This thread is for Discussion of Libertarianism, Capitalism, Anarcho-Capitalism, and the PHYSICAL REMOVAL of COMMUNIST FAGS from our board of peace. Reminder that this is the Libertarian RIGHT General. Aleppo Johnson-fags, Left-Libertarians, and other Shit-Libs need to fuck off. Voice your complaints to r/libertarian.
>Recommended Reading list
libertarianright.org
>Vanilla /lrg/ pastebin- CREATE IF YOU DONT SEE ONE IN THE CATALOG
pastebin.com
>Bump for Life, Liberty, and Private Death Squads
>What is Physical Removal?
youtube.com
/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL: What role does tribalism/traditionalism play edition
Blake Allen
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
archive.lewrockwell.com
archive.lewrockwell.com
lewrockwell.com
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
libertarianheathen.com
youtube.com
libertarianright.org
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jaxson Jenkins
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
Ian Jackson
Start reading Hoppe
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
Evan Lee
I like the edition, anyone have any good reason on it? I like to think most of us are cultural traditionalists
Andrew Parker
ROTHBARD READING LIST:
Articles by Murray Rothbard:
>Big-Government Libertarians
archive.lewrockwell.com
>Race! That Murray Book
archive.lewrockwell.com
>More on LewRockwell.com
lewrockwell.com
Books:
>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
Camden Williams
>reasons
Should be reading
Aiden Lee
I have nothing
A quick google brings up this libertarianheathen.com
Samuel Robinson
Thanks I'll check it out
Julian Evans
I'm reading it but the layout of the website is disgusting, text is too big and what not
Colton Robinson
Yuck yuck yuck yuck
Nathan Young
Too many retards in the world for libertarianism to work. I'm sorry it's true.
Brayden Cruz
In ancap society, what makes you think I will respect your NAP when you have to rely on not getting killed first? I'll kill you and take your property like everyone else
Jack Sullivan
>those digits
Isaac Lee
They won't even follow NAP. Only hope is in future when start colonizing planets.
Juan Hill
>one finnish man is going to murder the entire world and not be stopped, forever
Another entry into the "imaginary, hypothetical, ancap world" diary.
Juan Baker
>Too many retards in the world
Libertarian societies can enforce their own borders and rules so you are kept apart from these retards you speak of.
>won't even follow NAP
Then they will all be given helicopter rides
Jeremiah Bailey
I didn't say I'm going to murder everyone, dumbass. I'm saying why the fuck would I trust anyone at all? Literally nobody except couple autists are going to respect NAP, I'm making sure I'm not going to get killed right away
Mason Rogers
Isn't it immoral to dominate society just because of your birth status?
Jack Peterson
Exactly. Rand wants you to leave
Nolan Gray
Are you in a constant state of distrust unless there is a police officer or 'state official' around 24/7?
>no one follows the rules of the roads
>i could get driven into at any time, by anyone, anywhere
>bet start ramming my car into the nearest pedestrian
Your argument makes no sense. No one is going to go around killing everyone "in case they die first". Personally I advocate for a smaller state, which only enforces the rule of law, defense, protection of citizens, and a judicial court of law. Thats all the state needs to provide.
Caleb Williams
tribalism, plays a role without a doubt mate. Cucked libertarians may say that people forming homogeneous communites are bad because they have to prove themselves to be "supreme individualists" or whatever. I think thats bullshit and a truely libertarian society MUST be homogeneous in order to have a social order that respects and works together voluntarily. People sharing the same values and culture is just good for civilization in general. which is why lefties, liberals faggots and junkies and other moral relativists need to be ostrasized and removed to promote that homogeneity to have a functioning libertarian society.
Jack Butler
This is /lrg/ not /ancap/ or /1800sAfrica/
Carson Stewart
Isn't it immoral to dominate society just because of your birth status?
No, why would it be immoral for a homogeneous community to promote its values, while disincentivizing those that are against their values?
>why the fuck would I trust anyone at all?
because thats what adults do in a civilized society, they form communities and work together to acheive their goals
Xavier Martinez
I agree, I've just been having a hard time recently balancing the varying realms of technological advancement, cultural traditionalism and right libertarianism that I stand for.
I spend a lot of my days and nights thinking about it.
Michael Wood
FIX FUGGIN PAST EBIN REEEEEEE
bump for day of the economics lesson
Jackson Wilson
But within that society someone born of lesser intelligence, lower motivation or within a poor family would be disadvantaged through no fault of there own. Doesn't there have to be some form of redistribution or is it just bad fucking luck?
John Hall
Charitiy dude, get your stupid broke ass to church.
I dont think its that much of a balancing act. Traditionalism and Libertarianism go great together. What's your issue? that you might need to use force to maintain a socially conservative society?
Camden Butler
There are always advantages, some are way more subtle but as powerful as money.
Truth is, when you have nothing and you're asked where would you want to live, you always chose the place that has more wealth because the class-elevator works way better, countries that engage redistribution are compromising this class-elevator by allocating resources poorly.
Nathan Price
what's wrong with the pastebin? I can edit it.
Grayson Nguyen
>someone born of lesser intelligence, lower motivation or within a poor family would be disadvantaged through no fault of there own
This inevitability happens in every society. Redistribution through forced taxation is not the answer, either ideologically, morally, and empirically.
Nolan Perez
It's incomplete.
Add all this shit in the OP and subseqyent posts to it.
Jason Thomas
It's more that unforced globalism and increasing interdependence and interconnectedness, through technology, naturally bludgeons traditionalism. For me it seems an inevitability. I pray I'm wrong, and that we can use technology to better our own traditions and cultures.
Here's a good example of that: youtube.com
In fact at one point he states how he knows his ancestors made mistakes, and modern technology allows him to rectify for them.
Isaiah Rogers
Really? Like charity has ever come close to fixing poverty.. Even the largest welfare states can't do it.
Hunter Cox
Not saying taxation and welfare is the answer but libertarian ideology isn't going to solve the issue.
Easton Butler
>someone born of lesser intelligence, lower motivation or within a poor family would be disadvantaged through no fault of there own
That's luck, and there is *NOTHING MORALLY WRONG WITH LUCK*.
All moral affairs are about people's actions in regard to one another - there is nothing morally wrong about Sven being born in the slums while Josef is born in the suburbs.
Charles Lewis
you mean the reading list posts?
that's why we got the
>Recommended Reading list
libertarianright.org
if you prefer them be made into posts thats fine I can do that.
alright then genius, how do we "fix" stupid, lazy, and poor people issue? I guess you could force them to do labor or conscript them into your army and then pay them for their work.
yeah, slavery is the answer.
Lincoln Reyes
As the poster below you points out, inequality is a natural state of being. Only the individual can fix it in the long-term.
In the same vain that poverty "measures" are relative rather than absolute. - no one born into the West is born into absolute poverty. Relative, maybe, but that's not a non-measure.
Isaiah Carter
The issue is when a society eventually consolidates it's classes through natural methods, i.e. the families with lower intelligence and personality traits unsuitable to being competitive in that society will always end up at the bottom. This is happening now, class movement is insignificant to the amount of people trying.
Zachary Hall
Because welfare states operate on theft, you mong.
Logan Roberts
Feels good seing these threads
Jeremiah Lee
You're voting for Fillon ?
Jose Parker
...
Camden James
>be ancap
>voting
Pick one
Parker Perry
Do you DESERVE a higher standard of living because of luck?
Joseph Moore
That's dumb.
Michael Moore
The issue of inequality is solved by throwing acid to your face when you're a kid if you're too pretty, schooling all of you under the state to avoid positive paternal influences, hitting in the head those that show to be smarter, locking you up for a while if you are too social, and even then you will never achieve true equality because it is impossible.
Since equality is impossible, what we libertarians want is the ability to climb socially from 0 to the top, and Capitalist countries have demonstrated a higher capability for this.
By redistributing and trying to correct natural inequalities, what you are doing is taking away resources from those who multiply them while giving them to those who divide them. This misallocation of resources compromises future wealth, and therefore screws up class movement.
>class movement is insignificant to the amount of people trying.
Yet higher than in any other point in history, specially in Capitalist countries.
Benjamin Smith
well socialism is the answer
Hunter Baker
Well his economic policies are nice
Which is why french normies hate him
And his societal policies would be nice if we were still in the 70's,in terms of demographics we're doomed
Xavier Jones
It's not about deserving anything. Nothing in life is about deserving anything. Not a single thing. It's about conducting oneself morally - it's not about outcomes. A starving Haitian who dies in an earthquake doesn't deserve to have their live snuffed, and neither does a rich Chinese kid deserve the experiences he enjoys. Outcomes have no moral quality - only acting human conduct does.
Bentley Flores
I'm referring to the moral reasoning behind libertarianism
Tyler Davis
no shit, I know what thread im posting in dickhead
Aiden Jackson
You're implying that
a) "Class" differential is an inherent 'issue'
b) Individuals are unable to move between classes
Both most suffice for your supposed inevitable-end-state but neither are true, so by default neither is your end-state.
I personally was born into working-class, moved my way up to middle-class, but I have no desire to join the upper-class.
Aiden Watson
I get what your saying that our means to do things will never be "traditional" again, but technology is a tool. given purpose by man. It can be used to acheive a more traditional lifestyle, cant it?
you really made me think, I'll have to look into it more.
kek, you're a funny guy. Surely no one goes hungry in socialist societies.
Michael Baker
Anarcho-Capitalst here.
Question: In case we go to Mars, how do you divide the resources? Can you just claim them?
Nicholas Smith
What I told you that helped to start Liberland?
Liam Rodriguez
>do you deserve a prettier girlfriend because you are born 4 inches higher
Every man to get a broken snooker cue and fight it out.
Jaxon Cruz
No, you gotta go get thems resources. you can't just say you own it. you need a claim to that property. maybe once you've mined minerals you can say your labor was used to attain that property.
Jack Reed
youtube.com
put this in the OP, more important thank any link you have. thanks.
Jayden Reyes
How do you get to own the property where you can dig for resources?
How does that become your property?
Justin Taylor
Lockean principles, whoever has and uses a resource first has a better claim to it than a latecomer
Matthew Jenkins
"First come first serve" seems reasonable, given if there's nobody with a claim somewhere it can't even possibly injure someone else for you to claim something yourself.
John Miller
I guess we could go through the individualism vs collectivism debate
Chase Brooks
...
Jaxon Rogers
Go read a book about how to cook one person to feed 4 others. Sacrifice my ass.
Matthew Morgan
Am I not correct in what I'd said?
Moral states of affairs are between humans, and aren't concerned with outcomes.
If you freeze any moment in time and simply describe things as they are - and not of how they came to be - you come up with no observations of any moral significance.
Landon Rivera
What happens when we reach a post-scarcity situation (assuming the west isn't already there)? You can horde production means rather then distribute it?
Jace James
...
Dylan Ward
It's not property until it becomes property.
Brody Nelson
What about someones inaction to help when they can? Morally neutral?
Elijah Allen
Not sure what you're saying tripfag
John Morgan
Back in the day you had to work at least 14 hours/day and have lots of children to help if you wanted to maintain a farm that was able to provide just the basic amount of food.
Innovations allowed us to reduce that to 12, suddenly we had exceeding food with 12 hours and we were able to trade this food for someone else's, and so we got specialization and Capitalism.
A post-scarcity era will be one where a very little amount of work will be able to cover all of people's necessities, given that human necessities tend to infinite, I doubt we will reach that status any time soon.
When Marx talked about a post-scarcity era he was referring to an era where nobody starved, we have already reached that, yet you see people discontent, why? Because food is only one of the million of necessities we as humans can potentially have, if the amount of necessities is infinite, then we can conclude that post-scarcity will never be reached.
Chase Flores
That's a tough (and actually good - which surprises me) question I've struggled with, to which the only conclusion I have is that there must necessarily be some context relevancy, given it's physically and temporally impossible to act in all circumstances where one could possibly aid another. We're materially finite beings who must necessarily engage in marginal decision making.
I think in most cases it's very clear cut though - if you encounter someone hanging off a cliff for dear life and you're able to help them, I think you ought to, for instance.
Eli Green
I wouldn't use 'necessities' like you are. Someone is only a necessity if it's necessary for something, but there are incredibly few things in the world that are necessarily necessary for anything.
Tyler Morris
I don't think humans needs are infinite refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I think it shows with the upper class not spending all their money.
Brandon Sullivan
What would you say about the proposition that there are no such things as needs in the first place, and only wants in various degrees?
Jose Taylor
That applies well when referring to individuals actions but as a collective are we not morally responsible for our inaction?
Brayden Nelson
>I think it shows with the upper class not spending all their money.
What do you think the 'upper' class do with their money? Hide it under a mattress? They either employ people to further their businesses, or they invest it in other peoples businesses, who employ people, and so on. There is no 'hidden money' being stolen by the so-called upper class in some selfish, fuck-the-poor, attitude.
Charles Robinson
But necessities are constantly re-defined and increased by most people's standards.
There are multiple initiatives that claim internet is a human necessity, the life expectancy keeps growing and therefore expensive health treatments become necessary.
I believe my use of necessity accommodates these possibilities.
They are not spending all of their money but they are always trying to make it grow. No rich man keeps his money under a mattress, it's always invested and being productive for them.
This is because spending isn't the only way to cover necessities, sometimes, in order to cover a necessity, you need to save or invest because it is a future one, IE: Making sure your children are well-provided.
Dylan Price
Tbqh, I think Europe is going to end up like Bosnia and have war break out between the Muzzies and the native population (at least Western Europe), ending up in balkanization of the former Western European bloc
Camden Hill
Traditionalism is vital to society, no matter what political system is implemented; traditions must stay.
Ayden Lopez
People can only be responsible for what they do.
If you're my friend and I go out and dump my garbage onto other people's lawns without their permission, you're not at all responsible for my actions by mere virtue of association with me. This is the case for any number of friends I might have - my actions are not theirs, and neither are theirs mine. We all have only responsibility of that which we ourselves do or abstain from doing.
Grayson Parker
>But necessities are constantly re-defined and increased by most people's standards
Which is exactly a reason I'll maintain that there is no such thing, as you can read here
Adrian Russell
Interesting argument, I guess for the sake of practicality you have to define the more important wants as needs
Jace James
...
Nathan Walker
That comment was in reference to there being infinite human needs..
William Ross
...
Matthew Lee
I feel as the author does, and think it would be less misleading and more descriptively accurate to just describe such things as "things very valuable to most people" or things people "very much value".
Jackson Campbell
G'day guys.
What is your stance on the drug probem? Do junkies and crackheads get complimentary helicopter rides?
Austin Cooper
...
Aaron Green
Again the comment was in argument to the unlimited needs/wants of humans
Nolan Young
>I think Europe is going to end up like Bosnia and have war break out between the Muzzies and the native population
Our population is too subdued, too hellbent on debt, too morally destitute, too interdependent, and too inept to ever start another civil war. Sometimes I see it as the only answer. I wish it were, I often wish to witness the spectacle, but the truth is society is too damn selfish to give a fuck about its direction.
I see my mistake. Look at set-point theory or the Hedonic treadmill,
certainly truth to it. en.wikipedia.org
Ryan Bailey
Fuck off communist.
Dominic Smith
As long as people only do things to themselves, leave them be - they're not hurting anyone.
Samuel Long
But if I could talk to my friends and dissuade them from such an action that would be morally positive so if I don't isn't that morally negative?
Caleb Williams
>calling me a commie
Like fucking clockwork. It's becoming clearer every day that ancucks are divide and conquer shills.
Isaiah Adams
The issue is that by association they are hurting their families. I always have this argument with druggie friends - "I'm only hurting myself" - but in truth its tearing apart their families and friends. Many such cases.
Although ideologically I believe in freedom of the individual so I'm at a crossroad once again.
Carter Lewis
And mine was about the post-scarcity situation, which you put on the table and I deemed unreachable, which would support my idea that we need to engage the practices that allow us to increase living standards for everyone, even if it's with huge inequalities.
Elijah Fisher
>post shitty strawman bait posts
>get called out
>act outraged
Fuck off commie
Dylan Perry
Druggies will starve to death in Ancapistan.
Leave them be, but don't hire them, and don't serve them.
Elijah Thompson
>But if I could talk to my friends and dissuade them from such an action that would be morally positive
At least attempting to would be morally positive, yes, very much so. I'd say if you knew anything about my plan to go dump garbage in people's lawns that you might have an obligation to tell me that would be wrong so long as you were prevented with an opportunity to do so. But whether I was or wasn't convinced wouldn't change whether you'd done your moral duty, and if I go on to dump garbage on people's lawns nonetheless, you're no more or less responsible for that.
In such a case, your obligation is to attempt to make clear to me the wrongness of my actions. What happens after you do or do not fulfill your duty is not your responsibility.