this site.

National Bolsheviks can end up in green just as easily.

...

You are assuming the only thing that can infringe on your freedom is the government. Even if businesses are made up of people, they shouldn't have the power over people they currently have due to their wealth.
Do you believe freedom means having the freedom to infringe on someone elses freedom?

People think it's the green square would all be a hippy commune, which it is, but only at the surface level. It only works well when you have a small ethnic state like the Kurds in Rojava.

If youre not a conservative youre going to end up in the green

...this could not be more wrong

when the pressure hits, green turns to red or blue-aligned purple fast, pretty much every time

You're way off, buddy.

Everyone outside of the purple quadrant is an aggressor, thus they have violated the NAP in the first place by supporting with honest intention authoritarian practices. Since one cannot support the use of aggressive force without by extension saying it is fine for all humans to act aggressively towards all others, hanging them is merely the actualization of their premises.

If they complain, they are revealing that they have no reason for supporting government and aggressive force in the first place--meaning they deserve to die as repentance for being evil. If they don't complain, then they are admitting that hanging them is not an unethical act, and you have their consent to do so--meaning it's not aggression.

>the left is always authoritarian
No.

Green would be pic related.

>this is your worldview on Sup Forumsio

see

Or maybe an atlatl?

It predates the bow, has been used on every single continent except Antarctica and is what our ancestors used to hunt mammoths and other megafauna.

Why would libertarians have the weakest gun (aside from the dildo of course)? They should have something over the top like a shoulder-fire rocket launcher of some kind. Don't tread on REEEE

I have an idea for a business model I want to ask libertarians (economic right) if in their society this business model would be allowed.

I buy a bunch of land. I let people apply for a membership. Everyone who has a membership is allowed to live on my land and do business on my land. They do have to follow certain rules when doing business on my land and give a portion of the earnings to my company.

What do you say? Would you allow this business model?

The far bottom on both sides. Probably much of the red too.

Social liberalism != economic liberalism

Often quite the opposite.

Why wouldn't it? They just need to sign a contract. If one party breaks their end of the deal, then it goes to court.

>Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold

Demolish your house and return it to nature you fucking leaf; you don't own it.

Yes. The only reason why a government doing this is unethical is because membership isn't voluntary, and the land-owner uses aggressive force.

People can dream up all kinds of retarded shit. Probably 75% of the area on the political compass is not actually "possible" in the sense "can be put into practice by human beings." Once you accept this you can understand all manner of nonsense perpetrated by ideologues.

When I think of left-libertarianism I think of open borders, social-liberalism and of course dude weed.

lolbergtarianism is a contradiction in general. In right-lolbergtarianism your boss is your lord, in left-lolbergtarianism, pic related.

It is authoritarian, but it's not done by a United government, power isn't concentrated or centralised.

Practically it would be a whole lot of independant beauractic institutions. The extreme bottom left would be mob rule, a society government by its own majority and culture ostracising people for not following its own rules... basically a cult

There is one organization I know of that's a great example of the green square working. The Icelandic search and rescue is completely volunteer operated and funded. It's very efficient, organized, responsive and agile even though it's large. They are the closest thing we have to a military, the guys who know what to do when everyone else is lost. If it wasn't volunteer based it would turn politicized like FEMA, as it is they are an example the rest of the world desperately tries to follow.

I think it works mainly because of the heroic narrative, the volunteers like doing it in large part because of the narrative it creates for them as heroes and protectors.The optimal social structure would harness narratives more in these kinds of ways, banning things is very ineffective. Giving people meaning through participating in your narrative gives you productive participants that don't value degenerate things.

Right-libertarianism would be more in favor of open borders and free trade.

Because the majority of individuals can't actually get that nonsense

>membership isn't voluntary
What if all land was owned by companies with such business models, would it then be illegal?
>land-owner uses aggressive force.
So I'm not allowed to write into the membership rules that you have to agree to my business using aggresive force in case of non-compliance with my rules?

It should be a nuke for sure.

AnCommies don't make up all of left libertarians just as AnCaps don't make all up of right libertarians.

Thoreau would be proud.

the red square people enable the green square people to leech off the purple square people until the purple square people get pissed and become blue square people and stomp them.

Voluntary taxation or collective resources.

Use of social pressure to enforce ideal behaviour, rather than state/moral/physical power.

Not complex.

It's not. Every country is pretty much in the blue quadrant.

how about that one guy that refuses? put him outside the city walls?

See pic.

Ostracise him until his life in unlivable and he leaves or conforms.

This. I would imagine they would come up with a rule saying "no taxes, but community service or gardening is required."

above average bait but just barely

Because they don't live in a libertarian world. If libertarians had their way then there would be no limits on the kinds of weapons a man can own.

>germany
>far right

If you ain't blue, then git the fuck out

Then he wouldn't live there. It's all put in place by voluntary effort. Usually, it works in small ethnic states where people have an incentive to work for their people. Look at Rojava or the Amish, and how they work.

>leaf

Ultimately, yes. Might makes right and any argument to the contrary is ridiculous

I didn't make the chart. It's right off the politicalcompass website

Youre putting countries that have 60% tax rates, masses of emission regulations and ban hate speech in the far right, you don't have a clue what you're talking about

Most of them are extremely close to the centre

I was asking libertarians.

>the left is always authoritarian
Without authority forcing me to, why would I help someone who isn't my family or friend?

This image should be a bannable offense.

This is true but the real redpill is that purple doesn't exist either. Sovereignty is conserved. A pure free market just leads to corporations capturing the state and merging with the political/intellectual elites, leading to one unified elite and a shift into the blue. Libertarianism cannot exist.

>Then he wouldn't live there
what do you mean? he would be vluntarily leave/be shunned until he leaves/ be forcibly removed? There will always be people who try to cheat the system

how