This thread is for Discussion of Libertarianism, Capitalism, AnarchoCapitalism, and the physical removal of communist fags from our board of peace.
>Post sneks
>Bump for Life, Liberty, and Private Death Squads
>Vanilla /lrg/ pastebin- CREATE IF YOU DONT SEE ONE IN THE CATALOG
pastebin.com
>Safespace and Archive:
(((reddit.com
Videos:
hoppewave | Hans-Hermann Hoppe | physical removal
>youtube.com
hoppewave | Hans-Hermann Hoppe | the argument (右翼死刑囚)
>youtube.com
h o p p e w 𝓪 v e | Hans-Hermann Hoppe | end democracy
>youtube.com
Based Hoppe physically removes democracy
>youtube.com
Drop it like it's Hoppe
>youtube.com
Let's Get Physical
>youtube.com
I Need a Pinochet
>youtube.com
Hoppe's Kitchen - How to make Wiener Schnitzel
>youtube.com
Leftists getting Physically Removed, So To Speak
>youtube.com
/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL - NOT SO FAST REBBID Edition
Other urls found in this thread:
liberalstudies.ca
mises.org
il-rs.org.br
iea.org.uk
mises.org
lewrockwell.com
mises.org
mises.org
riosmauricio.com
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
archive.lewrockwell.com
archive.lewrockwell.com
lewrockwell.com
youtube.com
world-nuclear.org
thorconpower.com
abtirsi.com
twitter.com
GENERAL READING LIST:
>The Law - Frédéric Bastiat
liberalstudies.ca
>Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt
mises.org
>Free To Choose - Milton and Rose Friedman
il-rs.org.br
>Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty - Eugene F. Miller
iea.org.uk
>Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition - Ludwig von Mises
mises.org
HOPPE READING LIST:
>Articles by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
lewrockwell.com
>The Economics and Ethics of Private Property
mises.org
>A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline
mises.org
>Democracy - The God That Failed
riosmauricio.com
>A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
mises.org
>From Aristocracy, to Monarchy, to Democracy
mises.org
>The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production
mises.org
>The Private Production of Defense
mises.org
>Economic Science and the Austrian Method
mises.org
>What Must Be Done
mises.org
ROTHBARD READING LIST:
>Man, Economy, and State with Power & Market
mises.org
>Anatomy of the State
mises.org
>Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays
mises.org
>The Ethics of Liberty
mises.org
>What Has Government Done to Our Money?
mises.org
>America's Great Depression
mises.org
>For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
mises.org
Articles by Murray Rothbard
>Race! That Murray Book
archive.lewrockwell.com
>Big-Government Libertarians
archive.lewrockwell.com
>More on LewRockwell.com
lewrockwell.com
How do libertarians feel about nuclear power?
...
Finally a general i can join
It is unsustainable in the long run in a free market. Once a place needs to be find where it can be stored for centuries, prices will skyrocket, Until then, people will gladly buy from nuclear energy corps, but once they have to raise prices to pay storement costs, people will switch to alternatives. because of that, renewable energy producers can lower their prices and become more effcient in the process, since they can allocate money into research of better technologies. I think environmental issues are overhyped and abused as voter manipulation by liberal politicians, but if you care about the environment for real, a free market is the best way of protecting it, not impsing nonsensical restrictions on some businesses while subsidizing others at the same time.
>
>Killed by governments
>Killed by capitalism
Chose one
>1,635,271,26
>a billion
communists everyone
Listen it's like that:
I have a personal disdain for Nazi-ideology
>inb4 muh german indoctrination
That does not mean that I do not tolerate you - I don't agree, largely, but it's an opinion nontheless and I have to respect that.
I do, but only up to the point where you (as in people that claim to be natsocs) come around and start to call shit on me.
I call people stormweeny when they come here and instead of adding to the discussion, just randomly post some stupid and delusional shit or spout that we're some johnson-type libertarian faggots. That's when they violate the NAP and that's when I, personally, retaliate.
Your pic is still random numbers that have nothing to do with capitalism.
>if you care about the environment for real, a free market is the best way of protecting it
Sure it is........
Add to top links / pastebin:
Glad you've found your way.
Go ahead if you have a question, ideas or anything related.
The main impediment to nuclear energy is its storage?
>world-nuclear.org
Look, here in Germany, politicians forced the market to adapt to their will. They ruled that all nucler plants have to be closed withing a certein time because muh fukushima. Many jobs were lost, while the coal industry still gets subsidies. While a political caste exists, this will always be the case, since lobbying is a thing. If you let the free market run its course, it will certainly be a slow process, but over time the most sustainable energy source will come out on top. Throwing money at wind energy that is lacking the technology to ever reach a level of acceptable energy output won't help. If people want to change to another, greener energy source in a free market, they eventually will.
To add to this, oil is unsustainable and we always get "lucky" and find more at the last minute (gulf war, fracking, etc)
/lrg/ master race.
Fuck commies, Nazis, the kikes, and left-"libertarians"
That's why it would die out on a free market aswell. Without subsidies it wouldn't be profitable enough for investors.
If they make storage easy, save and cheap, they could get to the top very easily. That'S the benefit of a free market, if they have to compete, they are encouraged to innovate so they can keep up.
Pretty sure he means the storage of nuclear waste
Yep, I fucked up on the wording.
Would sending nuclear waste to the sun be zero-sum?
taxation is NOT theft
debate me, tards
>If you let the free market run its course, it will certainly be a slow process, but over time the most sustainable energy source will come out on top.
In the long-term sustainables will always win out purely because the ingredients required to operate other forms of electrical generation will simply run out. There is only so much oil, and only so much coal, and only so much uranium. Nobody knows when these things will run out, but they eventually will. The government promotes renewables because it wants to have alternative forms of energy in place BEFORE those things run out, rather than trying to throw something together after it is already too late.
> working for the Jew is Sup Forums now
Yeah buddy! I'm sure that everybody wins with no roads or law!
We will all have slave lolis! Don't ever forget that!
non-argument, nothing to debate. Make an argument for your statement shill
Nah, you wouldn't imagine how expensive launching a rocket is. It is destined to become non profitable in the future, unless someone fixes the problem of storage, but since the market still gets manipulated there is no incentive to find this solution.
Enjoy going down the exact same road the United States went down.
Enjoy your inevitable centralization of wealth and power and transition into a corporatocracy. Absence of power is a vaccuum which needs to be filled, always remember that.
what is your opinion on Primitive Libertarianism / anti-tech branch of ancaps?
The community or property owner pays for roads, it's not something the state needs to exist for
>not an argument
But I'll still tell you:
The state collects taxes - which are 100% unvoluntarily raised costs which are not just unavoidable but you also get threatened with violence and repression when you want to avoid em.
Therefore collecting tax is theft.
But forcing them on the market while these old energy sources are still available is creating a lot of chaos. Also, these resources won't be gone over night, they'll gradually become more and more expensive the rarer they get, so a natural transition to the now cheaper alternatives will take place. On an economic level, this would be the better way. If you're arguing on a ecological standpoint, that is another thing, but I still believe another 100 years won't make a difference. Climate change is a thing imo, but it is waaaay less of an immediate threat as it is made out to be and definetely not big enough to sacrifice one'S economy over it.
The Unite States have never been a voluntary society.
I don't know how that would function. Anarcho capitalism is inherently future oriented and rewards innovation. But I think you could live like caveman on your property if that'S your thing. Just don't try to throw rocks at people walking by for wearing clothes.
I personally don't like it too much, because in my opinion it prevents progress (as in real progress, not the shit liberals promote) but if we have an ancap society, you're free to live as anti-tech/primitive or whatever else libertarian or ancap on your property as long as you're not violating the NAP
well i'll provide a counter to your "taxation is theft" argument.
taxation being theft would imply ownership. and ownership does not happen in a vacuum. we humans have to decide who owns what. without a government, then there is no "ownership" by definition.
so when you're being taxed you're not being stolen from, you're actually being allowed to keep stuff and the government says it will protect you and "your" stuff.
that means that you could morally be taxed at 100% but it wouldn't be practical to do so. it's better for the government to take a little bit like 10% off the top many times than to take everything just once.
so my argument is that "taxation is theft" is based on the wrong foundation.
>discussion of anarchocapitalism
Can we agree they are retards?
>Just don't try to throw rocks at people walking by for wearing clothes.
kek'd
Oh so you're a pure libertarian? Well then you're just as dumb as a pure communist. Enjoy your utopic theorycraft and speculation which would NEVER transpire in the real world, for a thousand different reasons (the first of which is genetics, which you would need natsoc to conditions genetics).
i would like to cancel my voluntary subscription to foreign aid, please
It's perfectly legal to build your own roads right now. There aren't any laws against it. The government isn't preventing anybody from going out and making their own private roads. It just doesn't happen because it wouldn't be profitable at all unless you're planning to put in a toll booth every 10 miles.
Check'd
sounds good, I wouldn't call it caveman, but definitely subsistence farming and hunter / gatherer as main source of food.
I dunno, I think the Varg-bug bit me, AnarchoPrimitivist + Ethnotribalist.
sadly this is all utopian talk.
It isn't profitable because the government owns a monopoly on building them, like it does on healhcare (at least here in yuroop). Without government interference you don't have monopolies because of the naturally ocurring competition.
>taxation being theft would imply ownership. and ownership does not happen in a vacuum.
It does do. Ownership over one's physical body and the objects he alters from a state of nature is a priori.
>without a government, then there is no "ownership" by definition.
Yes there is, perhaps not enforcement but there is.
>that means that you could morally be taxed at 100% but it wouldn't be practical to do so. it's better for the government to take a little bit like 10% off the top many times than to take everything just once.
Now you're being a filthy utilitarian.
Ownership is based on indirect and direct control. You indirectly control another person's actions. You directly control your body.
Your basic premise is already wrong.
i know that argument too. but that argument is emergent of "taxation is theft" you have to look at the foundation to see a counter.
taxation being theft would imply ownership. and ownership does not happen in a vacuum. we humans have to decide who owns what. without a government, then there is no "ownership" by definition.
so when you're being taxed you're not being stolen from, you're actually being allowed to keep stuff and the government says it will protect you and "your" stuff.
that means that you could morally be taxed at 100% but it wouldn't be practical to do so. it's better for the government to take a little bit like 10% off the top many times than to take everything just once.
so my argument is that "taxation is theft" is based on the wrong foundation; you assume that you "own" your stuff/life/time in a vacuum when you do NOT. those rights are government granted, not god-granted.
you don't own your stuff/money/life/time.
Democracy was once called utopism, too. Enough people can always make a change, be it for the better or for the worse. You should be able to live your comfy Varg life without the f´government forcing you to be squeezed dry of your property.
Governments should be small because it's efficient. Private property should be protected because it's efficient
I fucking hate the "muh taxation is theft" argument. It's no different than any religious doctrine
So without the government you own nothing?!???!
>your lawhik is foolish
>the government owns a monopoly on building them
No, it doesn't. There are no laws to my knowledge that would prevent a person or corporation from buying up land and building roads on it. It just doesn't happen because it wouldn't be a profitable activity.
The very premise of ancapism is the property right and that every is free and does things 100% voluntarily.
Your body is a given property. You own it, therefore everything you do with it (e.g. work, create) is your property as well. Now you have an agreement with the employer that your work benefits him with the product and he agrees to pay compensation for that. Up to here everything is voluntary.
Now comes the state. You didn't vote for tax, you didn't agree on it, you signed nothing. The state collects tax. You're forced to pay .... etc. (see post above).
Tax are inherently immoral, theft.
Physical removal. Love these threads
There are no laws, but the government is able to allocate taxes it collects into its own procects, while not giving other businesses the same starting point. If nobody had a unfair head start, there wouldn't be a monopoly, but since the government can fund itself, nobody is able to pose a serious threat if they tried to compete.
thorconpower.com
thorconpower.com
thorconpower.com
Nuclear waste is a n o n i s s u e.
I'm ancap.
What exactly is your argument beside advocating for a collectivist superstate system ?
This person is correct.
Modern society cannot function without taxation, and something required for the continuation of society cannot be immoral.
There is nothing preventing a company from paving their own roads and setting up toll booths to maintain it and turn a profit from it. They just don't do this because it wouldn't be profitable at all.
Ancoms ? Yes they're retarded. Their ideology is contradictory to the bone.
I thought I was lolbertarian but I get pic related. The test has some questions that are dumb though like do you agree that having a one party system makes making decisions without opposition easier. Yeah, sure it does, but I don't agree that's a good thing. Same with the question about how high the rich are taxed.
I wanna have a meme ideology, what am I doing wrong?
>There is nothing preventing a company from paving their own roads and setting up toll booths to maintain it and turn a profit from it.
> it wouldn't be profitable at all.
That's my whole point. It can't and never will be profitable for anyone to try to compete against the government, because they have always more resources than the competitor, thus they don't need innvoation, cheaper prices or better products to compete. That's the core of our ideology, we think that if we'd stop that, products would be cheaper and better, since others could try to outdo oneanother for profit.
can you explain how "ownership" can exist in a vacuum? you said it yourself "enforcement" doesn't exist in a vacuum. what's the difference between "enforcement" and "ownership?" do you really "own" the hat on your head if i can come up to you and take it? in a vacuum, the hat would remain on "my" head which you could come try and take.
>You directly control your body
does a baby control its own body?
this guy gets it. a small tax/government is efficient but there is nothing immoral about huge taxes/governments other than their practicality.
do you have any books who agree with us? because i'm still a libertarian.
if i take the hat off "your" head, how are you gonna take it back?
True enough Hans. I would love to keep my family and closest allies near. I kinda feel like it is a micro-scale of futurism AnCaps. The tribe would support themselves, with no communal concept. However if someone needs a roof-patched or a few rounds to hunt for the month. No cheifdom, no hierarchy outside of families.
If someone breaks the NAP against our tribe, would you use your blackhawks to defend our micro society?
I'm not really down to discussing this right now but it has to do with argumentation ethics and performative contradictions. If you want a link and look it up for yourself I can provide it. But it would take me a fuckton of time to explain it to you here.
So, let's do a direct version:
1. Do you think private businesses are better suited for providing products and services than the government
2. Do you think that victimless crimes like drug consumption that only harms the user should be legal?
3. Is "The best government is that which governs not at all" a viable statement for you?
If you answered those with yes you are part of our autism club.
dude i'm a "primitive" anarchist and i got this
this test is broken and the questions are terrible
I already posted it
>Enjoy your inevitable centralization of wealth and power and transition into a corporatocracy. Absence of power is a vacuum which needs to be filled, always remember that.
It is in our mutual interest to stop forces that seek to grow in power. We'd have to ensure that trying to expand is something that is non profitable. You could hide a McNuke in one of your mud huts for when shit hits the fan.
>Modern society cannot function without taxation, and something required for the continuation of society cannot be immoral.
I suggest you read the books and papers posted above. Start with Rothbard's "Anatomy of the State" - only 62, big font :: readable in an hour or two - and go ahead with Hoppe's "Democracy - The God that Failed". That's all the foundation you need to go ahead if you want to know more.
If not, you've done something for your education or at least saw a different point of view.
This is better:
The one you did is full of false equivalencies and was clearly written by a leftist fag.
i like mcdonalds
just face it, kid.
"taxation is theft" is religious dogma. there are far better arguments for libertarianism. ownership does NOT exist in vacuum. but ownership rights and low taxes/gov provide for a more successful society.
>non-Germans will never know of the glory that is Nordsee
I almost pity you.
Those are all things I agree with, yes. My only stipulation is that there are a small number of institutions, like schools or the police, that are better left to the government.
Thanks man!
When we run a caravan of pelts for your bear skin rug collection - just give me a SAM system for one of my daughters. Shit sounds fair, she'll birth many good warriors.
>halal
no thanks
Wow pre made sandwiches, sooo tasty mmm
That puts you into the Minarchist corner. You'll definetely will find a home in these threads if you are looking for one, but remember, minarchism can't be democratic, democracy is too inconstant to maintain a libertarian order.
>being this jelly
Capitalism has never been more fun.
how'd i do
just finished that test and got this
You are a: Conservative Libertarian Total-Isolationist Nativist Moderate
Collectivism score: -50%
Authoritarianism score: -67%
Internationalism score: -100%
Tribalism score: 67%
Liberalism score: 0%
SOUNDS WAYYYYY MORE ACCURATE
clicked the wrong post
You are a: Objectivist Anarchist Total-Isolationist Nationalist Liberal
Collectivism score: -83%
Authoritarianism score: -100%
Internationalism score: -100%
Tribalism score: 33%
Liberalism score: 17%
R8 me lads
....d-did I do it right ?
You are a: Objectivist Anarchist Total-Isolationist Nativist Traditionalist
Collectivism score: -83%
Authoritarianism score: -83%
Internationalism score: -100%
Tribalism score: 67%
Liberalism score: -17%
This test is surprisingly accurate
freedom bump
Objectivist / 10
Yes you all did good.
Yeah, that seems about right.
>democracy is too inconstant to maintain a libertarian order
What does that mean?
You are a: Objectivist Anarchist Total-Isolationist Nationalist Liberal
Collectivism score: -100%
Authoritarianism score: -100%
Internationalism score: -100%
Tribalism score: 33%
Liberalism score: 33%
Back to topic:
More questions, baits, sneks, anything ?
Time for some recreational nukes
democracy has always been thought of as a soft variant of communism / socialism. It wasn't until the past couple hundred years that it was thought of as liberty.
snek
thanks portugal! Lookin' good yourself!
why do communists feel like they own the anarchist movement?
Not only can people just vote away individual liberties becuae they get persuaded to do so, politicians are bound to seek the path to most power, since they can get reelected, thus they will try to get their claws into as much money and influence as possible, at the expense of the populace. A system whichs framework couldn't be voted away would be (at least for a way longer time period) consistently libertarian in nature.
recreational nuke
Because communists feel like they own the whooooooooooooooole of everything. This includes bodies, thoughts and foreign-accumulated money.
>not able to live life as humble nuke sales man
Feels bad man.
also, democracy leads to short sighted decision making rather than long term. Politicians only care about the here and now. Like how you don't particularly care about the property you rent as much as the one you own.
Basically
>what you don't reap now, you can't reap later