/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL - Every day is a bank holiday in Libertarianstan edition

/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL

This thread is for Discussion of Capitalism, Libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Minarchism, 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:

liberalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/thelaw.pdf
mises.org/system/tdf/Henry Hazlitt Economics in One Lesson.pdf?file=1&type=document
il-rs.org.br/site/biblioteca/docs/Friedman__Milton___Rose_-_Free_To_Choose_–_A_Personal_Statement.pdf
iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty.pdf
mises.org/system/tdf/Liberty or Equality The Challenge of Our Time_4.pdf?file=1&type=document
lewrockwell.com/author/hans-hermann-hoppe/
mises.org/system/tdf/Economics and Ethics of Private Property Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/A Short History of Man — Progress and Decline.pdf?file=1&type=document
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
mises.org/system/tdf/Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A_4.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy_Hoppe_Text 2014.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/Myth of National Defense, The Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/What Must Be Done_7.pdf?file=1&type=document
archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch16.html
archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html
lewrockwell.com/author/murray-n-rothbard/
mises.org/system/tdf/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/sites/default/files/Anatomy of the State_3.pdf
mises.org/sites/default/files/Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays_2.pdf
mises.org/system/tdf/The Ethics of Liberty_0.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/What Has Government Done to Our Money_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/Americas Great Depression_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/For a New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

ORE READING:

>The Law – Frédéric Bastiat
liberalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/thelaw.pdf

>Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
mises.org/system/tdf/Henry Hazlitt Economics in One Lesson.pdf?file=1&type=document

>Free To Choose – Milton and Rose Friedman
il-rs.org.br/site/biblioteca/docs/Friedman__Milton___Rose_-_Free_To_Choose_–_A_Personal_Statement.pdf

>Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty – Eugene F. Miller
iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty.pdf

>Liberty or Equality – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
mises.org/system/tdf/Liberty or Equality The Challenge of Our Time_4.pdf?file=1&type=document

HOPPE READING LIST:

>Articles by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
lewrockwell.com/author/hans-hermann-hoppe/

>The Economics and Ethics of Private Property
mises.org/system/tdf/Economics and Ethics of Private Property Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline
mises.org/system/tdf/A Short History of Man — Progress and Decline.pdf?file=1&type=document

>Democracy – The God That Failed
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

>A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
mises.org/system/tdf/Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A_4.pdf?file=1&type=document

>From Aristocracy, to Monarchy, to Democracy
mises.org/system/tdf/From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy_Hoppe_Text 2014.pdf?file=1&type=document

>The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production
mises.org/system/tdf/Myth of National Defense, The Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>The Private Production of Defense
mises.org/system/tdf/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>Economic Science and the Austrian Method
mises.org/system/tdf/Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>What Must Be Done
mises.org/system/tdf/What Must Be Done_7.pdf?file=1&type=document

I agree with libertarianism on most issues, but not the environment. There is just no way that problems like air pollution can be solved without government intervention.

>The vital fact about air pollution is that the polluter sends unwanted and unbidden pollutants—from smoke to nuclear fallout to sulfur oxides—through the air and into the lungs of innocent victims, as well as onto their material property. All such emanations which injure person or property constitute aggression against the private property of the victims. Air pollution, after all, is just as much aggression as committing arson against another’s property or injuring him physically. Air pollution that injures others is aggression pure and simple.

>only governments have the answer
>posts quasi-communist China's air pollution as an issue
What did he mean by this?

Air pollution must be compensated. Successful communities should by all means charge people for polluting their property and get to agreements with near sources of pollution to compensate for their uncontrolled externalities.

You want to smoke in my house? Sure, 20$.

OTHBARD READING LIST:

>Big-Government Libertarians
archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch16.html

>Race! That Murray Book
archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

>More on LewRockwell.com
lewrockwell.com/author/murray-n-rothbard/

Books:

>Man, Economy, and State with Power & Market
mises.org/system/tdf/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf?file=1&type=document

>Anatomy of the State
mises.org/sites/default/files/Anatomy of the State_3.pdf

>Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays
mises.org/sites/default/files/Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays_2.pdf

>The Ethics of Liberty
mises.org/system/tdf/The Ethics of Liberty_0.pdf?file=1&type=document

>What Has Government Done to Our Money?
mises.org/system/tdf/What Has Government Done to Our Money_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>America’s Great Depression
mises.org/system/tdf/Americas Great Depression_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
mises.org/system/tdf/For a New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

Is this the daily alt-lite thread?

==END THE FED==

The alt-right are the alt-lite. Bunch of frog posting LARPers who worship e-celebs.

Reporting in, thanks for making the thread this time.

Fuck alt-light niggers.

>Air pollution must be compensated.

That will only happen if the government passes a law that forces firms to do that.

That's a nice little quote, but it doesn't translate well into actual practice because there is always going to be at least some air pollution in an industrialized society. It just needs to be kept down below an acceptable threshold. This is accomplished through regulations. For example, the government could pass a law stating that a factory cannot be built within X miles of a residential area. Or the government could mandate that firms make use of certain pollution-reducing technologies. Or the government could introduce a tax on pollution in order to incentivize firms to actively search for ways to reduce pollution on their own. There are many options, but it all stems from government regulations.

can someone redpill me on anarcho-capitalism? A main question there is how the workers' conditions are there if there are any and how it would theoretically operate in a democracy. Can it (seems like it)?

Workers conditions vary on the workers willingness to work in the conditions the employer sets up. The employer has incentive to make working for him desirable as he cannot force people to work for him over another employer.

And democracy is incompatible with Anarcho capitalism.

Marxist and homosexual here.

Since I'm a "communist fag" how are you going to "physically remove" me then? Oh, you aren't?

Ah, I get it. You're a sad little contrarian child who found out about ancap on the internet and got brainwashed. You were particularly susceptible to it, seeing as you have aspergers and got bullied at school. This ideology tells you you're superior to those people, and is founded on a deliberate over-simplification of how human relations work in order to appeal to weak minds who cannot handle the nuance in political theory.

You probably try talking about it but your parents think it's weird, and you don't mention it to intelligent people because they'd intellectually annihilate you in a debate. The sad reality is, in an actual anarcho-capitalist society, you'd be a pathetic wageslave licking the boots of your land-owning overlords.

Ya gonna throw me out of an imaginary helicopter now?

> Marxist and homosexual
> Inability to produce cogent arguments, not make unsupported assertions and restrain from ranting
Is there a pattern here?

>aspergers and bullied
better than having marxism and being molested desu

"Workers conditions" are set by a voluntary contractual agreement between the employ and employer. That doesn't inherently rule out collective bargaining though, as long as being a member of the collective e.g. a union is entirely voluntary.

Ancapistan is inherently opposed to democracy. However once again if people want to set up small, local, democratic processes to decide by a majority as long as it is all voluntary it's fine.

>This ideology tells you you're superior to those people, and is founded on a deliberate over-simplification

I think you want the alt-lite thread.

>Marxist and Homosexual
Lol I'm sorry to hear that. Get better.

>However once again if people want to set up small, local, democratic processes to decide by a majority as long as it is all voluntary it's fine.

And what if a group of such communities get together and decide "let's combine to form a Republic." What then? When does it stop being "okay"? What is the maximum allowable size?

what's to stop a big company from gaining power and unfair advantages even easier than they do in the current system?

>workers' conditions

Like all things in an-cap it would be determined by a voluntary agreement.
If a employer produces an absolute shit working conditions, then no one will work for him, and without labour, he'll go out of business.
It's in his interest to make his working conditions better than the competition, ergo the best workers in the labour force will be enticed to work for him rather than any other manager.

As for democracy, as the other anons stated, it doesn't work.
Any form of anarchy will go against democracy.
>how are you going to "physically remove" me then? Oh, you aren't?
pic related

neat bait

new pasta?

>"let's combine to form a Republic."
If they're willing to fight for it, and successfully defend it, then so be it.
Welcome to statecraft, mate.
This doesn't change from the current system.
You're more than welcome to declare that your city is a micronation, provided you're willing to fight the US army when your entire city decides to cease paying tax and interacting with the rest of the union.

define unfair
in ancap it's impossible for it to be "unfair" because everything is the result of voluntary interactions.
If a company becomes richer than the rest, it just means that it is better than the rest. Pure survival of the fittest.

I'd argue that unfair advantages would be something like businesses getting governmental favours in the current system. This only happens because the government has the power to favour some over others. Take power away from government and this is solved.

How can we pull some hijinks/fuck with commie general? We really should be bullying that commie.

Should we hijack them and make them secret /lrg/ threads?

>If they're willing to fight for it, and successfully defend it, then so be it.

This is more or less how countries form in real-life.

>in ancap it's impossible for it to be "unfair" because everything is the result of voluntary interactions.

How do you deal with "fine print" situations then? Why if a company sticks an eternal slavery clause into a contract at the last minute on the 100th page of a contract? Is that enforceable or not?

>everything is the result of voluntary interactions

You voluntarily choose to live in Australia so everything you experience is already down to voluntary actions, by your own maxim.

Similarly the inverse occurs if you decide any collective cannot be tolerated at any cost. If a small rural town decides to vote for a mayor and everyone agrees on who it should be Bill and it's entirely voluntary, what grounds do you have to stop them?

However in reality no big group of people are ever going to agree with everything so the voluntary requirement which I stipulated is going to be eliminated. Giving this large republic no legitimacy.


Look I'm opposed to democracy or the formation of a democracy but to be consistent, if people voluntary form a republic you don't have any legitimate reason to stop them.

>voluntary interactions
Who determines if they're voluntary or not?

>tfw socialists in charge
I feel like physically removing myself

The people who agree to an interaction .

What if the private army we hire is bought by saudi arabia, what if BP covertly manages to pollute x1000 without regulations?

>company becomes richer than the rest
then it creates monopolies and new businesses have no chance

So if I put a gun to someone's head and force him to sign a contract, then that's voluntary?

>However in reality no big group of people are ever going to agree with everything

Well yeah. But that's the entire point of voting. If everybody always agreed, there would be no reason to ever have a vote.

Okay, but in real-life it is possible for the government to null a contract if the terms are found to be outside of legal boundaries. This helps prevent situations where somebody gets drunk and bets their life savings on a poker game, etc.

why do you have elton john on your logo?

>it doesn't fit my definition of what is voluntary so it wouldn't have legitimacy

Funny that, if only you had existed in the past to tell all the primitive governments emerging from anarchy that they didn't have legitimacy, sure they'd have listened to you.

>Is that enforceable or not?
It all comes down to the judiciary system. From a purely legal perspective, if they signed the contract, that's their fault.
A smart person looking for a job probably wouldn't sign a 100 page contract.
You'd want the agreement of your work to be very basic. Half a page at absolute max, and have a discussion with the employer to clarify any misunderstandings.
As such, any employer that demands you to sign a 100 page contract would probably lack labour because no one is dumb enough to sign it

Wrong.
Your argument is that because I choose to live here, if I get shot in the face tomorrow morning, it's a voluntary interaction because I chose to live here.
However you'd need to prove that these two events (living in Australia, and getting shot in the face) are linked.
It is possible to live in Australia and not get shot in the face. It's possible to get shot in the face and not live in Australia.

Because it is an independent event, you must look at it as such, ergo a new interaction where a mutual agreement must be reached (between me and the murderer)
those partaking in the interaction

So if I put a gun to someone's head and force him to sign a contract, then that's voluntary?

Nope. Because the gun at his head is not voluntary and is in violation of the NAP. He didn't agree to have a gun to his head.

>then it creates monopolies
Wrong.
The only example of monopolies are those which are created by the force of the government. The only other example is Standard Oil, which was both relatively short-lived and a peculiar case because it involved the very beginning of a new industry.

If I create a new technology, I may contain a monopoly on that technology for 20 years before someone else figures out how to duplicate it, or how to create something better. Thus the monopoly is crushed

No, that's force
try again

And who enforces the NAP?

>Forced to sign contract
>Voluntary

No.

That's the same situation dumb feminist argue to say they've been raped after getting drunk and grabbing some guys dick.

You are responsible for your actions. I don't care if you make bad choices.

It's not a law, it's ethics and only applies to dealing with other ethical people.

The one with the gun. Welcome to the real world, son.

You want shit in a world where the golden rule is "survival of the fittest"? Prepare to fight

And who would teach those ethics to the people?

>It all comes down to the judiciary system

Judges don't make laws. The legislative branch makes laws and then the judiciary interprets them. When deciding whether or not a contract is legally enforceable, a judge will look at the relevant statues to determine if a contract is allowed or not.

>A smart person looking for a job probably wouldn't sign a 100 page contract.

For major financial transactions, like buying a house (typically the most significant financial transaction of somebody's entire life) the paperwork involved can be quite extensive. Plenty of space enter hidden slavery clauses at the last minute. And don't tell me, "but nobody would ever do that" because there would certainly be people who would.

>Without laws or regulations, everybody will just "do the right thing."

Comically naive.

So the NAP is just bullshit.

Choosing to enjoy the benefits of living in the safety and ordered society of Australia means you agree to pay tax just as driving down a road in Ancapistan means you are obliged to pay the toll at the end of the road. You were already prepared for it - you didn't have to pay taxes when you were a child, you knew what was coming yet chose to stay, just as me choosing to stay on a landowner's property means I have to agree when they wish to increase the rent.

This shit is exactly why governments get formed IRL. People like having order in society. It allows them to focus more on other things, like doing their jobs, saving money, raising kids, etc. You're not making a very good case for your "system."

You're an idiot, private law (Anarcho capitalism) is not lawlessness and has market regulations. You're going out of your way to be ignorant.

>private law (Anarcho capitalism) is not lawlessness

Who creates the law? Who enforces it?

>has market regulations.

Who creates the regulations? Who enforces them?

I know m8, same applies for all the governments now, but i'm talking from a legal and philosophical perspective.

Looks like you haven't read Lysander Spooner

was elton john some great libertarian? i guess he was with all that butsex

>People like having order in society.

If that's the case, then you don't need to force "order" upon them.

Property owners.

I wouldn't argue that "nobody would ever do that". I'd argue that most people purchasing a house don't skip reading the paperwork, or at the very very very least, get their lawyer to read over it.
Not exactly. Think of it as something similar to Mutually Assured Destruction.

If you and I decide to trade goods, but at the end of the trade you stab me and take your goods back, I don't think many people will be lining up to trade with you.
In fact I'd argue that they'd line up to lynch you, because you're bad for business and social cohesion. I believe it's natural for humans to want some form of social cohesion. Not everyone wants to sleep with a gun under their pillow, but we do what we need to do occasionally.

yes, what is your point?
I know I'm agreeing to pay taxation by living under the government of Australia. If I believe I could survive better otherwise in this exact moment, I'd buy a plane ticket to the amazon and start my own ancapistan in the jungle

Mutually Assured Destruction only works if both sides have weapons capable of destroying the other side.

Can a moderate libertarian join?

Ignore bait questions

They are looking for affirmations for their own beliefs, not answers.

They are not curious, they do not think for themselves, for they would have thought through the question or read one of authors presented for the answer.

They are here to waste your time. Do not fall for their bait.

Which in a deregulated society isn't a problem.

>it's another shitflinging in the /lrg/ thread episode

This all makes a lot more sense if you realized that police don't fight crime, they protect property. Literally no one looks out for you as it is.

Of course. What do you mean by moderate? Classic liberal?

If I tried to take your property you'd defend your property, right?

It's natural, objective law/morality. Everyone inherently knows theft and murder is wrong even if they choose to do wrong.

>tfw no trans AnCap gf

Was the formation of the Roman Republic a bad thing? Would you have tried to prevent it from occurring if you lived back then? Seems like a tragic waste for all that history to go down the drain because 1 guy disagreed about some trivial issue.

And how is that accomplished? If my neighbor is building a structure (on his property) that is so tall it will cast my garden into shade and kill my flowers, how do I 'regulate' my neighbor who is much wealthier than I am? In real-life, zoning laws tend to prevent that kind of thing from happening. But ancapistan doesn't have zoning laws.

There will always be those without means to defend themselves and they will be enslaved/serfs.

>Values are universal, everybody agrees on ethical boundaries

No, everyone does not inherently know theft and murder is wrong.
If I'm a Muslim extremist, I will murder you for being an infidel and steal your property. There are tons of ideologies and religions that justify murder of and theft from those who are heretics and outside of their tribe.

Okay, so then a few will die before people arm themselves, no?
I'm not sure if you realise but it's identical to what our nation states do, but just on an individual level.

Their fault for not being able to defend themselves.
No different to a homeless person having the finger pointed at them for being shit people with no skills to secure stable employment

So what are my fellow capitalists doing this fine Monday morning?

>not even 10am
>already made 5% on my money in cryptocurrencies
>already negotiated a business deal that I feel very good about
>now happily tabbing between desk work and /lrg/ while sipping my morning coffee

How does anyone hate this?

Property owners can make zoning laws. Again private law is not lawlessness, it's unlikely that everyone will own land, you'll most likely live in a community owned by another person who has laws you can agree to or get lost.

>I'm not sure if you realise but it's identical to what our nation states do, but just on an individual level.
Then why bother recreating a Balkanized mess of microstates that will be steamrolled by a larger, more coherent state.

You guys are just as utopian an anarco-commies.

Then the NAP is useless, because you are forcing people to be slaves without their consent.

Individual responsibilities does not make Balkanization. If this was the truth, every government would be as Balkanized as the number of public employees.

Do you even think before you type? Having a govt doesn't magically make you a single hiveminded being.

>Property owners can make zoning laws.

That's odd, my textbook on real estate law doesn't mention that anywhere. It says that zoning laws are created by local municipalities (local governments) through authority passed down to them from the state.

Like I said, it is objective that theft and assault are immoral because they are acts that do harm. If you choose to ignore ethics they still stand as objective principles of morality. You're just an unethical dick and should be treated in an unethical way.

Crypto bro reporting in too. Think alt-coin bubble might pop soon, tempted to shift 80/20 to btc. What do you do for a living?

The NAP is a concept. It's just a general "people should be good to one another, and retaliation is warranted in other scenarios". It doesn't enforce anything because it's a concept. If you think libertarians think the NAP means no violence will occur, you're the one here thinking 0 level.

Yeah we don't live in ancapistan.

Contrary to many libertarians, I don't believe the NAP is even necessary. As a philosophical concept, it makes sense, but its application to the real world relies on most people agreeing to it.

But, unlike other philosophical principles, the NAP is generated by natural incentives, I will explain why.

People chose lawful societies over unlawful ones, they do so for their own security, you renounce your "ability" to kill people and in exchange you won't be killed by others.

Historically, people searched for this safety under kings feuds, in a world of private property. Safety is still a human need, people strive to feel safe in order to prosper. Human needs are covered by the market, if you need safety, there will be someone willing to offer it to you.

If I have the resources to generate safety within a property, how long do you think it will take me to realize that other people want to live with me and are willing to pay?

Now, in a world of private property there are other incentives at play, I'm not the only one who realized that people want safety, so I will need to compete. In a medieval world the easiest way to compete was war, but we're at an age where death is something to be afraid of, where we have things to lose, where commerce has proven to beat pillaging, so competition, now, means having to attract people to your service by being better than the rest.

This leads to an optimization of laws, how many freedoms would you be willing to renounce in order to achieve prosperity? Many people will answer as little as possible, right? That is the NAP.

So, in short, the NAP *could be* the most optimal answer from the market to cover the need for security and prosperity.

And I say *could be*, because maybe other methods with additions to the NAP prove themselves more effective. Anarcho-Capitalism would allow us to try them all.

I manage a web development shop. It's a good job for having a steady income while also having constant access to the web services I use.

As for the coins, my thought right now is that LTC is undervalued relative to the amount of news regarding it coming up. SW sure, but also lightning network and rumors that korbit will start trading it. Looks like a pretty safe bet in the coming week or two, I'll be keeping an eye on it. That said, I think BTC will be invaluable for protecting wealth once this bull run in cryptos slows or reverses altogether.

Nice. Frankly I was thinking of getting rid of LTC but I might hold for a bit longer (had since 2013). Also have ETH and ETC, along with BTC.

Fuck off

I'm definitely looking at it from a day trading perspective. I'm not sure how LTC looks longterm. I think ETH and by extension ETC have competed for the space of larger altcoins and won that battle, being backed by institutions. You've made a killing on your money these past weeks if you were holding ETH/ETC, so gratz on that!

why trans?

That's not objective at all. There are no shortage of people in prison who will tell you why they had to kill some guy, why it was okay for them to rob those people, etc.

Thank god.

Bump with my fav Raico quote so far.

>That liberalism did not undergo a metamorphosis into a statist caricature of itself does not mean that it did not evolve. No argument is being offered here that the liberal idea suddenly sprang up at a certain point complete and fully matured. Neither can liberalism be approached as though it were a colloquy conducted among philosophers over the centuries.41 Instead, it must be understood as a political and social doctrine and movement grounded in a distinctive culture and traceable to specific historical conditions. That culture was the West—the Europe that arose in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The historical conditions were those of the Middle Ages. The history of liberalism is rooted in what economic historians sometimes call “the European miracle.” More precisely, liberalism can be viewed as the slowly emerging ideological and political aspect of that “miracle.”

- Ralph Raico, "Liberalism: True and False", in "Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School", p. 89

Will we say that mathematics are not objective because some people may maintain that 2+2=5 (as the communist did in one of their slogan)?

To say that something is objective is to say that it can be ascertained by several independent observers irrespective of their own personal situation. In this sense, property violations are an objective phenomenon, or at least might be. (I know of one one book which disputes this.)

I think it frankly depends on whether btc shuns BU and brings in Segwit which would largely render ltc redundant (as a large part of this run was that it would be the only coin with sw). Both can interact on ln but imo ltc will fall away again like in 13 onwards

Just not an ancap is what I imagine passes as moderate/classical liberal here. I think the government should have some to most oversight of some aspects of a society like education, legal system (the assumption being that said legal system follows the principles of personal freedom so no petty victim-less illegalities like drugs and guns for self protection)/law enforcement but at all costs should not take part in business and establish state monopolies. Incentivize business maybe in some cases like tax cuts for green energy production but that something to be enforced in a case by case basis. I guess my belief that clashes the most against the libertarian philosophy is that I believe some state social programs, very limited and exclusive by design but real nonetheless, should exist in my "ideal society".

As a sidenote to the thread in general, topical from my country's recent news, was the DE-monopolization of energy production from government control (due to be finalized by the end of the month) and how we, the people, are already experiencing the upside of the effects of a free and open market. This was a long time coming especially given the events of the last 3-4 years where the Greek government was using its monopoly on energy as an effective "second" tax, jacking up the price of power to ridiculous extremes to cover its own inability to stop tax evasion.

>Will we say that mathematics are not objective because some people may maintain that 2+2=5

No, because math itself is the origin of objectivity. If ethics could be numerically quantified, then they would be objective. However, ethics are not strictly quantifiable and thus they are subjective.

Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.

A system that "subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production" is contrary to human dignity. Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

IV. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God's plan for man.

youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E

Hey OP. Please add this to your Starting Thread Copy Pasta.

Mark Passio has invaluable work on Natural Law and Natural Rights.

>See pic related for synopsis.

If your ignorant of an objective fact, the truth does not cease to exist. Objective morality does not stop you from being a moral relativist.

If you don't believe in gravity then you have no fear of falling. But you will still fall.

fuck off commie

Everyone should watch this presentation. It was wonderful and worth the long watch.