Is Hoppean Libertarianism the ultimate redpill?

is Hoppean Libertarianism the ultimate redpill?

Other urls found in this thread:

propertarianism.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=UYbhpOemmcc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

yes

yes

yes

yes.

Yes

ys

more snaks

yall mfers need jesus
remember that jesus allows jesus

and becasue of that you can jesus
this means that you can justify hurting poeple becasue jesus

so remember jesus

...

The Polar Opposite of Negative

No

...

yes, but the (((freedom))) jew has been grossly overplayed, to allow the redpilling to spread. even capitalist plebs believe in big governments, what do OP?

>Managed to become even more retarded than communists
both of you deserve a nice fat bullet to the head

Jawohl

>Become mayor or town
>Privatize everything
>???????
>Profit

Rinsend repeat Ancap utopia is upon us

ophidiophobes get out reeeeeee

"Through Emerald Eyes I See 1776 "

...

...

...

Not really. It's literally a regurgitation of feudalism but instead of feudal lords its private property owners with covenant communities.

If all you've read is Democracy the God the God that failed, you might think that.

Yes it is, and to try to prove the opposite would be a performative contradiction.

Propertarianism is, which is similar in many ways but in my view is an even higher level redpill. Give Curt Doolittle's work a gander, he is probably the most brilliant political thinker of our time:
>propertarianism.com/

A cute!

You've been shilling this thing ever since /lrg/ became a thing, Mr. Doolittle. Does anyone even know you besides a handful of people?

...

using minorites as furniture while they prepare shrimp, and weed for me IS the highest redpill.

my dudes

What was the original picture?

Some Lefty with a che shirt.

...

>pro-usury
>redpilled

Usery is jewery and fraud, therefore violating the non-aggression principle.

...

Wow, what a faggot.

How yo say you understand neither philosophy

Yes.
youtube.com/watch?v=UYbhpOemmcc

ya. pretty much

...

Libertarianism is a leftist ideology. It's failure to spread as a political movement can largely be attributed to attempts to rebrand it as rightist, which is part of a larger movement to bring traditional leftist economics to conservative movements.

I blame Progressives and Communists, who fought so hard to make right-wing economics into authoritarian left-wing social movements..

go back to r/libertarian, pinko

Mine was a joke.

Can someone explain this ideology? I always thought it was just

>muh NAP
>muh no roads

What exactly is "libertarian" about forcibly oppressing gays?

NAP(non-aggression principle) is a mechanism that should in theory negate any violent crimes since you have moral authority to fight back
"muh roads" is basically an argument made by statists that people are generally incompetent with making public infrastructure, so that is one of their "obvious" and "basic" reason why you need government (lets ignore all house outdoor pavements, or any other corporation built road that was not funded by a government)

>He thinks property is leftist.
This is horrible bait. Try again

NAP is an idea promoted primarily by anarcho-capitalists who are a small and vocal submovement of libertarianism. They have interesting ideas, but none that work in the real world. While they are pretty ubiquitous on Sup Forums and on the internet in general, they're actually a tiny minority of libertarians.

Libertarianism is more generally the idea that the government should exist to serve the needs of individuals, most especially by the granting of human rights to guarantee that people have the freedom to live pretty much as they please as long as it doesn't cause problems for other people.

Libertarians have been consistent advocates for the legalization of recreational drugs, consumer protection laws, equal rights for everyone including homosexuals and minorities, free trade (not the "free trade" that includes tariffs and other "soft protectionism" that is so popular with Dems and Republicans), political pluralism, and international law of the non-interventionist variety.

Who are you who does not know the shoulders of the giants on which you stand?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

>NAP is an idea promoted primarily by anarcho-capitalists who are a small and vocal submovement of libertarianism. They have interesting ideas, but none that work in the real world. While they are pretty ubiquitous on Sup Forums and on the internet in general, they're actually a tiny minority of libertarians.

can you point out some actual and reasonable crituques on ancap?

Don't D&C on me!

Libertarians and AnCaps united.

Liberalism is a leftist divison of libertarianism which long predates it's popularization in the states

The most glaring issue with Ancap ideology is the assumption that everyone is not just a rational actor, but a particular kind of rational actor who considers the well-being of the whole group and makes optimal decisions. In short, it's the assumption that people make the right choice in the prisoner's dilemma, instead of taking the safe choice, which is more rational individually.

Some Ancaps promote a NAP with a defense clause to get around these kinds of obvious problems. The issue there is that either you very quickly have a demand for a government to maintain courts (then why don't you just have a normal government?) or you have people forced to solve their problems through violence. It's a bit like a Mad Max version of anarcho-capitalism, which would be fun but realistically there will never be enough people willing to vote for that and probably no way to transition without societal collapse or an authoritarian reaction.

There are also the "government is just to enforce contracts" Ancaps, but I've never really seen a fleshed out version of this idea, so I'll refrain from criticizing it.

No. Suicide or alternately omnicide is the ultimate redpill.

>The state is just
>Ancap
Please lurk more.

Libertarian Gnostics = Woke

What? Liberalism and libertarianism have the exact same origins with the exact same founding philosophers. Liberal is the term that these people used to describe themselves.

Libertarian as a term post-dates the founding of the US and didn't really catch on until Progressives began to seize control of the American left and then libertarian caught on internationally to describe classic liberal revival movements.
>blaming non-ancap user for some ancaps being logically inconsistent
>declaring victory
>wew lad

I can see your argument where ancaps are blinded by this notion that they can only see one type of economic actor

but can you list out a few of them or at least make a few axioms and then rules of coupling where we can by rule of combinatorics see how they might act and what their preferences might be

the other arguments you made branch out of that original premise

I've never heard an ancap justify the state. Just to be clear, not everyone who owns the label of libertarianism is an ancap. If you do see some "ancap" justify the state please ignore that retard.

>combinatorics

I'm at work. I don't have time to make behavioral Punnet Squares for you. And I'm not a sociologist, so any attempt would have a bunch of erroneous personal assumptions that would easily be picked apart.

I'd like to tell you about my idea of despair cycles, a particular type of tragedy of the commons where every actor makes individually rational decisions, that change the optimally rational decision for all other actors in a system, causing systemic instabilities that reduce the available options to each actor and ultimately lead to systemic correction or collapse. Common examples include the current bull-recession cycle and the outsource business model. But I don't have time to write an essay.

I, too, am baffled that there are ancaps who think they can have anarcho-capitalism with a (limited) state. When I don't ignore them, I tend to use nevergofullretard.jpg. They make libertarians look bad.

Yes i am aware of that but such catastrophes are of short life and ultimately when it colapses something new comes along, also there are notable outliers in every sample of people who are gifted in intelligence and who are also non conformist type thinkers
these people usually break those chain-reactions in thinking and profit because of it, what stops this style of thinking to be implemented in every market?

also your example can be used as a counter example against goverments (war on drugs, NATO, fiat currency). My example usually guarantees a tough 5 year recession at most

>5 year recession at most

See, in a true free market, there are no recessions or economic despair cycles because instead of a system wide correction/collapse, individual entities go bankrupt. Why have a system where, on long enough but not too long scale, everyone suffers the consequences when you can have a system where instabilities are rapidly corrected by competition?

To be fair, most people would hate living in a free market and free markets have their own share of problems. But planning for recessions is planning for failure. I just can't believe they are an inevitability when there are countless historical examples of economies that were stable for centuries and only collapsed/changed drastically due to political, military, or technological pressures.

hoppean libertarians are a bunch of alt-lite dweebs that claim to hate fascists, yet love to larp as them

haha le helicopter rides my dude xD, physical removal lol, muh pinochet!

dude no step on snek haha

my 5 year recession idea was due to a meteor crash or a terrible sun gas explosion

it would take some time to find a marketable alternative you know

recession =! famine