Libertarian / Ancap thread

Libertarian / Ancap thread

youtube.com/watch?v=m-0tbQ7Bz1w

Make America Free Again

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
youtube.com/watch?v=cIxJicyjLLE
youtube.com/watch?v=gYPAvT-3Fvs
youtu.be/f82mHHAt6yI?t=6m5s
youtu.be/0IEQmuaJeew
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...but he be a Jew.

embarrassing

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs

youtube.com/watch?v=cIxJicyjLLE

in other words he's jewish

>Libertarian / Ancap thread
>(((Ben Shapiro)))
Nice disinfo thread.

Shapiro is libertarian on a governmental level but conservative on a social level

I think his position is still consistent with libertarianism because he wants society to rely on social institution like the church to strengthen the social fabric.

I guess hes more of a paleo libertarian in a certain sense similiar to Hoppe

> Using race as a means of argument

Ben speaks truth and facts and logic, and that obviously terrifies you.

>"""""libertarian""""""" party
He isn't a libertarian or an ancap. Maybe he is compared to Britbong politicians but Mao seems pretty libertarian compared to some of the cucks in your parliament.

Finally, I was hoping to catch a thread so I can get some new photos.

>staunch free market capitalist
>anti-collectivist
>anti-socialist
>largely minarchist
>somehow not libertarian

Please don't tell me you're one of those people who thinks Ayn Rand and weed is all that libertarianism means

as for the cucks in my parliament, you're absolutely right. British Parliament is nothing but corrupt and oppressive

who builds roads in a anachist capitalist society?

If there is a sewage leak in a public space, who pays to clean it up? If the public space is privately owned, how does the company make enough money to pay for the sewage repairs?

If the sewage leak is so terrible it impedes the flow of traffic, and employees are late to their jobs, can the companies affected receive compensation?

If there is no state, instead of judges who decides how much compensation should be awarded, and from whom?

What happens if a company is unable to pay the salaries of their private police forces? Does anarchy reign until someone with the financial means and will takes over?

Until anarchists can answer these questions, your "ideology" will have less relevance than childrens story books.

Just got out of a business school class entitled "Capitalism" taught by an 82 year old former Reagan and Thatcher adviser, personal friend of Milton Friedman, and with one blind eye always filled with a hatred of Communism. Was good shit.

>who builds roads in a anachist capitalist society?
Oh Shit, I didn't think of this one. Pack in, fellas. Looks like we need government all along. Thanks, Britbro

public infrastructure will all be owned by corporations

no, that wouldn't create a monopoly and price gouging because "hurr free market"

t. fucking retard

statists = Hurr durr the government does it and we all have to pay for it xD problem solved

kys you disgusting piece of shit.

Wait is this a serious thing???

Are you guys retarded??

Oh no he used sarcasm in an attempt to dismiss criticism

better pack it in

>how dare public infrastructure and services exist
>corporations should own everything!

Reminder we have a UK Libertarian party and we all should raise awareness of it.

I'm just lucky I paid my sarcasm tax in April. Can you imagine how awful everything would be if we didn't have governments regulating sarcasm?

Libertarians are too autistic to understand basic reality much less economics

>If there is a sewage leak in a public space, who pays to clean it up? If the public space is privately owned, how does the company make enough money to pay for the sewage repairs?

You can get fucked if you think I'm paying for that. What do you mean "make enough money to pay for sewage repairs?" If they built a waste system without the appropriate funds to cover for potential costs like these that's their own damn fault.

oh boy that worthless evasion really answered all of the brits questions

bravo libertarianism, you win the debate yet again!

I'm not ancap, but I am all for the privatization of as much as possible so I'll do my best to answer this for you.

>who builds the roads?

Who builds them now? Private companies already build roads, and they are already paid for with money created by individuals - the government only confiscates that wealth through taxation. A more pressing question is: can private individuals/interests make roads, or must they be public?

The answer is yes, they can be private. A company can build a road and charge tolls for people using it, which in this age isn't even that complex a challenge (EZ pass does this already). This is the ideal solution, since only those who use roads are paying for their upkeep, and people who don't who who carpool/bus pay next to nothing for them to continue operating.

>sewage leak in public space

The government is supposed to clean public property, which is why it is seldom clean. That's the problem.

>How does company make money off property to pay for sewage cleanup?

It's not only the cost of cleanup but the losses incurred by not cleaning it up. If an Australian took a shit in a hotel lobby, it will negatively affect business for that hotel, so they will clean it.

>Companies receive compensation for loss of productivity in an unrelated accident

No, the owner of a road is not responsible for the productivity of other businesses. You pay the road owner to use the road, that is the transaction. His obligation extends to providing you with the service you purchased and nothing else.

>No state

I disagree with ancap on the nonexistence of a state - the government's duty is to protect individual rights from coercion, such as violence, theft, or fraud. For that, things like courts, police, and military are required.

>Company unable to pay salaries of private police?

Again, I think the state's only job is to provide deterrence from violence, implying the necessity of a police force.

>I'm going to dictate what a monopoly does or does not pay for

hope you like the smell of shit in your house then, because no monopoly is going to provide a service for free

In reality they don't have to provide anything, they could just make your house house get flooded with sewage and never clean it up.

What are you going to do about it? They're a monopoly.

>how dare public infrastructure and services exist

Libertarianism covers a huge range of philosophies, of which some argue that some state services can exist, if they protect the liberties of the people in the long run. Minarchism is probably the best example of this.

I wish I could afford the tax on MS comics to support my political positions.

> Private companies already build roads

They don't own them so your point is moot

>which is why it is seldom clean

You probably just live in a city run by blacks then

>If an Australian took a shit in a hotel lobby

i.e. not a public space

>No, the owner of a road is not responsible for the productivity of other businesses.

Of course it is. If no one can use your road (because it is cracked and broken)then transportation costs, and therefore ultimate productivity is low

>the government's duty is to protect individual rights from coercion, such as violence, theft, or fraud. For that, things like courts, police, and military are required.

laws, justice, courts etc are a public good. Why do you oppose all other public goods?

>only job is to provide deterrence from violence,

So if a corporation runs the government outside of courts then that's fine with you? No other factor matters?

>In reality they don't have to provide anything, they could just make your house house get flooded with sewage and never clean it up.

Use your brain my dude, what on Earth would motivate a company to flood my house with shit for no reason. In what world is that remotely logical. If you're going to argue with hypotheticals only, then there isn't a single political philosophy out there for you as they all have associated far-fetched risks.

smugness is the highest form of argument

>posting a controlled opposition kike
Hoppe would be disappointed.

>Roads

You obviously didn't read my answer, since I address ownership and operation of roads in it.

I would answer the rest of this if I thought you actually wanted to discuss it, but seeing as you have already proven too lazy to read 4 lines of English, I don't think it's worth the effort of continuing the conversation with you.

Asinine repetition is more my forte

>kike

you aren't ancap.

>Kings implementing state force
not ancap, not an argument

...

> flood my house with shit for no reason.

You realize shit breaks down? Basic entropy requires a system to be repaired and maintained. A company with a monopoly has no motive to repair anything that eats into the profit margins.

This is the whole reason they got rid of Feudalism/monarchy because the land owners who had a monopoly on taxation and government had no reason to improve society or provide basic public services.

repetition is a sign of autism and autism and libertarian ism correlate

so I'm not surprised

roads can't function privately because you have an inherent monopoly if you own them.

If *all roads* were privately owned you'd just end up with feudalism 2.0 with cars as the land owners would charge monopoly rates up until the point of subsistence (the point where you starve to death if they raised rates any higher)

And even then landowners are more than willing to raise rates "above" the point of subsistence as you can see what land owners did to the Irish during the famine.

The land owners *will* starve you to death

the land owners in an ancap system are individual sovereigns therefore they're kings. Anyone on their land is implicitly bound to obeying them.

true

ancapistan is an incredibly jewish ideology

You know there are currently private roads in the United States that function perfectly fine, right?

>the land owners in an ancap system are individual sovereigns therefore they're kings. Anyone on their land is implicitly bound to obeying them.

Fees are different to tax. You're conflating voluntary trade with state enforced taxation. Fees are incurred when trade takes place under contractual terms. A King taking money from someone for being on their land constitutes state force and therefore, not libertarian.

It's easy to recognize that most Jews promote socialism and therefore it would be appropriate to physically remove them.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Jews promote socialism but love money? Lmao so lost..

they work because the vast majority of roads are public and people have a definitive option between public and private roadways

And even then tolls charged are far higher than the amount of money used for upkeep of the road. The whole point of public infrastructure is to provide public goods and services at as low a cost as possible for the general public.

This doesn't apply to private goods obviously (consumer goods i.e. food) because they are entirely different in nature (you eating an apple prevents me from using it, you using a road doesn't prevent anyone else from using it)

A better term would be a tithe which is unavoidable as any other tax is assuming you aren't the sovereign on the land.

The land owner is the sovereign and therefore the governor (government) of the land

Watch youtube.com/watch?v=gYPAvT-3Fvs

It's fairly simple

jews love Marxism because it means central control of society with jews at the top through government means

They love globalism/international capitalism because it means domination of society through international finance, devoid of any say from nation states or sovereign governments.

Where does a prostitute fall on the apple ---- road scale?

seriously, really, you cant think of how the god damn roads would be built in a free society. give me a break retard. who does what the public sector doesn't, right now?

Glad so many libertarian threads are popping up lately commies and storm fags need to fuck off

It depends on what you view as a "social good" in your society.

Mesopotamian society actually had publicly available temple prostitutes that were supplied by the state, but you still had to pay a fee for access

In other words they had a single payer solution to the prostitution question.

Athens on the other hand had publicly funded brothels as Socrates once pointed out you need prostitutes for the same reason you need sewers.

Enjoy your land monopolies i.e. feudalism

>when your ideology bans collectivism so any collectivist force naturally destroys you easily

If you believe in any form of taxation at all, any immorality by inaction, any "obligation" to "serve your duty" for the "common good," you believe violence solves problems instead of freedom of choice. You believe that people are just too irrational and childish to make their own decisions and that somehow, some people are "above all that" and are going to regulate them.

But that answer suggests to me that a good isn't inherently a social good or not. Like, apples could become as much as a social good as a road, if the society was so inclined to be that way.
Is that true?

>apples could become as much as a social good as a road

Apples can't be a public good because they are singularly exhaustible, that is if you eat an apple, no one else can eat that apple.

If I use a publicly funded prostitute someone else can use that prostitute later,which is how Athens was set up.

>you believe violence solves problems

concepts like law, orders, property etc only exist because of violence

Good luck enforcing any right, property or otherwise without violence

have fun.

>property etc only exist because of violence
so in order to own your arm, or your keyboard, or your words on the screen, there must be violence? no voluntary exchange can take place, everything is a free-for-all stealing contest?

Apple tree is more appropriate than the apple. Apple tree is to prostitute what apple is to 25 dollar rim job.

yes

ever heard of slavery? Or feudalism? Ever heard of invaders?

Boy I'd sure love to see a libertarians trying to lecture the Mongols about property rights as they were getting raped to death

rights only come from you ability to use violence to enforce them

only to prevent others from taking it
and what good is ownership if anyone else can take it with any amount of effort?

>implying there's no difference between private and state/public property

It's not about the tree then it's about the land

and land has always had a form of land tax (property tax) on it even since the old days of feudalism when the serfs and peasants had tithes imposed on the.

The difference between feudalism in the past and modern government is that while the aristocracy could be expected to spend money from tithes on leisure goods, the modern government is expected to reinvest taxes in society.

So who owns the land? Ultimately it's the sovereign, and in the modern world, where the monarchs have been overthrown that means the government, which is supposed to represent the people through elected officials.

Now technically you could argue that since apple trees are a form of production, and that the government "ought" to control the means of production the government ought to own all apple trees. That's what communism/marxism is really about. If you aren't arguing for across the board state ownership of the means of production then you aren't a communist.

Hello!

There isn't a difference

they are both made up of arbitrary social boundaries that can only be enforced through the use of violence (force)

>and what good is ownership if anyone else can take it with any amount of effort?

exactly

>So who owns the land?
The Apples own the land

The sovereign in the end always owns the land, by definition

Libertarianism != Ancap, ya mook.

>most infrastructure is not profitable, like at all
>taxation is theft

Ancap in a nutshell

Principled conservatism = realistic libertarianism. Purists can go die. Taxing to pay for sewers and schools is not fucking theft. Get the fuck out of my society if you think that's theft. Faggot ass pussy.

If I owned a mercenary security force. I can just attack my competition. If my competition fails to protect themselves then they failed the market for being inferior. I thus am superior. Now, I just have to kill off my competition to gain a monopoly. It's not violation the NAP because the security force is meant to protect people from NAP violators. If a security force fails to protect themselves from NAP violators, then they failed the market and were never great to begin with.

How are the ancaps allies again?

Incentive structure for self aggregate self interest hmmmmmmm
Gladly seceding from your common core shithole

>Be me
>Own a security force in Ancapistan
>Attack my competition
>Technically did nothing wrong
>Security force is supposed to face against NAP violators
>If they fail to beat my force then they are market failures
>Start to attack my competition more and grow my force
>Start to gain a monopoly
>Now I own massive amounts of property
>Can easily take over the world unmatched due to the fire power I have,

There are a-lot of CIA strawmen in this thread. Watch Hoppe to break the CIA conditioning and become an AnCap.

part 1: youtu.be/f82mHHAt6yI?t=6m5s
part 2: youtu.be/0IEQmuaJeew

Am I accepted?

Watch Hoppe and decide for yourself. His arguments are much stronger than the ones you're posting

>attack my competition
>attack
>ancapistan

Yer retarded, so for that reason, I'm out.

Listened to literally ten seconds of Kike Shapiro.

"First thing I'd do is pass a lot less executive orders....."

He is EVERYTHING wrong with the right wing. Adherence to abstract concepts and ideas instead of pragmatic results.

"Oh I can't do that, it violates the Constitution or the NAP or some other spook!"

Fucking retards.

We need to crush the left. Annihilate them. Write as many executive orders as humanly possibly. We need to take as much power as possible and CRUSH these people before the crush us. This is literally a kill or be killed situation.

Well you don't get it. When you pass executive orders. When the next president gets in, he can just wipe all the executive orders away at day1.
Easier to pass, easier to repeal.

The president should use the Congress as much as possible because as what Ben said is that Trump got a majority in Congress and he doesn't need to do executive orders then.

Ben Shapiro voted for Hillary Clinton and is a major cuck.

Lower your time preference.