/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL - DEMOCRACY IS FOR CUCKS EDITION

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:

chelm.freeyellow.com/libertarianproblem.html
youtube.com/watch?v=v1jtKNs5q2o&t=2s
youtube.com/watch?v=QolbzVce06g
youtube.com/user/MrMarxismo/about
youtube.com/watch?v=oGh_adhNGR8
mises.org/library/my-battle-thought-police
strawpoll.me/12730090
ancapbarbershop.com
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>guys look at these fucking based Jews I found
>fucking based

why don't you take a look at the opposition to libertarianism? its all communist jews like (((Noam Chomsky)))

have some jewish reading material against libertarian anti-semitism
chelm.freeyellow.com/libertarianproblem.html

or perhaps watch the jewish question, a presentation made by a anarcho-capitalist.
youtube.com/watch?v=v1jtKNs5q2o&t=2s

Bump

youtube.com/watch?v=QolbzVce06g

...

...

But, we nasis!

They are icky reds.

who's got some good ancap podcasts? only on of I know that's any good is Part of the Problem

Radical agenda is my go to. Try and find Dave and Cantwell arguing it's a good listen.

...

Kek

Libertarians: focus on the incentives without denying the results (Jews are controlling people because X, blacks commit more crime because Y, therefore we should target X and Y).

Nazis: Focus on the results without focusing on the incentive and apply simplistic solutions that will most likely derive in more problems (Jews are controlling people so we should get rid of them).

Leftists: Deny the results and create more incentives.

...

> jews are controlling people
> therefore we should get rid of them

how is this poor reasoning

the fuck is libertarian right just call yourselves republicans lmao

yeah I've seen it. I appreciate cantwell's existence but can't really call myself a fan

Don't get me wrong it will solve the problem of Jewish exploitation, but they'll just get replaced by some other group. You have to stop the incentive for exploitation to really solve the problem.

Jews (at least Ashkenazi) are tribal, why would they support individual liberty?

Individuals are tribal.

There obviously needs to be a distinction, republicans are pretty much center or just slightly right by way of their ""christian morals""".

Libertarians are much more right wing, and even have their own spectrum of ideas from your traditional libertarians like Ron Paul to your increasingly growing AnCap population.

It would be like saying "the fuck is nat socialism just call it democrat lmao"

...

Because martyrdom and guilt are powerful tools

The traedeu effect.

Bump

...

I think i classify myself as a libertarian national socialist, do you think this shit would work?
More or less i just think people should be free to become and do what they want with some small limitations, however have a culture where people care about more than just themselves but also the nation and the people in it, with the socialist aspect being a bit less about the government enforcing socialism with taxation and policies, but society itself working together to uplift the troubled and fix its problems out of pride and love of one another. Then have a strong state that will work for its people, mostly working for its interests on the world stage, perhaps holding emergency powers to get more involved in the country if ever needed but mostly just controlling a decent military, directing some large infrastructure projects if needed but cooperate with corporations if possible, ensuring education is a given for children and make sure the nationalist-socialist culture of the nation persists

What's the state of the Libertarian party in America? I thought they mostly represented fiscal conservatism while allowing more freedom for individuals and business, but now there needs to be a distinction between left and right libertarians and I see a surprising amount of left-libertarians on Sup Forums.

Are the only true libertarians left in America libertarian-leaning Republicans?

Libertarian and Socialist should never be used together.

That's just plain conservatism with nationalist leanings.

when things go outta hand for whitey, just call mommy state to gas successful people.

I get that you like NatSoc imagery, but basically you're talking about forming a family and kin centered covenant community. Which is valid in libertarian ethics and would still be considered libertarianism unless I'm missing a piece of your ideal.

Bump

did you know the woman with dreads is actually a man?

>all jews are bad

Libertarianism and socialism are incompatible
>inb4 "national socialism isn't socialism"
It's socialist enough to oppose libertarian principles

hey guys i just found this thread and i thought why dont post some shit what we german youtubers get fed with

this channel in particualr is very active in the comment section of several german channels who try to show what the antifa is doing.

youtube.com/user/MrMarxismo/about

I just see it as 3 tiers, individual, society and nation
Make each work to strengthen the other two and you have a great civilization, but limiting any one of them limits the advances of all

Letting people become the best they can be with a strong work ethic making some of the best workers thinkers and leaders, not expecting handouts but still receiving help from society (Eg. "Teach a man to fish", people getting really involved in the local community and working to together to fix their problems), where the society will support the state in the actions they need to take, with a government working its hardest to give its people the best opportunities and therefore lives, and ensuring its society becomes the most efficient problem solving, economical powerhouse in the world.

Walter Block, Murray Rothbard and von Mises were/are all self-hating Jews. Austrians despise communism and socialism, globalism and kike puppetry.

youtube.com/watch?v=oGh_adhNGR8

Afternoon lads. Anyone notice an increase in anti libertarian threads the last couple of days? Not the usual ancap memeball stuff but "why are ancaps/libertarians so retarded" etc

Yeah been steep rise since lrg came about. It's a good chance to btfo nadsis that think they know libertarianism just because they liked Ron Paul.

Meh it's just the NatSocs and the usual commies getting pissed off about the fact libertarianism is making a resurgence, and that it isn't the cuck A Leppo tier Libertarianism.

At least we've been doing good publicity for Hoppe and the Austrian School, tho. We're starting to see a rise in OC and interest for physical removal once again.

The best girls and traps

Portubro?

Don't assume her gender

Why traps? You can't have offspring with them and they come off as LGBT-crazy people. Please don't infest /lrg/ with trap propaganda. We already have to "justify" ourselves to NatSocs who say "hurr durr you're all fascists, why don't you admit it?" and to the usual meme commie rebuttals, the last thing this general needs is LGBT friendliness. Tolerance, yes; acceptance or inclusiveness, absolutely not.

Yup.

Yeah it's funny, threads all start off talking the piss, but by 50 posts in there's usually some real interest. The /lrg/ site is great for that cos you can point them to the reading list so easily

Haven't been able to pick you out of the crowd in a while. I noticed you yesterday in the Anarcho monarchist thread.

What's good, what's your take on the current state of /lrg/? Are we on the path of righteousness?

...

...

...

...

Weak. Honestly I have not seen a libertarian party with a decent platform yet. They are either left-wing like Johnson, or so small as to be irrelevant , eg libertarian party uk. While rw libertarianism and ancap have excellent theorists and political science, there's no one to really vote for at the party level afaik

Bump

...

I think our threads are going quite well, and we're doing a good job spreading the message. I go to the archives often and am pleased to see so many people praising Hoppe, not just on Sup Forums but also on other boards and chans. We've also been noticed by Truediltom, Hoppean Snake Memes is our Kikebook front, and we're making pretty dank OC as of lately, particularly the Pepes and the new quotes. Thank you guys for helping the cause; we will realize Hoppe's vision of the future.

Perhaps we could improve on what we actually mean by "physical removal." I see in a lot of threads some well-intended people going overboard and saying "We can outright shoot communists in the face and ask questions later because they have no rights" and then some douches saying we are not extreme enough ("Ah ah! So you're not actually intent on killing commies, you just want to mock them.")

We have to explain that "physical removal" would mainly be a thing against criminals of all sorts and backgrounds; communist sympathizers and other degenerates would most likely be ostracized and mocked by the majority normal populace; communism, degeneracy, feminism, etc. would be essentially a transition phase for the misguided teenagers of society. If their parents didn't smack some senses into them, the market would.

Also, they'd be free to go ahead and try out their own socialist egalitarian Islamic shithole and watch it all burn before their eyes; if they didn't repent after they wouldn't be welcomed back into normal society.

It's only when communists and the likes get uppity and start pushing for coercive power and increasingly degenerate standards of conduct that adults must literally physically remove them from civilization, i.e. picking them up and throwing them out of civilized society,

So I've been trying to prove a priori that private property rights are essential to liberty. First, I define liberty:

Let the right to liberty be the right to carry out your will only of your own body (unless you have consent to do so to another), insofar as your will does not conflict with the right to liberty of another person. Let this be the fundamental law.

Next, I prove that private property follows as a corollary to this law:

Let person A use his time to make use of natural resources. I say that the resources A makes use of belongs to him and is subject to his will and only his will unless he provides consent to another, say person B, to make use of the resource; this resource is A's property. If not, then let person B come along and deprive A of the resources A has made use of. It is A's will to achieve an end, and to achieve this end A must make use of previously unappropriated resources (for the sake of argument, assume these resources were previously unclaimed as property). If B comes along and deprives A of these resources, B deprives A of the means by which A intends to achieve his desired end. The end lies with the means such that the means leads to the end and without the means there is no end: depriving the means implies depriving the end. This violates the law. Thus B may not deprive A of his resources. Thus he resources are A's private property.

What do you guys think of this? Point out any flaws if you see them. I put this proof together last night so it's likely that it's flawed

Opinions please?

Wonderful, HSM knows of us? I know he's a/pol/ack (and a namefag) but I've never seen any reference to lrg. I also don't have Facebook so I wouldn't know.

>physical removal
It's a shame because those memes and the helicopter ride stuff do attract people - sometimes it's all they know about us.

Hoppe himself used catholic excommunication as an analogy for removal. From shunning, though discrimination, to expulsion from society.

mises.org/library/my-battle-thought-police

I think he knows, but I'm not sure whether or not he has posted /lrg/ stuff onto Kikebook.

Sounds like NatCap if you're talking a libertarianish society fiercely protected by a state. Is this what you mean?

feedback anyone?

What does /lrg/ think of this?

>In a departure from traditional Western political theory that is reminiscent of left‐wing anarchism, contemporary libertarianism rejects the necessity of making political choices based on a value hierarchy, instead claiming that it is possible for all individuals to pursue their divergent values simultaneously—as long as each respects the equal rights of others to do the same. The caveat, however, hides a conflict of loyalties that would plague a libertarian society: on the one hand are the particular loyalties of one's preferred Utopian community; on the other hand, loyalty to the larger “framework for utopias”; within which one's utopia exists. The second loyalty implies a value relativism incompatible with the first one, meaning either that loyalty to the libertarian framework will undermine the utopias within it, or that the particular values of the utopias will destabilize the libertarian framework. The durability of a libertarian society, then, requires a mentality best characterized as nihilistic. In this, libertarianism differs from liberalism but is surprisingly similar to the cultural diversity movement. The thesis is illustrated by examining John Gray's attempt to eschew both a hierarchy of values and moral relativism.

REMOVE AUTHORITARIANS

strawpoll.me/12730090

>National Socialist
>Socialist
Physical removal is the only correct answer.

Is the flat taxer ITT? I need to explain why hes wrong about the LVT

also you guys are all closet georgists and should just convert already

What are your guys' favorite youtube channels? Please don't say Molymeme

Good but a little wordy. The NAP explanation would stand by itself. Perhaps contrast the marx quote with something like pic related?

Accept them as our retarded little brothers during the War for the West; physically separate them from us after we're done with the rest.

>pls respond
Have a you, you filthy leaf.

or split the difference and figure out something that is moral and actually works?

thoughts on ? It's an a priori proof I put together to make libertarian doctrine more rigorous. There are probably proofs like this in books but I put this one together myself

How does the NAP apply to rightful debt?

if i dont pay my bills whomever i owe has a right to force me to pay?

I wasn't referring to the pic if that's what you're referring to

Frankly, I think we should remove them before we remove the communists, since they are immeasurably worse.

At least most semi-redpilled people know that commies are bad, but most think that Nazis are their opposites.

Oh sorry, man, thought it was your OC & you were asking for feedback

The NAP is a concept, not a governing force. I know it's confusing for statists who look to the NAP as a law, but it's really just the idea that if someone transgresses against you, you can retaliate. It's the concept that the individual can govern themselves and make that assessment.

What you're looking for is structure, which you'll find in libertarian societies within covenants of likeminded individuals. Here they've made their own rules etc and agreed mutually to them. This is different from a state because it was a voluntary contract.

Not jewtube but some user mentioned this site with a load of audio, interviews etc. just started looking at it

ancapbarbershop.com

Check'd trips. I think you should start by explaining why self ownership is the basic and foundational insight into private property and the answer to resolve property disputes. For instance, if we didn't own our vocal chords, our brains and our bodies we could not act, and Mankind would die instantly. If A were owned by B whilst B had self ownership, a class of subhumans and superhumans would be created, which is invalid as a universal ethic. If A and B owned each others, they'd need each other's consent to act and to appropriate resources, which would spell the instant death of Mankind since everyone would need everyone else's permission to move, yet those people would also need another person's permission, who in turn would need another's permission, ad infinitum. So we're left with each person owning his body by virtue of him being the sole direct controller over hid body. "Only I can directly use my brain, my vocal chords, my arms, etc. and do such and such with them." Anyone who denies this enters into performative contradiction because he himself is using his body in order to argue for or against something.

I'm not sure on

>If not, then let person B come along and deprive A of the resources A has made use of. It is A's will to achieve an end, and to achieve this end A must make use of previously unappropriated resources (for the sake of argument, assume these resources were previously unclaimed as property). If B comes along and deprives A of these resources, B deprives A of the means by which A intends to achieve his desired end. The end lies with the means such that the means leads to the end and without the means there is no end: depriving the means implies depriving the end. This violates the law. Thus B may not deprive A of his resources. Thus he resources are A's private property.

What do you mean by "deprive him of his resources"? Do you mean resources which A had previously appropriated, or resources encountered in Nature?

Wassap Slovakiabro, haven't seen you around lately either
What's your take on applying "non libertarian" means to acheive ancapistan?

We live in statism, and are being aggressed upon. It seems valid that libertarian ethics are not to be applied t when almost everyone acts in opposition to property rights. Is it just to use statism to fight the statists that oppose us?

So in other words i'm right and that collecting rightful debts does not violate the NAP because the collector is retaliating for the transgression of not paying the bills?

TrueDilTom is good been watching his stuff, and I've been unironically listening to early molymemes lately while I work on stuff.

Stop thinking of the NAP as a governing force. Either someone is compelled to retaliate over debts or not.

The NAP is an explanation of what could compel people to retaliate. Motivated individuals will be violent regardless of morals or ethics.

"force," as such, is neither good nor bad. If used to defend one's person or property from aggressors, or to enforce payment of a rightful debt, it is a good thing. If used to harm the person or property of a non-consenting other, or to enforce payment of a wrongful debt, it is a bad thing.

A tax on wages or interest implies that the income one receives in return for the exertion of one's labor, or for the use of one's capital goods, belongs (at least in part) to others. This conflicts with the basic libertarian principle that you have an exclusive right to the fruits of your labor.

A tax on rent implies that the income one receives for the value of the land one holds belongs to others. Since land itself (1) is not the fruit of anyone's labor, and (2) is that to which all have an equal right of access; and since the rent of land (1) is not a return to labor, and (2) reflects the extent to which Locke's proviso has been violated, a "tax" on rent does not conflict with the principle that you have an exclusive right to the fruits of your labor, but is in fact a just and necessary means of upholding it.

Thus, the part of one's income that is taken via taxation of wages and interest constitutes the enforcement of a wrongful debt, whereas the part of one's income that is taken via taxation of rent constitutes the enforcement of a rightful debt.

"As to what constitutes robbery, it is...the taking or withholding from another of that which rightfully belongs to him. That which rightfully belongs to him, be it observed, not that which legally belongs to him." [Emphasis original] -- Henry George, Property In Land, p. 46.

...

...

kek, reminds me of this

What do you mean by "deprive him of his resources"? Do you mean resources which A had previously appropriated
Yes

I'm a Libertarian Left Vegan. Where's my /pol?!

give cantwell more subs

Thanks for the lecture lol

Did you copypaste that out of a txt file or, heaven forbid, did you actually string these thoughts together manually and think it was a useful post

...

Depends on what you mean by that. I think we should strive to be as free from the state as possible; avoid taxes when we can; ignore stupid laws and regulations when we can get away with it; buy stuff from black markets or markets which avoid taxation; try to get into the whole seasteading, Liberland, cryptocurrency etc. trends, and so on and so forth.

One guy from R*ddit e-mailed Hoppe on this issue and he recommended adopting what Robert Taylor writes in Reactionary Liberty.

...

Yes, that hinders A's freedoms.

...

I'm just ITT trying to get some of you right wing lp guys back to a place that makes sense

Im advocating Georgism and i think that text proves that community capture of ground rents is no theft and therefor completely in line with libertarian thinking

Yes that is from a text file but it does a far better job that i can of articulating my point.

It's pointless, you're providing shit arguments such as a comparison between voluntary contractual agreement subjected to third party arbitration with state taxation.

A tax on rent implies that someone has a better claim on the land than those who put their labor on it, that private property doesn't exist and that only usufruct is allowed, you're an authoritarian trying to convince us that just because there's a minor and ignorant base on what you preach you will be able to convince anyone.

Land is scarce, scarcity requires property rights to avoid conflict, that's all there is to it.

Civil disobedience is fine, but I mean specifically the use of force with intent of bringing us to a more libertarian society, whether that be minarchist/NatCap transition that would no doubt be authoritarian.

I've gotta read reactionary liberty, will be my next read.