REPORTING IN FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS... as long as it ain't degenerate hippity hoppe-ity not on my property
Chase Campbell
Left libertarian here.
Exactly how are children mean to be held responsible for their position? How are they meant to better their conditions if they're reliant on their, sometimes uncaring, sometimes irresponsible, parents?
Exactly how does right libertarianism think of this children?
Robert Torres
FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER. ONLY A KEK WOULD BOW TO THE STATE.
William Hernandez
Well if a parent is a failure, the kids are helped by others and the parent is penalised by being evicted. Since bad upbringing causes dysfunctionality, it violates the NAP. Either way, helicopter yourself.
Cooper Thomas
>Left libertarian first of all, I'm sorry to hear that. >How are they meant to better their conditions if they're reliant on their parents? The parents are degenerate scum for sure if they don't care for their children. I don't know how old/responsible a child we're talking here. the child is an individual that can make choices to better themselves whether that means seeking adoption, finding a job, seeking charity and so on.
How you doing, lads? >tfw read the Anatomy of the State at 0 230 in the morning
Austin Hill
>>the child is an individual that can make choices to better themselves whether that means seeking adoption, finding a job, seeking charity and so on. >this is what libertarians/ancaps believes
Ryder Carter
That was poorly put. If there's anyone out there, it's their duty to raise the kid.
Levi Thompson
Exactly how is charity meant to happen in a free market state that promotes competition? Why would someone help someone else's kid when they've got their own and know their own kid will inevitably have to compete with the kid they just sacrificed resources for? Or are we just going to pretend right libertarianism doesn't promote a very certain mindset?
You can't claim to be right libertarian and then expect a left libertarian culture from such a state. That's ludicrous. It's our thing to promote charity as a means to replace the state. Hands off.
Prepubescent, if that helps, but by the teen years the damage is basically irreparably.
"They're degenerate so they deserve it" isn't an answer, it's a cop out to avoid facing a very real flaw with the free market: everyone is too busy focusing on themselves and don't even care no one is caring because it simply becomes the culture. Mix some feudalism and it's elitist. Keep it purely capitalistic and it's a depressive mantra of "I've got my own problems.. sorry not sorry."
I'm a left libertarian because I acknowledge this. The real barrier to removing the state is that average people can't be trusted to even act with enlightened self-interest and not commit crimes or aggression if they feel they can get away with it, let alone replace the core public services currently offered to those who can't afford the already existing market solutions.
If you want an anarchist utopia, you have to start with improving the people themselves. This means educational emphasis, this means promoting charity as a cultural virtue, this means promoting self sufficiency. Only with better people could a true anarchy be feasible.
Eli Brooks
i just learned that hoppe is married to a turkish woman and lives in turkey.
Owen Rivera
>charity is leftist Here's a (((you))). Libertarianism can only work in a conservative society, and raising a child is less costly than dealing with vagrants.
Chase Gomez
SCHNITZEL'D
William Ortiz
>How you doing, lads? doing well, my dude
I agree, anyone who doesn't raise their child is a scumbag.
Bentley Myers
...
Joseph White
But how do you promote excellence without the alternative to serve as a warning?
You are not completely right wing.
James Barnes
Thumbs down For fuck sakes Canada Another P.C. Tim Hortons commercial embracing immigrants. This place is Cucked to the max. m.youtube.com/watch?v=S0pjW2ltKwI
Jose Wright
OP here. Thanks bro, my connection died right after I posted the thread ... after like 10 attempts. And then the captcha wouldn't fucking load for ages ...
Chase Mitchell
Are you part of the ANTICOM discord?
Wyatt James
gross. I had to stop watching when the dindu touched the photos on the fridge.
Asher Phillips
So are you telling me that people would only be charitable if held at gunpoint.
I don't know whether your post tells more about society or more about you.
Eli Cook
I will add a different perspective, again, it's not because we're not an unified front, it's because coming up with free market solutions to every problem is a really complex process.
My hypothesis is that private communities will have a certain set of rules enforced via contract, these rules might perfectly include that adults are responsible for their offspring, just as your landlord will hold you responsible if your kid breaks the window.
Anarcho Capitalism is a market of ideas, every community represents an idea and the market will end up optimizing the process and those communities with better values will end up thriving while the communities with worse values will lose market value and be bought off. So, I believe most prosperous communities will be those that don't allow degenerates such as the ones you describe, which will force parents, in their own self-interest, to care for their children if they don't want to live like gypsies in the outlaw parts of the country, totally isolated from civilization.
Jacob Perry
Missed your post.
I'm a libertarian, I believe education should be localised, powered by technology and similar to homeschooling except with actual experts, perhaps with some family element (taught by your uncles and aunts), although that isn't purely left wing so I can't larp with that.
To solve the poverty problem, people simply don't collect the communal education fund from poorer families. Some homeschooling communities already do this, it just looks really bad when one kid disappears from the group and it happens to be the poor kid.
No state involved, nor any private schools. Oh God are state schools shit.
More so cultural engineering, I'd make it so normal to not care about money and fluidly patronize artists or donate to causes or, better yet, give to actual poor people in your life that a welfare state just seems weird. Why would anyone need to be forced to help those you love that aren't doing so well? A good first step would be to raise the tax incentives for charity, next would be to fund community initiatives (yeah yeah mo cash fo dem programs).
Instead, I know first hand that when you're in a pit even our only moderately capitalist society will try to drill it into you that it's all your fault and abuse your condition to create a stancepoint of elitism. The only exception here is for "minorities," then it's basically forcing other people to help you. This is left wing authoritarianism.
This fails immediately when you realise how imperfect humans are, they habitually deny responsibility and when their kid breaks a window, somehow it's simultaneously not the kid's fault for being too young but also not the parent's responsibility because they didn't break the window.
They'll rapidly degenerate their own communities purely out of apathy. This is even promoted in this day and age: don't you dare criticise the state of ethnic communities.
Gavin Bailey
No.
First part:
How is charity done today ? Are people forced to do it ? What do people gain from charity ? Are they paid for it ?
We aren't promoting any particular mindset that enforces charity in any way.
It's obvious you're crypto-commie. Not even kidding.
>people are so selfish they wouldn't ever do charitable things >looks western society >REEEEEEEEEEEE
Second part:
That's dumb, too. The premise is very easily understandable. The free, unregulated market will spark enough competition - and also cooperation - so that society will prevent degenerate behavior - mostly - from within.
If there's a need for really highly skilled plumbers, then the training of plumbers will be emphazised. If there's a need for highly skilled engineers or programmers, then this branch of education will be emphazised on.
What you really are is not a libertarian. You're a crypto-commie as I said before. You don't believe people naturally want to prosper and there keep their kids and society clean and well if they have no welfare net to fall back on, so you want to enforce things upon the people.
As implied. Your post tells way more about you than society or our theory.
Cameron Wood
Charity is strictly a virtue signalling exercise, it's completely impersonal and you're more likely to give to some niglet in Africa than invite your own brother round for dinner.
How dare you insult my position and personality instead of my argument and pretend you're proving shit.
People are self centered, that's a fact. Get the fuck over it.
Oliver Brooks
>Instead, I know first hand that when you're in a pit even our only moderately capitalist society will try to drill it into you that it's all your fault and abuse your condition to create a stancepoint of elitism
What we have today is an unfree society with state monopolies on currency and violence and economic monopolies enforced by the state through regulation, corruption and violence. This is not even remotely comparable to what an ancap society would look like.
It's when you say "The sky is blue but my steak tastes really good".
Ethan Martin
>Its ok to destroy my people, culture, and natural environment with mcdonalds, feminism, mass immigration, hd pornography, strip mining, outsourcing, factory farms, and trannies... at least I didn't violate the NAP!
Lolbergs will defend this
Ryder Cruz
>This fails immediately when you realise how imperfect humans are, they habitually deny responsibility and when their kid breaks a window, somehow it's simultaneously not the kid's fault for being too young but also not the parent's responsibility because they didn't break the window. >They'll rapidly degenerate their own communities purely out of apathy. This is even promoted in this day and age: don't you dare criticise the state of ethnic communities.
This post ignores market and competence optimization to a point where I wonder if it's worthy to keep trying to explain my views to you, but I'll give it another go.
It's in the landlord's interest to maintain the value of their property, or he will be forced to sell, do we agree so far?
Therefore it's not so far-fetched to conclude that most communities would have clear contracts against this behavior and clear responsibilities for the tenants.
Humans might be imperfect, but market leads to perfection through provisions for those human imperfections.
When I started working as a freelancer my contracts were total shit and didn't cover half of the possibilities where clients could fuck me up, as I started gaining experience, I improved my contracts to the point of having 0 conflicts whatsoever in the last 6 years. I, literally, included a provision for every human imperfection, and thanks to that my business became prosperous.
Jack Reyes
I'm not insulting anything nor do I care for your >feels breh. I pointed out that your view is highly influenced by red values.
And I precisely answered your questions.
And for charity. You're indeed a self-centered faggot par excellence. What about all the people helping out refugees, because they feel for them ? What about all the people going out, giving homeless people food and blankets ? Or what about those who go through hospitals and try to make the time a bit better for fatally diseased people ?
You can't handle the fact that people are generous by nature, because your welfare checks aren't as big as you'd like them to be. That's obvious.
Cooper Moore
That's complete bullshit.
I suggest you read "Anatomy of the State" by Rothbard and go ahead with "Democracy - The God that Failed". Then you come back and discuss.
Eli Brooks
So you're going to keep pretending this shambalah of yours is even remotely possible without a demographic of consistently high IQ? There is no optimisation or free market amongst the idiots, there's just apathy and one deal for me mate, another for you.
Have you ever bought weed? It's the perfect example of how unregulated markets prove fairly decently to not necessarily be free markets.
They don't care about improvement and you're either being wilfully ignorant that low authority states have already existed or haven't come to that realisation. It's not hard to simply not enforce laws or only do so in one place. Edo Japan was like this, Tsarist Russia before Catherine the great was like this, even the late Roman empire was like this. Look at all these minarchical utopias!
Your word salad about my emotional state is still not convincing nor your aspersions about my current state of affairs.
I wasn't allowed to collect welfare checks for very long because these things are regulated by people who think people like me don't deserve welfare checks. Welfare in my country is literally not designed to help someone both unemployed and with a STEM degree. Again, no one cared about me during this period and I was told almost constantly that it was entirely my fault. My high GPA didn't matter, the small businesses I contracted for (but who didn't pay) didn't matter. I didn't even receive sympathy. This is the culture of even moderate capitalism; sit in your room and rot because even though affirmative action is an inarguable fact we'd still rather see you suffer because it makes us feel good to know someone like you can suffer.
This is not the mentality that would make an anarchical society pleasurable. This is the mentality of a person who would rob me blind and claim it's my fault for letting it happen.
Your literally sociopathic shit about feels? You're just like this too.
Charles Harris
>People are self centered, that's a fact. Get the fuck over it. That's an just opinion and you know it. But assuming it wasn't, I'll give you a selfish reason why would anyone help the poor: people don't want to see poor people around them. It makes them feel bad. So in a libertarian society charities would still exist, though probably in a more local basis to solve homelessness of those immediately nearby.
And then there's the question of why are there so many homeless people in the first place:
The main reason of homelessness is joblessness, which in itself is caused by governmental regulations relatable to protectionism. When a regulation is made to preserve inefficient industries or to raise the barriers of entry to some economic sector there results a net loss of jobs and since the number of businesses that operate in such industry is lower than would otherwise have been and therefore less jobs exist and they don't have to compete for employees as much as they would, making wages lower than they would have otherwise been. Employees and wage people fighting against freedom of enterprise are just shooting themselves in the foot.
And there's also the thing that governments very often artificially restrict the supply of land where housing would be built, or impose horrendous taxation on the land, work, and materials that are necessary for the housing to be there. It is not an exaggeration to say that often more than 50% of the cost of housing, be it rent or purchasing price, is government-caused.
Not to mention that without the burden of taxation the average person's income would pretty much double.
Kevin Young
>There is no optimisation or free market amongst the idiots
I don't see how that applies to the example we were talking about. Successful business owners are certainly not idiots. Market will make idiots fail and smart people succeed, like it always does save when there's government intervention.
>Have you ever bought weed?
Can't say that I have, but I understand the process.
> It's the perfect example of how unregulated markets prove fairly decently to not necessarily be free markets
I don't understand what you mean.
>They don't care about improvement and you're either being wilfully ignorant that low authority states have already existed or haven't come to that realisation. It's not hard to simply not enforce laws or only do so in one place. Edo Japan was like this, Tsarist Russia before Catherine the great was like this, even the late Roman empire was like this. Look at all these minarchical utopias!
Again, how is this relevant to the example we were talking about. I don't want to get into how Tsarist Russia was as I don't have the expertise nor the time to investigate how this applies to my hypothesis, so mind being a bit more concrete on your criticism? Instead of just telling me to "look at history"?
Joseph Mitchell
I already explained before that our society is not capitalism, not even mild. And that's the last thing I'm going to tell you.
It's not like you just wouldn't listen, you're straight up ignoring what you read, obviously based on your political bias and prejudice. And you're making arguments based on "personal experience" which are bound to produce fallacies anyway.
>my parents hit me in my childhood so all parents do it just as example. Same goes with what you've written.
It's almost like you're the text book example of lefty or SJW for that matter.
I suggest you read some of our resources. See or
Then, when you still think the same way, we can have a talk with real arguments instead of >feels
Asher Robinson
...
Lincoln Thompson
>people don't want to see poor people around them. It makes them feel bad Bullshit. People love being reminded that there's someone doing worse than them, at least sociopathic people do.
>The main reason of homelessness is joblessness, which in itself is caused by governmental regulations relatable to protectionism In my case, my joblessness was caused by the average ideology of people hired to work as human resources and recruitment. Do you actually believe Marxism in universities was deliberately state sponsored rather than a runaway effect of Soviet agitation?
>since the number of businesses that operate in such industry is lower than would otherwise have been and therefore less jobs exist and they don't have to compete for employees as much as they would, making wages lower than they would have otherwise been. I actually agree to this. The tricky is promoting small business without corporations literally sitting in board rooms strategizing anti-disruption ideas.
In reality I'm a more moderate libertarian, even Stefan Molyneux is clearly not maxing out the right wing. I just larp the left wing in my free time.
>It is not an exaggeration to say that often more than 50% of the cost of housing, be it rent or purchasing price, is government-caused. This is very true in Australia, land value is deliberately bubbling
>Not to mention that without the burden of taxation the average person's income would pretty much double So long as a state is necessary, so long as humans aren't ideal, is as long as we still need taxation.
Brother. You were the one who began to make it personal, so I gave you some personal. I witnessed first hand that no one cared when I was down, I don't actually blame them, but I won't believe contemporary humans can care without some reward. Enlightened self-interest completely escapes them, especially if they're under 120iq. That's the average man I don't trust.
Please keep pretending you didn't fire the first shot.
John Howard
...
Ryder Young
See, I'm such a kind person, I'll break my own creed.
Just food for thought.
Imagine if I'm teacher. I tell my students to fuck off, because they're dumb as fuck shitheads not worthy of my time. While I'm saying that and other things, I'm proving the central limit theorem. Does that render the proof wrong ? No it doesn't, because only in leftist-think it's possible that being rude renders whole arguments and argument structures - no matter how reasonable and true they are - wrong and irrelevant. While in addition, "personal experience" is totally reliable, no matter how much of a cunt people are. And personal experience is no measure for anything. It's a special case where your particular hypothesis suddenly applied. But the truth is, you hypothesis was made from this experience so infact it IS rendered worthless.
proof:
>[...] How dare you insult my position and personality [...]
post to
>Please keep pretending you didn't fire the first shot.
post Now get your ass off the internet and read Anatomy or Democracy. It'll be good for you.
Isaiah Miller
About the weed, weed dealers will basically charge everyone a different price, give everyone a different weight and reserve the better stuff for better clients. They get especially inequitable for people who seem middle class and sell it at the same price they bought it for their friends. This is quite the opposite of a free or fair market.
About Tsarist Russia, the Tsar for most of history was a holy Roman empire puppet who only enforced laws between Moscow and westward. The closer you got to the Urals, the less laws were enforced and it was largely capitalist due to the influence of the silk road. There were whole armies of slaves mining shit and being treated horribly.
Japan is a better example, their emperor at times was nothing more than an artistic leader. The laws his regime imposed were only enforced in one city and elsewhere the Japanese (high IQ people but still not high enough) would enforce peace by hiring a samurai. No. Rich people hired a samurai. Poor people were exploited.
On one hand though, this is essentially the rights enforcement agency thing that David Friedman supposedly invented: youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
What I want you to realise is that plenty of times throughout history free markets have replaced authority, ironically in many of these cases the results weren't actually that bad. The red pill here is that all you need for a minarchy is.. don't enforce laws? Legal systems without execution becomes simply social constructs, but the result can be anything from Marx's impossible communist society to Somalia.
It all depends on the people. It only depends on the people.
Yes, the post I replied to there was essentially where you essentially used memes to insult me like a small autistic child.
You don't actually believe you have the high ground here, do you?
Eli Ramirez
Still straight up ignoring what you're reading.
I'm not the one pretendig to be on moral high ground.
Brody Parker
friendly reminder that the idea of man as a mere homo economicus, with a blank slate, free to do as he pleases, without any worth or higher ideal outside of economic transactions, is the root of today's degeneracy.
libertarianism is nothing but license, the expressive right to degeneration, to miscegenation, to corruption, to open borders, to diversity,...
>inb4 muh private borders
even a child knows that is the most ridiculous defense ever. everyone has the right to immigrate, to property, has the right to buy and sell, has the right to marry and thus immigration will not in any way be stopped by ancapism.
not to mention that there are already large minorities who can easily provide and help establish more new immigrants, should economy not be a role anymore for attracting new immigrants.
not to mention that corporations would gladly import cheap foreign workers
so ancapism means merely more diversity, more immigration, more multiculturalism, multiracialism, fractioning of countries and cultures,....
>inb4 socialist! you are no beter than stalin! muh freedom
get the fuck outta here with your strawman.
William James
Does anybody have the flag with the sneks bound to a fasces saying "fuck off"? Would be really greatful if someone would help
Owen Ramirez
No, I'm doing it deliberately. You're not worth my time. You literally think this is somewhere else and that you can get away with opening with insults and ad hominems.
Do you think you're someone important here? Let me enlighten you, you aren't important anywhere and if anything has convinced you otherwise, it's an illusion. You stand only on your arguments, your actions and absolutely nothing else. What you've proven tonight is that you believe you too can gain superiority by consistently attacking.
I have deliberately ignored your points because of your shit, not despite their value, but due to their lack thereof.
Kill thyself, fiend. You began here: >REEEEEEEEE Shit tier meme.
The only group to actually pay me as a contractor was a charity for autistic children. How telling. There's a reason I call people sociopathic instead of autistic, they're better people than the people who abuse their condition for a meme.
But it's just joke, bro, amirite? Just memes...
Ryan Flores
I prefer it when discussion is civil rather than when it is so heated. There is a limito to the number of walls of text one can read before getting frustrated.
Let's chill out, shall we? Don't make me go get these McNukes.
Robert Cooper
HOPPE'D
But yes, his wife actually owns the Karia Princess hotel in Bodrum, that's where they do the PFS gatherings. She met him as a Mises student.
Angel Allen
I still don't know how Anarchocapitalists are able to simply dismiss the idea that establishing that sort of system won't INSTANTLY result in lootings, killings, and a general revolt as positions are reestablished under a new set of the natural law of liberty. All I see in Anarchocapitalism is a set of minuscule communes or individual people who have to be ever watchful and providing their own defense against aggression, effectively resulting to sleeping with one eye open for the rest of your life.
Luis Edwards
This ?
>my feels breh, my feels >kys mate I'm better and you're shit
You don't see the fallacy you're making, do you ?
Anyway
You indeed are just a random SJW pretending to be a libertarian.
God bless you, may you one day step off your high horse and perceive arguments as what they are and not as what you think they are.
Grayson Martin
Just because you're getting rid of the state doesn't mean you're getting rid of Nature's instincts (caring for offspring). Getting rid of the state would help existing and future families by:
1) eliminating taxation 2) eliminating child labor laws (which penalize couples with children) 3) eliminating state-funded public education (which removes the parents as the authority figures and the role-models; and since public education is usually a Marxist propaganda program).
And we should also add the fact that marriage and family life would no longer be strangled by social workers and the state meddling in family life.
As to irresponsible parents who don't want their children: child free markets.
Jason Turner
First of all, fair market is a term you brought up to the conversation. I don't believe a market has to be fair.
Also, at least you should acknowledge that the weed market is, due to state regulation, in the shadows and therefore, with limited competence and practice exposure, is bound to have shady dealers who would not last a day in the market if the circumstances were of open, true and legal transactions between two or more parties.
Literally, what you describe are practices that would be heavily punished in the free market and are not punished because the total lack of transparency and it being an ostracized practice.
About Tsarist Russia, I still fail to see how it applies to my hypothesis of private communities. Your theory keeps failing to explain how landlords will somehow let their properties lose value and manage to succeed to maintain them.
Free markets have not replaced authority in any of those situations and you just cannot project one of the multiple factors of free market into a society that had tremendous issues aside from security.
And yes, it does depend on the people, but not exclusively on them, laws and environment forge people.
Kayden Sanders
>1) eliminating taxation Sure, along with a whole plethora of state protections, but fair enough for the sake of argument.
>2) eliminating child labor laws (which penalize couples with children)
So essentially forcing kids into working rather than learning. How is this freedom again?
>3) eliminating state-funded public education (which removes the parents as the authority figures and the role-models; and since public education is usually a Marxist propaganda program).
So relying on incompetent parents who hardly are able to teach their kids basic manners today to give them a whole education? You'll end up with a potential army of uneducated filth.
>As to irresponsible parents who don't want their children: child free markets.
So selling people. Again, all of this completely throws out the window every notion of human beings as anything other than economic creatures.
Noah Young
It would just be the same as today but instead of paying forceful tax to a state they would be paying voluntary subscription to one protection agency among lots of other competing ones. If you wanted, that is.
Private security isn't rocket science. As a matter of fact it currently is a booming industry. Not because the state has receded, but because private enterprise has stepped in due to the failure of the state to provide security.
And contrarily to today, policing would be more effective since people would pay not for some generalized "protection" but rather for specific protection of their property. The quality of the service would be way higher and the cost would surely be more related to the actual cost of the service, contrarily to what the state charges for it.
Mason Powell
>providing their own defense There's gonna be private security. Why can you relax around state funded police when they have a monopoly and they can get away with shit they'd never get away with in a free market but private security terrifies you?
Aiden Adams
That one, thanks alot brudi
Carson Long
>Mercenaries, mercenaries, I'm being robbed! >okay, pls show me your receipts that show you're paying anti-thief protection
History has proven time and time again that armies moved only by money are the worst you could aspire to have.
Angel Bennett
Because in a "free market" I can never truly trust that said private protection isn't going to blackmail me, or move on to a better offer that works against my own wellbeing and safety.
Ryder Hernandez
>state brainwashing is the only option
>private protection isn't going to blackmail me The monopoly blackmails you because people believe there should be a democratic monopoly. If the people stop giving them power then they lose it.
Brody Watson
There is no argument here. I literally couldn't give a fuck what you think, I'm just astounded by your complete lack of self awareness.
You still think you're proving something? >God bless you, may you one day step off your high horse and perceive arguments as what they are and not as what you think they are. This is literally rewording what I've said to you this entire thread. You have proven nothing. You have gained nothing.
That instinct only works if you watch them grow, it's completely ineffective for a stranger's child. It's also completely exploitable, want to know what causes unrealistic white women to hold signs in German railway stations inviting immigrants? It's related to that mothering instinct. Relying on it isn't going to replace the state, relying on it is going to create more will for a state.
Also, have you read this thrilling argument: The whole left libertarian thing devolves to a think of the children argument, I haven't hidden this. You simply can't expect children to look after themselves, can't expect only great people to have children, can't expect other people to look after other people's children. All three are ridiculous.
Me thinks he's somewhat trolling
>child labour That's right kids, don't learn high technology skills, work in a coal mine instead and inhale that tasty coal dust (with sprinkles of carcinogenic uranium)! Make this whole life thing short and sweet, you could lose your virginity at 8 years old with your first paycheck to a Victorian era prostitute. Wait another pay check and you can even get one the same age as you without those odd spots on her vagina.
So what is a free market? Are you actually arguing the free market is "anything goes"? This might actually work in the contemporary age where there's plenty of alternatives, but if the only water salesman in a desert is price gouging, uh.. yeah, cool society bro.
Jayden Powell
>So essentially forcing kids into working rather than learning. How is this freedom again? How would anyone be "forcing" anyone to do something? It is the middle class and the upper class who are subsidizing the children of the lower class to go to school. We shouldn't be subsidizing anything, let alone families whose children could very well work in the family business or in a trade, or something other that doesn't require X years of compulsory education.
>So relying on incompetent parents who hardly are able to teach their kids basic manners today to give them a whole education? You'll end up with a potential army of uneducated filth. Citation needed for "incompetent parents."
>So selling people. Again, all of this completely throws out the window every notion of human beings as anything other than economic creatures. You're not selling the child's property rights themselves, you're selling the property rights to the trusteeship over the child. The child would still be an independent human with rights of its own. The parents who gave it up for adoption would not be selling the child, but the property "title" to the guardianship.
Alexander Ortiz
Your prejudices come exclusively for YOUR lack of ability to imagine free market solutions to the problems you propose, not because they wouldn't exist.
This one is easy as fuck, you don't get mercenaries on a need->buy basis, you get them on a subscription model, either by living in a gated community with private security or by hiring an agency to patrol a specific area along with your neighbors.
You would not like to live in places where crimes are occurring right? So would you agree, then, that people who provide communities will, in their own interest, try to keep it that way? Even if you're not paying, I don't want a corpse or a thief in my yard.
Also you would like for people to visit you right? Would people visit you if their life was at risk by doing so? So why the fuck will you buy property there where your life and property are not secured?
Ryan Hill
Over-generalizing. You're also missing the point of "not on my property". A few cucked German women holding signs for immigration would not be a problem in Ansnekistan, since those women would have to entirely subsidize the immigrant's stay. And if anti-migrant sentiment is high, the rest of the population could very well expel the women for bringing the property values down.
Ryan Collins
>You're not selling the child's property rights themselves, you're selling the property rights to the trusteeship over the child. The child would still be an independent human with rights of its own. The parents who gave it up for adoption would not be selling the child, but the property "title" to the guardianship.
How can you defend the independence of said child in the same statement in which his "legal" guardianship has been traded potentially without his consent? Why would anyone in said free market want to buy "guardianship" over a child if not for the sake of degeneracy, or to put them to work and exploit them? Maybe if you're an Angelina Jolie type who collects children like they're pogs you'll see cases of this being done well, but that's not your average person.
Oliver Nelson
Nice meme. Do you know what is the opposite of a mercenary? A conscript.
A mercenary fights for money. A conscript fights because if he doesn't he'll go to jail.
The idea that people fights for patriotism or whatever other shit is levels high of bizarre. Only people that have never been in a war can hold such a bizarre idea.
War is not like in the movies.
In a monopolistic security market (aka statism) the state:
>takes +50% of your income. >can enslave you to force you to fight (conscription) >can force you to partake in mass murder (war) or become a victim of it >can confiscate your property >can force you to pay them money for living in your own house (estate tax)
Sounds like a very shitty alternative, mate.
Sebastian Cox
>So what is a free market? Are you actually arguing the free market is "anything goes"? This might actually work in the contemporary age where there's plenty of alternatives, but if the only water salesman in a desert is price gouging, uh.. yeah, cool society bro.
A free market is that where two or more parties mutually benefit from a transaction without harming others body or property.
One where acquisition is done by voluntary transaction, transformation or first-appropriation of goods.
That is the most basic way to avoid conflicts in a world with scarcity.
And still that model of private security in general just grows into localized monopolies, because the only force of legitimacy that makes one force the one to hire is their ability to enforce peace, so the largest organizations are going to be the ones that control security by default, potentially in many cases by eliminating their competitors.
Isaac Fisher
>because the only force of legitimacy that makes one force the one to hire is their ability to enforce peace
Peace is easily enforced by a minimum set of rules, we call it the NAP but others might surface and be just as effective.
It's up to the individuals to decide how many rights they're willing to sacrifice in order to acquire such security.
If you're claiming that most people will go to the band of thugs instead of going there where laws are clear and fair, would be like trying to claim most people want to live in Iraq and not in Denmark.
Caleb Scott
>localized monopolies >in a service economy No. All one person has to do is make a contract with another insurer.
>largest organizations More bureaucratic therefore inherently more expensive.
>eliminating their competitors War costs money. Why would customers fund it when they can just contract a cheaper insurer that's not a cunt?
>inb4 they tax them They are heavily armed anarchists that would receive help from competing insurers. It's not gonna happen as long as these people are actually willing to be free.
Juan Cruz
who builds the roads
Cooper Miller
You are worse than any other group. I'd genuinely rather drink with an anarcho-syndicalist, AIDS-ridden squatter than the LARPing hypocrisy that is your average Libertarian.
Christopher Perez
>Why would anyone in said free market want to buy "guardianship" over a child if not for the sake of degeneracy, or to put them to work and exploit them? Stop projecting.
Carter Diaz
>An Australian complaining about roads.
Has Mad Max not taught you anything?
Sebastian Ross
Not an argument in a world where children are working in diamond mines and sweatshops.
Ryan Carter
yw
Camden Richardson
In impoverished societies only.
Nature is what forces people to work, the harsher the nature is, the biggest amount of work you will have to do to cover your basic needs.
Should children work? My grandfather worked when he was 12, I bet yours did too, can we, from the comfort of our highly capitalized positions, tell people who are poor that they cannot go through the process of wealth creation our families went through?
What I'm sure of is that as a society becomes more and more capitalized the need for children to work is more and more reduced, why not, then, work towards those methods that allow societies to become capitalized quickly, such as, I don't know...capitalism?
Jackson Sanchez
What about national anarchists/autonomous nationalists? Why don't we get any love?
Cooper Long
You come from the position that parents are naturally exploitative and would rather have their kids work in a mine or with heavy loads and have health problems later on than have them go to school and get an education. I come from the opposite side.
Carter Evans
You guys are alright in my book. Nice logo too.
Logan Walker
That's great to hear. Heil Hoppe.
Jaxson Peterson
You promote excellence because anything else is laughed at in a covenant which promotes excellence.
Ayden Myers
Link?
Owen Campbell
No problem, mate. You still owe me a beer, though. Have a bump.
Nathaniel Thomas
>destroy my people and culture That's what the state does. If there wasn't a monopoly on force enforcing these destructive policies, they wouldn't even exist.
Wyatt Johnson
I don't know much about NA but sounds pretty based. Could you give me a quick rundown?
Josiah Morgan
Ultimately, men are machines turning factors into products. What more they decide to do with their life depends on them and them alone. Also, read up on any Hoppe quote - I don't want people too different from me anywhere near me.
Isaiah Reed
I hate walls of text, too. Libertarians agreeing on something is truly a rare sight.
Kevin Rivera
>NAP violations It's almost like half of AnCap literature is devoted to that subject.
Noah Foster
>mercenaries I like militias more. They actually have a sense of duty on top of wanting to make money.
Noah James
Yet you trust the state, whose record is as bad if not worse.
Logan Perry
>capital L Removed.
Carson Rivera
Not a bad first impression. Are you basically nationalist AnCaps?
Honestly, it's so anti-everything it can be hard to pin down exactly what we're fighting for precisely, but I believe the basic operating principle is defense of the organic (ethno-) nation by attacks on the cultural technologies which imperil it (Marxism, Judeo-capitalism, etc.)
Myself, I'm a market enthusiast and I don't exactly oppose the state as a concept, so I have some difficulties getting along with other NAs, but first things first: smash the cultural left. We can negotiate among ourselves afterward.
Chase Brooks
...
Andrew Clark
>left libertarian lol
Your entire political position is basically just wanting to do whatever you want while being taken care of by others You are a child
Your question is a relevant modern question. What is the answer to that question today that is made invalid by being right-libertarian? Millions of kids right now are reliant upon uncaring irresponsible parents, most of them never receive any state aid. Most of them will turn out okay in life. I am an example of this myself.
Gavin Sanders
weak bait faggot
here have a (you)
Hunter Thompson
This is exactly how the world has worked for a very long time The state programs we have for helping kids help very few of the ones who need it and often harm children as well. It is easily seen that kids who grow up in a conflict-heavy environment mature much faster - you get the 12 year old little girl raising all her siblings while deadbeat-parents do drugs and waste food stamps on alcohol. Five year olds in Japan in totally happy families ride public transport to school, make breakfast for their parents, etc.
I think youre honestly severely underestimate kids' ability to adapt and grow within a fucked up home, and take care of themselves if necessary. You're severely underestimating how much kids can do if you just let them
Jack Foster
Culture and belief in the good of mankind There have been many great and charitable souls throughout history, those people wont cease to exist in a libertarian environment The lack of state influence will contribute to the rise of voluntary charity - I know your jaded soul might not believe this but most of us inherently want to do good in the world
Cameron Murphy
>projection
Robert Wright
>Statist world >Elected leaders backstab the people, bring in thousands of 'refugee' shitskins >No one can do anything to them and they are released despite committing severe crimes since theyre impossible to hold and charge >Eventual societal collapse
>Lolberg world >Somehow, someway, someone brought in fugees >Being shitskins they violate the NAP constantly and are culled one by one until none are left >Order is restored
Jackson Miller
>without a demographic of consistently high IQ
So you're telling me that a white-ethnostate can do it
