/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL - DUDEWEED EDITION

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/reading/

>Vanilla /lrg/ pastebin- CREATE IF YOU DONT SEE ONE IN THE CATALOG
pastebin.com/7K1EJYb8

>Bump for Life, Liberty, and Private Death Squads

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/12730090
rationalstandard.com/saving-the-rhino-free-market-style/
rationalstandard.com/domestic-rhino-horn-trade-good-news-rhinos/
rationalstandard.com/tale-two-downgrades/
mises.org/library/10-classical-liberalism-and-welfare-warfare-state
diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html#sthash.MdZUiQRZ.dpuf
propertarianism.com/2017/03/18/rothbardian-libertarians-common-property-marxists/
propertarianism.com/2017/03/18/would-libertarianism-exist-without-marx/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=BmfMb_8YXkA
youtubemultiplier.com/58f8daf2821c8-hoppean-takeover-so-to-speak.php
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Heh.. roa...

Non-Aggression is NOT a guideline
Non-Aggression is a relationship.

...

...

Hayek bump

Any chance this could be a bit more normie-tier? e.g. replacing the word filth, the ((())), and so on.
Only because others it's kinda hitting a brick wall in terms of getting the message out.

Shock therapy only works up until a point.

Fuck the poor, blaze it faggots

I guess so, it's kinda meant to be edgy and radical. I want lrg tier libertarians to get angry and motivated.

It's cringeworthy

>muh free voluntary association
>those damn jews always enrich themselves through crony capitalism

Those jews enrich themselves by inserting themselves into the political structure and lobbying for socialist regulations to favor their buddies corporations

saved

...

the normie tier of this is profiting from your advantage knowledge of how the world is trending

it's the confiest ancap type

...

SNEK BUMP

Who here is /dudeweed/ for Hitler's birthday?

checked

>checked

>Hitler and Marx getting hotboxxed by a friendly ancap bro.

...

Hello lads. Here's your (a?) statistic du jour.

Anyone encountered this book? Curious about the points presented, as I can only find reviews of it, one of which goes:
Daniel Attas’s subject is the libertarianism which
has, thus far, found its fullest philosophical expres-
sion in Robert Nozick’s
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
.
Claiming to derive inspiration from Locke, such
libertarianism takes freedom as its sole fundamen-
tal value. It construes the latter in terms of ‘self-
ownership’ and the possession of fundamental
rights, construed in their turn as property rights.
Consequently, it also holds that, with the excep-
tion of the (supposedly inalienable) right to one’s
‘own’ self, such rights – or ‘entitlements’ – can be
transferred from one individual to another, but
only in ways which meet with the consent of
those directly involved; that is, normally by sale,
gift or bequest. Libertarianism is, thus, a powerful
representation of the moral case for the free
market.

1/2

Attas’s technique is to subject the libertarian
edifice to sustained critical pressure at certain
structurally key points. These are: (1) libertarian-
ism’s analysis of the concept of freedom and the
supposition that any sort of property right can be
grounded in it; (2) the notion of ‘self-ownership’
(supposedly parallel to Locke’s claim that we each
have a property in our own ‘persons’); (3) the idea
that an individual can acquire a property right in
a natural resource by removing it from the
common stock, or from an unowned state, in
certain specific ways (Locke’s claim that such a
right can be acquired by ‘mixing one’s labour
with nature’ being an example); (4) the claim that
one necessarily acquires a property right in that
which one produces. Attas deploys an array of
arguments in order to demonstrate that none of
the foregoing can withstand close analysis. He is
particularly – and persuasively – dismissive of the
last, insisting that ‘the modern developed market
economy is a mechanism of joint production’
(p. 165). From this it follows that the libertarian
representation of such an economy as a set of
ongoing bilateral exchanges – individual entitle-
ments being transferred from one person to
another at each stage – is fundamentally
unrealistic.
The great virtue of this book lies in its detailed
approach, something to which it is impossible to
do justice in a short review. Contrasting interpre-
tations of libertarian claims are outlined, tested
and found wanting. The cumulative effect is a
devastating critique from which libertarianism
will not easily recover. If this book is anything to
go by, Ashgate are to be congratulated on their
endeavour to bring ‘high quality research mono-
graph publishing back into focus’.
Alan Haworth
(London Metropolitan University)

2/2
(Mobile posting since IP range blocked)

...

Second statistic du jour.

Year over year change in federal receipt growth is down, possibly indicating the beginning of a recession.

HELICOPTER RIDES FOR FASCISTS

strawpoll.me/12730090

DO NOT FUCKING TREAD ON ME

>those 4 voters

I'm not gonna refute but just gonna make some notes.

>such rights – or ‘entitlements’

Right away the author makes self ownership into an "entitlement", presumably to connote that libertarians are "entitled". Cheap rhetorical move.

>Libertarianism is, thus, a powerful
representation of the moral case for the free
market.

Libertarianism is first and foremost a case for liberty. Only later is a case for the market made because, if the market were systematically inefficient, there would be not possibility of liberty at all. So it's liberty first, market second. But leftist always assume that libertarians are asshole with ulterior motives, whose only "real" interest is the market.

>(1) libertarianism’s analysis of the concept of freedom and the supposition that any sort of property right can be grounded in it;

What is liberty if not the ability to make your own choices for yourself, and how do you do that without property, most basic of all your own body?

>(3)

It's unclear to me that libertarianism relies in any substantial way on this theory of "labor mixing".

>(4)

The fact that there is joint production does not in any way negate the idea of ownership. If I have some capital and hire a worker, with an agreement as to the fact that whatever will be produced subsequently will belong to me afterward, then I don't see how you can "problematize" this situation to make me lose my property on the basis of the fact that people cooperated in order to produce.

>Dr Daniel Attas is Program Director of the Integrative Program: Philosophy, Economics and Political Science at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

It's an absolute certainty that this man is part of this chattering class whose standing in life does not depend on the market but on state subsidies. I bet he employs an old anti liberty tactic, which is to redefine liberty in such a way that people's choices are excluded from the concept.

Thanks for stopping by /Leftypol/
Now gtfo

you do realize that you are EXACTLY THE SAME as the SJWs with your little special snowflake identity politics, right?

now go back to tumblr before we gas you

>Exposing the limitations of libertarianism and disclosing its errors, Attas argues that the rights which libertarians adopt with respect to persons (self-ownership), natural resources (original acquisition) and products are indefensible given what liberty must be.
>given what livery must be

You can be sure that a "philosopher's" understanding of liberty will always be one that justifies his control of other people for the purpose of realizing his own dreams of what a good human should be. The Muzz do it all the time. Watch:

>true liberty is living in submission to the law of Allah
>all other forms of living are tyranny
>thus I am justified to impose liberty on you
>your choices are false choices

Or, in another instance:

>your choices are not your choices because you have "false consciousness"

Or

>your choices are not legitimate because you are not discerning enough to know what is in your best interest

This is standard and always authoritarian.

SUID AFRIKA!!!

Yuh violate mah n.a.p.

Good post

Bump

Good summary points. Appreciate the overview analysis.

Dankie vir die welkoming broeder.

Got interested in this doing research on Rhino poaching and how protection in retaliation of corruption and regulations could save the species:

rationalstandard.com/saving-the-rhino-free-market-style/

rationalstandard.com/domestic-rhino-horn-trade-good-news-rhinos/

That and the proliferation of socialist ideas that saturates the education system coupled with the government doubling down on taxes in order to save the country from its recent credit downgrade to junk status:

rationalstandard.com/tale-two-downgrades/

One of the problem of the nat soc and other varieties of nationalist (like white nationalist) is not merely that they do not possess a theory of the nation which preclude them from presenting a vision of what such an entity might be, but they furthermore lack an explanation as to why these nations are actually being destroyed by their own government through the forcible importation of massive amount of third worlders from alien and incompatible culture.

By contrast, libertarians do possess an explanation for such a phenomenon. The crisis of the welfare state requires new blood so as to feed the panoply of government programs politicians put in place so as to buy themselves new constituencies. Since the white population of the west, perhaps in part because of the tax burden imposed on it due to this very welfare state, has elected not to replace itself naturally, government have little choice but to place their natural heir into a state of complete marginalization at the benefit of of minorities so as to insure that the state will have some taxable base in the future to insure the sustainability of its redistribution programs.

From Raico, historian of the libertarians:

>That states lends itself legitimacy through the welfare state by buying off more and more constituencies. [...] But now every group in America that's worth pandering to gets benefits and feels that it has a stake in the modern welfare-warfare state. What could possibly represent an end to this? How could this end? I don't see that the welfare state is gonna come to an end by itself. What I see is that as it becomes more and more intractable as we approach the crisis of the welfare state there will -- the politicians and the people in control of the system -- will bring in what has already been suggested by politicians in Europe, including in Germany for instance, and that is "What we need are 'young' taxpayers to support the pension and the medical care and so on for the retired older non taxpayers now, retired people. Where are these young taxpayer to come from since the Europeans don't seem to be very interested in having kids? And in America the white population does not replace itself. So where are these new taxpayers to come from? And that is then from the third world. [...]

>But what will have happened in the meantime is that they will have destroyed the identity, first of all, of the European nations -- there is no such thing, at least as far as I can see, of a France that's one third muslim or an Italy that's one third muslim. I mean there's an Italian STATE, but there's no such thing as an Italian identity that is one third muslim or moore for that matter. So they'll destroy the identity of the European peoples and eventually the American people [...] and I don't think anybody could have predicted that [...] that in order to salvage this never ending system of welfare [...] they would have to simply destroy the historical identity of the countries.

mises.org/library/10-classical-liberalism-and-welfare-warfare-state

I can give you another philosopher's trick:

>no one would WILLINGLY be in error if they could avoid it
>some people chose on the basis of error
>(they are in error has to what is good for them)
>but I, superior philosopher, have pierced the true secret of knowledge and-or life
>thus my pronouncements on what's good should trump the will of those lower people who were not blessed with a superior intellect and-or a philosophical education

Is a libertarian society ever at risk of "building nothing"? Instead we all become hedonistic and historical wastes.

By building, I mean societal institutions and practices that are revered by certain men, and feared by others. Ideas that you only entertain in the darkest depths of your mind; world-changing, god-fearing, state-whipped chaos that ensues all, binding them by a common goal or a common enemy.

Thats actually a risk but its also another consideration that this could lead to a new golden age, if you don't believe we are in one already

Christianity wasn't started by government decree. No man of science, as far as I know, was ever primarily motivated by some state department memo.

If everyone turns hedonistic, all the accumulated capital of previous generations starts to whither away, at which point the possibility of hedonism is strongly curtailed. Nature imposes limits on people's behavior.

What you're talking about just sounds horrible and is the type of answer that arise in the mind of someone who thinks that society has to be managed. The question "how shall I manage all these people" already condition the type of answer you're gonna get, and it's always gonna be totalitarian leaning. It presupposes the need for management, for the imposition of a superior agency over the individual agency of people.

We're in an age of relative decline. The only golden age we have is due to the accumulated physical and social capital of previous generation. But from a "spiritual" point of view we're just weak. (By spiritual I don't mean religious.)

bump

>We're in an age of relative decline. The only golden age we have is due to the accumulated physical and social capital of previous generation. But from a "spiritual" point of view we're just weak. (By spiritual I don't mean religious.)
I think libertarianism will provide the good framework for the next golden, let the da vinci's of our age invent without getting snub'd down by the midnight black boots

I think the optimistic future lies in balkanization.

>121998449
I agree as i think thats what would happen anyways, if state was abolished tomorrow

WHat is the best country libertarian bros?

Somalia
you failed to define best

Best to live in

Switzerland
>Hands-off economics
>Ethnically homogeneous cantons, cooperate when it suits their interests
>Kicks out dirty refugees to preserve their culture
I'm on the fence about the compulsory military service. On the one hand, muh NAP, on the other hand, it does train and discipline the population, not to mention it means every citizen is properly armed as well as trained to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

You can get around the military service but it's like a few weeks training it's not bad at all.

Huh, then I guess Switzerland is a pretty good country by our standards.
I would have made the case for Hong Kong as well, but the PRC has started to put its filthy communist boot down there.

...

Defense is always one of those limiting case. I like the idea of a well prepared citizenry. I don't like the idea of a government being able to call people to do X-Y-Z at will.

I don't understand how you can sustain parasites without forcibly transferring money to them.

This is an interesting rejection of Rothbardianism. Any link to the full article?

Bump with some interesting stats concerning health:

>The American Diabetes Association (Association) released new research on March 6, 2013 estimating the total costs of diagnosed diabetes have risen to $245 billion in 2012 from $174 billion in 2007, when the cost was last examined.

>This figure represents a 41 percent increase over a five year period.

>The total estimated cost of diagnosed diabetes in 2012 is $245 billion, including $176 billion in direct medical costs and $69 billion in reduced productivity.

>The largest components of medical expenditures are:

>hospital inpatient care (43% of the total medical cost),
>prescription medications to treat complications of diabetes (18%),
>anti-diabetic agents and diabetes supplies (12%),
>physician office visits (9%), and
>nursing/residential facility stays (8%).

- See more at: diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html#sthash.MdZUiQRZ.dpuf

What's most interesting here is the fact that (1) non whites are twice as likely to suffer from this condition and (2) government intervention in dietary guidelines and government subsidy of certain industry (looking at you corn and fructose corn syrup) probably played an very large role in triggering and diabetes epidemic in the US.

Don't have the original article for that quote but here are a few on rothbard
propertarianism.com/2017/03/18/rothbardian-libertarians-common-property-marxists/
propertarianism.com/2017/03/18/would-libertarianism-exist-without-marx/


I know it looks like a word salad at first glance but Curt doolittle is a genuine genius, definitely one of the most intelligent people I've ever seen to write about political theory. Read the about section on the website if you to learn and go from there

He certainly strikes me as a pompous asshole. That's not to say that he's wrong, but from what I've read on his website there seems to be some disconnect between the claimed quality and the achievement.

(That one dimensional graph turned into a two dimensional graph that implies that religious people don't have low time preference is rather amazing.)

How would you guys argue for libertarianism while holding the assumption of no free will? Neither compatibilist nor "libertarian" free will.

My usual argument is something like evolutionary/biological "libertarianism." Markets and property rights both coincide with the hockey stick of average human welfare and human population (after almost a million years of stagnation despite technological innovation), yet the hockey stick of population self-yields after a certain amount of welfare is achieved. Therefore it is likely we are "naturally" inclined towards markets and property rights.

If you consider his writings in the context of the current climate where Rothbard and so are praised for having caused immeasurable damage to libertarianism while dragging it to the lunatic fringe, I'd imagine it's hard not to act like an asshole because you realise the scale of repair that has to be carried out to fix it

Somalia was never libertarian, just a failed state

So, what should right libertarians do in the meantime since there's no Ancapistan? Honestly the idea of anarcho capitalism isn't bad to me, but right now there's no way for it to exist and I feel like our efforts would be better directed by supporting favorable right libertarian candidates in different countries. Just look at how much internet hype Le Pen is getting and how much internet support helped the election in the US to see why that would help the cause.

Are there even any parties out there that are favorable to right libertarianism except for maybe the Tea Party and probably UKIP?

Post other libertarian tier flags than Gadsden, /lrg/

I'd tend to argue that the illusion of free will is itself determined and imposed on us, and that from the affirmation of the idea of determinism, nothing concrete actually follows.

In other words, I'd argue that it's about as relevant as a scholastic debate concerning substantial forms. People who obsess over free will are inherently suspicious. They try to escape the concrete realities of life in order to do god know what.

It's not clear AT ALL to me that Rothbard did it. The fact of the matter is that libertarianism is a fringe movement, and is consistently conflated with "cultural libertarianism" which does not even correspond to private property libertinism as he seems to call it.

You cannot read "Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature", or Rothbard views concerning feminism, and conclude that he somehow is the great advocate of parasitic degeneracy.

Private death squad checking in.

Didn't Rothbard explicitly reject libertinism as being the equivalent to libertarianism? Or is Doolittle just saying that Rothbard's libertarianism IS libertinism but that Rothbard doesn't realize it? I also wonder what Doolitlle is referring to specifically when he talks about Jewish ghetto ethics/Russian serfdom ethics as it relates to Rothbard's philosophy. Any insight?

Good luck with that capitalist faggot

so when are ancaps going to stray away from anarchism since open boarders are fucking retarded?

Considering the fact that guy seems to like "aristocratic" values and emphasize "truthful speech" I'm just about certain that we're in the presence of some crypto trad dude that seeks to integrate the insight of libertarianism with those of other, anti libertarians school of thought.

So basically not a libertarian. I'm somewhat sympathetic to these views but the guy is immediately off putting.

>The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere... The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes.
That's just, false. Zomia exists til this day, there is no effective judicial superstate to regulate interstate commerce, and just because we've had a few hundred years (~300) of states being popular can hardly be seen as "universal" with primitive anarchic/anarchic-like societies such as ireland and iceland in the past lasting upwards of a millennium.

Hell, even this website is effectively stateless in terms of what the governments of the world can actually achieve.
I would agree on the first half, but the second half depends on what you mean with "obsess." I find the topic interesting for issues related to biomedical and AI research for example.

Who said ancap inherently means open borders? Isn't this thread evidence against that?

>Who said ancap inherently means open borders?

because on paper it is, people here trying to revise that is another thing. My main problem with libertarian is their open boarder/no country dogshit..

That's the vibe I got. He almost sounded like Evola or Spengler denouncing modernity.

Move to the same country and live peacefully tigether

You're thinking of Reddit libertarianism. In an ancap country, there would be different communities based on private property that can choose to allow who they choose to join them. Not really true borders, but property rights allow communities to choose who can enter, and you're allowed to use self defense to enforce that.

Private property is a border. ancapistan would literally just be a massive patchwork of private property, most likely similar to a city state. And it doesn't preclude pride in ones society, hell, it'd make more sense to be proud to live in a stateless society.

"Special snowflake ideology"
You say that while being an Ancap faggot.
Nice.

Fuck back off to your "sassy" facebook page.

They are leaving the movement and getting on board with either traditionalism or the Dark Enlightment/Neoreaction movement, which was influenced by the writings of Nick Land and Mencius Moldbug.

Nigga who the fuck uses Facebook anymore

>Niggers
>Playing Scrabble

Watch Libertarianism get BTFO by based E Michael Jones. Start at 19:20. You're all Jewish puppets.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=BmfMb_8YXkA

>Libertinism encompasses only private property
Muh glove adjusted definition to fit with my bias

>Leaves open parasitism on normative, cultural, insitutional, monumental and genetic capital
0 arguments provided about how it does so.

>blackmail
Again, specially crafted definition of a term in order to fit his agenda. If voluntary interactions can potentially be blackmail, where do we draw the line?

>You may only engage in Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Exchange, Limited to Externality of the Same Criteria

I don't think the author realizes what this would entail. The amount of information required for basic human interactions that, through this definition of voluntary, you would need is totally absurd. Basically, it would add a corset on any movement which would cripple society immensely.

Plus he adopts a paternalist authoritarian attitude, this could lead to claiming dumb people should have no agency whatsoever.

And this guy is an intellectual?

But all this does is smash current political/national boarders and redraws them. So now theres Ancapistan, but also commie land, american federal republic land, socalist land ect.

I still like America, I just want a less intrusive government on the liberties of the people and an end to useless wars and, on the flip side, a reigning in on big business who would seek to undermine the well being of the nation for their own profits.

>biomedical and AI research

I don't see how research would be affected by philosophical questions of free will.

How based is /lrg/? How do you feel about unlimited liability, freedom of association, and collective property (public spaces)?

>So now theres Ancapistan, but also commie land, american federal republic land, socalist land ect.

So... the united states? Just with one state being more free?

Ethics, longevity research. Bit of crossover with the hard problem of consciousness and free will.

Tf is unlimited liability?

We are Hoppe ancaps more or less

youtubemultiplier.com/58f8daf2821c8-hoppean-takeover-so-to-speak.php

>But all this does is smash current political/national boarders and redraws them. So now theres Ancapistan, but also commie land, american federal republic land, socalist land ect

You're literally one step away from getting the concept of anarcho-capitalism and I say this with admiration and hopeful this I'm going to explain will help you.

These private communities/cities/micro-states would be owned by someone, with economic interests.

We can imagine how commie land and socialist land will soon be incredibly poor in comparison with prosperous communities, since people can't be retained against their will, migration patterns will show us what we already know: People want to live in mostly-white communities with minimum laws.

With that in mind, we can deduct that the market will adapt to this demand by enforcing such values, restricted immigration, capitalism, and no democracy will be values that the rich will want for themselves, and the poor will follow the rich because that's where jobs and opportunities will be in.

Eventually those socialist areas will be bought off because they won't be able to compete and the country will adopt a more or less uniform state.

>So... the united states?

they arent united though, they are different "countries" with completely different ideologies. I do agree with states rights though. If one state wants to elect an ancap mayor to reduce the state government, good for him.

But for a UNITED states to work, there needs to be a unifier, other wise it will just devolve into sectarian violence. Either along ideological or ethnic lines. Maybe even both. I know theres a tendency to diefy them, which is not what Im trying to do, but the founding fathers were all Renaissance Men and the Republic they established is the best to me, so I dont want to demolish that to form some completely new country, especially one based on an untested philsophy

>Ethics, longevity research.

I still don't see it. I can imagine no researcher or concrete actor anywhere actually waiting for some answer on free will so as to determine his subsequent course of action. Nobody is waiting for an answer on this, and I don't think anyone actually acts differently on the basis of their belief concerning free will.

>collective property (public spaces)?

There is, to be sure, no problem with individuals willingly agreeing on some contract as to how they will control a certain piece of property through an organizational structure.

>But for a UNITED states to work, there needs to be a unifier, other wise it will just devolve into sectarian violence

If there's no central government power over which to fight why would different communities necessarily be at each other's throat? It can always happen but I doubt that people actively seek war when they can avoid it. (Unless they're kings and other sorts of maniac.)

Interest, not necessarily something I think is a major problem. I'm not waiting for the answer while doing my research, I just find the ideas interesting to think about.

>unlimited liabilty

The way I see it, the problem with modern capitalism is three things:
-the passing of limited liability laws (capitalists are not liable for harm they cause)
-the passing of civil rights laws (capitalists are not free to serve a particular class)
-regulations, licensing, red tape, or anything which increases the barrier to entry

problems
>normies don't understand neither of those

>If there's no central government power over which to fight why would different communities necessarily be at each other's throat?

well if theres no central authority then there is no united states in the first place.

>(Unless they're kings and other sorts of maniac.

well what if thats one of the voluntary societies formed? What if a white supremacist community is established right next to a black supremacist one? You dont think some shit is going to start?