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 - Physical Removal 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
wsj.com
mises.org
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
Wassap german bro.
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
Good ... noon lel
Spreading the freedom right to the darkest corners
Also, my posts are slow as fuck, because my internet is literal slug-tier right now
I'm working on a FAQ
I dont have much yet. but its getting there.
For everyone wondering what to read:
pic related is, when you only want Hoppe.
If you want a general introduction, you start with "Anatomy of the State" by M. Rothbard and go ahead with "Democracy - The God that Failed" by Hoppe. Then you're set to go ahead with whatever text related
Oh that's an awesome idea. Are you the armeribro that's going the FAQ-vid ?
Anyway, it's a great idea.
yeah I figured I could make a "script" that would also work as a FAQ paste for the thread.
I'd even think that the most important thing to explain - regarding the threads on pol - is that we ain't Johnson-tier open border + positive rights libertarians
Yes it will be made clear that Libertarianism is a right wing movement and that our leftist elements are useful idiots at best and a cancer that can only be cured by one way helicopter rides at the worst.
Start by removing all of the communist general bs that has plagued this board for so long.
Daily reminder that, although statists an shiet, stormies are welcome to debate whatever topic you want.
>communist general
here's some of what i've been working on:
Some cucky fag told me Anarcho-Capitalists are in favor of an "Open Borders" policy. Is this true?
> not even the most restrictive immigration policy or the most exclusive form of segregationism has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in a neighborhood of Germans, Haitians, Chinese, Koreans, Mexicans, Moslems, Hindus, Catholics, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. Moreover, even if it were the case that one's real income would rise as a result of immigration, it
Dosen't freedom lead to moral degredation and degeneracy?
>It should be obvious then that and why libertarians must be moral and cultural conservatives of the most uncompromising kind. The current state of moral degeneration, social disintegration and cultural rot is precisely the result of too much-and above all erroneous and misconceived-tolerance. Rather than having all habitual democrats, communists, and alternative lifestylists quickly isolated, excluded and expelled from civilization in accordance with the principles of the covenant, they were tolerated by society. Yet this toleration only encouraged and promoted even more egalitarian and relativistic sentiments and attitudes, until at last the point was reached where the authority of excluding anyone for anything had effectively evaporated (while the power of the state, as manifested in state-sponsored forced integration policies, had correspondingly grown).
None is sweeter than your right to discriminate:
>To exclude other people from one's own property is the very means by which an owner can avoid ''bads'' from happening: events that will lower the value of one's property. In not being permitted to freely exclude, the incidence of bads-ill-behaved, lazy, unreliable, rotten students, employees, customers-will increase and property values will fall. In fact, forced integration (the result of all nondiscrimination policies) breeds ill behavior and bad character. In civilized society, the ultimate price for ill behavior is expulsion, and all-around ill-behaved or rotten characters (even if they commit no criminal offense) will find themselves quickly expelled from everywhere and by everyone and become outcasts, physically removed from civilization.
shit part of the first quote is missing
The aussie commie and reaf leaf are preparing to ruin this thread.
How do you people feel about water?
Capitalists - Why treat the water when everyone can spend thousands on their own to purify it? Which seems to be the way things are headed.
Or citizens can spend considerably less is taxes to have it filtered at the source, but that might be too socialist or commie. Plus who can trust the government, m I right?
Good stuff
>imblyign they could ruin this thread
Free bumps are welcome lel
Checked.
Fuck roads, reporting in for life, liberty, and property.
What weapon system is best for home defense against (((the state)))?
here we go.
Some cucky fag told me Anarcho-Capitalists are in favor of an "Open Borders" policy. Is this true?
> not even the most restrictive immigration policy or the most exclusive form of segregationism has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in a neighborhood of Germans, Haitians, Chinese, Koreans, Mexicans, Moslems, Hindus, Catholics, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. Moreover, even if it were the case that one's real income would rise as a result of immigration, it does not follow that immigration must be considered "good," for material wealth is not the only thing that matters. Rather, what constitutes "welfare" and "wealth" is subjective, and one might prefer lower material living standards and a greater distance from certain other people over higher material living standards and a smaller distance. It is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation-the absence of any form of forced integration-which makes peaceful relationships-free trade-between racially, ethnically, linguistically, religiously, or culturally distinct people possible.
There's no reason you have to spends "thousands on [their] your own to purify it".
There'd be companies to purify and sell water - just as we have now. The price would considerably go down as there wouldn't just be a single company to sell water and consumers would be free to choose what to buy. So there's that.
People could also collect their own water - though that'd be not very inefficient, but if it's enough to have enough to live, why not.
you already ruined it weeb and any other weebs before you. fuck, it was already ruined when someone conceived the idea of libertarian. Fuck you, fuck brazil, fuck libertarians, and FUCK WEEBS
Remeber that at the moment, there are just a few companies that sell drinking water etc. efficiently, what effectively makes them a monopoly forming cartel.
In an ancap society that wouldn't virtually be impossible
I just thought it would be smart to add to the FAQ a short argument for why it's effectively "impossible" so to speak that insurers would form monopolies and instituate a state-like area etc.
...
I'm glad to see these threads are catching on. Great work on keeping them fresh.
Hey, you should probably add a summary on the typical road question. It gets annoying to answer it every thread.
rude
I hate weeb too... but they sent me this pic and I liked it.
Fuck my brain.
Of course it would NOT be possible to form cartels and monopolies due to competition and the people being free to found competitor companies
wtf ._.
Bump.
rate my bad as fuck OC lel
>what are economies of scale
>what is paying a company of your choice to purify and sell you water
Imma be honest with you mate, it's pretty low energy. Hijack some commie memes to cuck em.
What's tge point of being a libertarian right now? Only a massive violation of the nap from the state could save the west.
need more sneks
>tfw you realize that the Holocaust was just the "right wing" version of dekulakization and nazis try to justify and deny it for the same reason commies say dekulakization happened because of the Holodmor and not vice versa
What about the roads and schools tho?
b-b-b-but .. what about intellectual property ?
haha jk
"The state" is the problem in first place
Sup Forums Libertarians are libertarians that recognize the need of fascism to protect your rights.
How come we had the state for thousands of years but only for a couple of decades do we have this problem?
Get removed, faggot.
Why be libertarian in the first place then if fascism is more effective?
>from the state
The state is the one violating the NAP by expelling its citizens and replacing them by a hostile population.
>roads
Maybe the communities aren't in need of roads - which is perfectly possible.
Maybe the communities need roads just "within" or there need to be roads between the covenants. Then it'll be agreed upon having them built by construction companies.
Now you could say
>but what if the covenant charges its own part of the road with too high tolls ?
That might happen but this covenant will likely be ostracized from any trade then and a new road is like to be built that does not cross the property of that particular community.
And
>schools
Private education will massively improve the situation as people don't send their kids to particular schools/unis when the quality of their teaching(s) is bullshit or they violate the NAP by instilling ideas (leftist profs) into the students which you aren't agreeing upon.
A community gets together and finances a road, and schools are mostly community, too.
Tolling boots will only worsen traffic so how would anyone agree with booths on every street?
Also, how can low wage earners give their sons education to be more competitive when his job age comes?
I am not arguing against violence. I am arguing against a monopoly on it.
Governments have an interest to loot their countries, and they get (((other funds))) too, whose (((payers))) have their own interests, too.
Governments are their tools, not liberties.
What about the argument of human nature? Also, we need a standard for education so a student might have a hard time transferring schools if the standards of every schools are not the same
We're not fascists because we love freedom, even if it means a hard life. We believe that the NAP is already violated and that peace is an illusion right now. Thus, private RWDS are needed to remove undesirables.
*because
Noone says there will be tolling booths. But in case a community would toll its part of the road, they will face backlash and this ultimately won't be worth it.
Private schools doesn't mean private as in today's private where you pay idk what 30k $ to send your kid there.
Private means owned by the people themselves in first place. That means the private little communities can run a school where they school their own kids. There can also be private schools run by single people acting as CEO.
The main point is that there is no monopoly on education so that you either can only get ultra shitty state education for free (community college) or super good education in ivy league universities.
You're free to teach (or not) wherever you want and whatever you want.
The educational standard is provided by the market. When there's a need for high class engineering products, noone would bother to teach their kids shit like gender studies etc.
Based slovak
It is human nature to cooperate in smaller groups.
The school system would favour schools of a similar type, which would give students the bare necessities, with tutors leading them in a chosen direction after a base level of education is reached. This way, a bricklayer does not waste time in biology lessons and a chemist needn't bother with philosophy.
So a cooperative on all properties? Pretty good in theory but what about monopolies? Pretty sure that there are companies that would emerge to buy those properties/ Co-ops thus making companies the most powerful entities.
That sounds more like a commune 2bh. We should also consider that human nature basically wants to earn profit than to help his commune thus the argument of communism fails at this area.
>inb4 but we are libertarians reeeeeee
Im basing it with your argument and that argument sounds like communistic to me
Well no cooperative on all properties but where the people wish or feel like it's going to be necessary/profitable.
This (monopolies) is, of course, a possibility but it's very very unlikely something like that would ever happen, for several reasons (but not exclusively):
When they want to buy everything there are the people. Property rights provide the libertarian basis. That means giving up on property is giving up your freedom, because when you have no external property (everything that's not your body) then you're at least temporarily denpendent on others. It's not likely that people would sell everything (including the schools that would run good and are beneficial to society). It would be acting against a low time preference rate.
Then, IF for some reason this happened there're 2 scenarios of how it could've happened:
1.) By force (violence) and, thus, violating the NAP. In that case domestic terrorism and countereconomy will drive the coropration out, eventually.
2.) Voluntarily. In that case the people might've been short sightet. That's not a problem, however, as peopple are free to not send their kids to those schools and educate them on their own, meaning that the "megacorp school" would eventually go bankrupt.
Actually there's a third scenario as well:
The company buys property/businesses to expand. Now the people are smart and see how the company does it and will found infinite amounts of coroporations which the big corp would have to buy in order to preserve the monopoly. That ultimately makes the company go bankrupt as well.
You can still be insured by different company even if you don't own property. If the development company buys up everything all they can do is remove you from their property otherwise the insurance company takes them to court or fucks them up. Now if you choose to be insured by these companies and they own everything then it's essentially neo-feudalism. But you would actually have to agree to live there. Also that's no longer ancap but neo-feudalism. I doubt it would be common.
Nice. I can definitely use these arguments for tommorrow's Left-Right debate (im planning to be a Right Libertarian) but explaining NAP to normalfags is to tiring. Also, how could you answer the issue on exploitation? And what are your opinions about Distributism?
Thanks, senpai.
>mfw feudalism will be brought back to life
wtf I love Libertarianism now
Sounds worse than it actually is. Neocameralism is probably the next best thing to ancap. Shit it might be better even but I don't see it yet.
Feudalism is pretty good if Kings know how to manage money. Im a monarchist btw
Yea I know. That's the point. Create a free market in governments and the best ones should come out on top. It's not like people people will be consigning themselves to slavery en mass. Unless they're actual cucks, in which case more power to them I guess. Just leave me out of it.
For time preference rate, see Hoppe's "Democracy ..." p.7-8 iirc
Exploitation is the main issue of modern statist societies.
In general exploitation is a non-issue, because when the people start to feel exploited they either leave the company and go elsewhere - the employer would crumble and change or "die" (corporation-wise) - or the employer needs to improve working conditions/work time flexibility, you name it.
That makes people not truly 100.00000% safe from exploitation - sure - but since exploitation is the massive violation of the NAP, then the monopoly rules apply as well.
To Distributism:
Same as with any other ideology. If the people of a community/covenant/microstate agree upon doing it, there's no problem with that.
But to be honest it kinda looks like "communism light" if I may say so. The problem is always with the government. Because when there's a government (in the sense of state/nation etc.) - no matter how small it might be - it will always tend to expand and this can always be done only by enforcing violent and unvoluntary measure
I think the only role of the government should do is to impose cultural and private laws. But then again, how can it have an army/ police to protect its citizens from outside agression? How can it pay military spending if there are no taxes imposed? We cant just rely on militia
That's the point.
Either you're not free, have a state that enforces violence upon the citizens in order to even sustain itself, or you're free, have an NAP, preventing aggression in first palce, and in case of violation there are insurers and private armies to retaliate.
Or recreational nukes.
But you just cant shout muh NAP to invaders. That obviously wont scare them away
Well everyone knows it's there ;>
But you're right, shouting "NAP!!!!!11!!1" won't help when you're actually getting invaded. That's why you have guns and other weapons to defend your property. If you live "in a bad neighborhood" of covenants so to speak, you can as well employ a private security service/army to protect your property etc..
Insurers would have access to nukes. Even if your local insurance company is small and can't afford nukes, they'd probably still be invited to an alliance of insurers to provide more effective protection against state aggression. Look at Slovenia. We're members of NATO and we hardly contribute fuck all. If it's private companies that organize this then at least the members will have to pay their share. And military equipment would probably fall quite a lot in price. Not to mention there's likely no interventionism under these companies. So other states would be way less likely to invade.
I like the idea of a FAQ. Perhaps we should include something that's written by us and then integrate the quotes. Also, maybe we should do them in large scale images so we don't clog the thread with huge and successive OP posts before it gets off.
You murder them.
Yeah that's definitely a thing with the the pics.
I mean OP posts are in principle 4 now - I just divide the Rothbard list into 2 posts to avoid "spam" - or 5 when I do the threads.
Yeah I was thinking of making an image as well. Also give me good FAQs I got borders and degeneracy covered.
Also give a source to answer any question you suggest.
Would this be possible in an AnCap society? Should it be? Why/Why not?
wsj.com
I'd say we should include "but what about neighboring states that try to invade?" as well since it's also a meme question we get. I have pic related for that and I'm sure there are other articles and passages on the books for it, it's a matter of searching.
>make contract with company stating they will protect privacy of your information
>they don't
>they get sued
Tough question.
On the one hand, when the company owns the infrastructure, they're free to do whatever unless otherwise written in a contract. Though, not mining data but just observing what is done at their infrastructure.
BUT the browser history is physically written on the machines of the costumers, thus mining the browser history is done by using exploits/backdoors which is invasive and unvoluntary. And that's violation of the NAP.
So no, I don't think that would be "possible" unless both parties agree. Because in that case non-violation if the NAP weighs more than "silent agreement".
Sounds reasonable, thanks lads
Oh well, it's voluntary. People in groups of around 200 actually know each other and can work together more easily for the sake of convenience.
You're welcome
Bump for justice
...
Good. Tbh I'm tired of those "socialism will work with white people dude lmao" retards. Take back the board, remove any kind of socialist scum.
>socialism is totally acceptable when only whites are enslaved
Almost the whole soviet bloc was white and it still collapsed
Alright fgts, let's settle this.
Austrian school or Chicago school?
And if hypothetically I was a Chicagofag who thought Austriafags were 2edgy4me who would I read to change my mind?
So in ancapistan can you do anything if your neighbour litters his garden and house with garbage?
This article sums it up quite well I think:
mises.org
When it's so bad that it doesn't only annoys you visually, but it decreases how much worth your property is. This it can be seen as aggression and then you're free to hire insurance companies
"Part of the reason, of course, needs no explanation: a pale shadow of Big Government conservatives who crave respectability, social acceptance at Washington cocktail parties, and, not coincidentally, power, cushy jobs, and financial support. But there is a lot more at work here. At bottom is the point which many of us had to learn painfully over the years: that there can be no genuine separation between formal political ideology and cultural views and attitudes."
>Murray N. Rothbard
Thanks for this.
>free to hire insurance companies
What are they going to do?
A wide range of things, same money collectors do today.
Mostly annoy them.
I've just noticed the army of typos in my last post reeeeeee
Yeah basically if it decreases value, insurers fuck them over, because it can be technically seen as violation of the NAP.
Not to mention that this is degenerate behavior and is most likely removed from the covenant anyway.
You're welcome
Yeah but how exactly are insurance companies going to fuck them?
I don't think calling insurance companies would be a thing. Most likely the community will own the infrastructure and surrounding businesses anyway. So they just deny him access until he cleans up. And if he keeps trespassing then the insurers get involved.
Acting as judge/court or enforcing a state in which the NAP is not violated for example directly, if the violation is abhorrent.
But as I said and , too, it's very likely he'll just get thrown out of the covenant for his blatant degeneracy which is then also most likely not compatible with the rules of your covenant
shameless self-bump
>if the violation is abhorrent
So you're gonna assault people that build a dildo-shaped house? It's a much easier solution to just live in a community that has more control over their residents. As in your water, heating, road access, power,...everything gets cut off if you're a dick for example. And maybe there's communities that find it funny. In any case you'd have the freedom to choose such communities but it's not up to the state to enforce these things.