/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:

youtube.com/watch?v=v1jtKNs5q2o&t=3s
chelm.freeyellow.com/libertarianproblem.html
youtube.com/watch?v=wB3MkTXPJ8Q&t=194s
youtube.com/watch?v=5CTfHKXWYAM
youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The Grand-Wizard

first for "FUCK COMMIES"

The Paladin

>Tell me where a Government can exist in this?

I don't need a state to establish that you cannot smoke in my house.

Kek is with us

finally a clean thread

Why can't I post the reading list? I always get a connection error.

*blocks ur tax returns*

>That fails because there are no restrictions on what you can do and somebody will eventually become the new state, please re read what I originally said as I really don't want to repeat myself

The restriction is that if other covenants see that one of them is trying to form a state, then they would all join to crush it as that would then be just a state growing, not a fellow covenant. By principle these are still AnCap societies, so naturally it would follow that they seek to keep it that way by not allowing the formation of a state to success among them.

That guy is a classic example of not understanding free association in a right-anarchist society. They always get completely hung up on specific issues and never consider what voluntary collectivisation means. Have your government, just don't enforce it on people who don't want it.

Fucks i dunno man ever happens to me.

How to achieve a libertarian society:

1. Get a young traditional wife
>
2. Get a fine job
>
3. Make tons of babies
>
4. Teach them young to be great people and to despise socialism and degeneracy (both feed on each other)
>
5. Teach them to make more babies and to teach them the same thing
>
6. Keep this family tradition, in addition to others that you should create, invest in your house, make it bigger, buy land, make ornaments in tribute to your family, and pass this on to your descendants
>
7. Privatly educate your kids. Send them to good, elite, schools where they can fulfill their quest for knowledge and make great contacts.
>
8. Vote, support parties/think tanks/people that want to reduce govt and degeneracy.


Godspeed.

Most people fail to come up with solutions to common problems because they are meant to be followers, not leaders.

And the moment you explain how humans create solutions to these problems, they claim it's not anarcho capitalism because you just blew the fuck out of every prejudice they had against it.

Many of these, however, will come back in a few weeks with a more open mind. It's just hard to see your prejudices crumble and accept it right away.

Among the biggest misconceptions of both Anarchy and Capitalism, is that they falsely assume in Anarchy there cannot be eventual join agreement made among members to organize a governing body that is not interested in forcing people into it. Likewise, it is also falsely assumed that in Capitalism, there MUST be a state to regulate it.

Given that AnCap is actually a coherent mix of seemingly contradictory perspectives, it's not surprising at all that people mistake it as one or the other as an absolute and cannot grasp the beauty of both working in tandem.

>they are meant to be followers, not leaders.
This is probably the crux of any and all of our opposition. Tell a sheep that they can be the shepherd of their own lives, and their feeble sheep brain implodes internally. The responsibility is too much for them to bear, and thus they continue to gravitate towards not means of how they can shepherd themselves in the most efficient manner, but to which other shepherd rapes them the most gently to submit to.

>Are you claiming that nobody is going to offer himself to storm over a city of child rapists in exchange for payment/reaping
Ah, so mercenaries, surely nothing can go wrong with that. Not like they could turn to extort cities and abolish the libertarian system, or turn the country into a war-torn hell-hole.
>I plan on decentralizing law, which leads to optimization.
If every community has their own law it's the same as there being no law.
>Would you go live in a place where no security is provided? Anarcho Capitalism leads to private cities, most landlords will offer you security by purchasing property on their city.
This is a replacement for a police force, not an army. Not to mention, if someone commints a crime and leaves town, it would be hard to punism him without a unified code of laws or police force.
>So China and Russia would declare war on the whole world?
No, just on some countries that they see as weak (that would be all libertarian countries), or strategic. Let's be real, if say the baltic states were attacked by russia, it's doubtfull thet wastern europe would intervene in an all out war. And no one intervened when Ukraine was attacked.
>If a Russia/China invasion is a real threat, then a smart businessman will offer people a way to solve this threat.
"a smart businessman" will defeat a nuclear military superpower that can conscript and tax it's citizens.
>this is what libertarians belive.
yup, this must be the only system more ridiculous than communism.

I think we planted a few seeds. I definitely should've avoided getting hung up on specifics because it just leads to replying to huge lists of hypothetical scenarios that have nothing to do with the fundamental concept of aggression vs cooperation. Nevertheless he started googling the definition of anarcho-capitalism (last post he made before thred ded)

Exactly, which is why I tell communists that they can use their mode of production in a free society as long as they don't violently impose it. As you said, it seems contradictory to be a full capitalist at the same time as telling leftists that they can implement communism. It's actually a great argument to pursue because if the socialist mode of production is actually superior then it would easily outcompete the capitalist mode. I've been using it on /leftypol/

Is this basically Jews: the thread? You realize Jews support deregulated markets and open markets=globalization

We need the state to nationalize industry in order to further the interests of our culture and people. It worked for Mussolini and Hitler, why wouldn't it work today?

>It worked for Mussolini and Hitler

user, I...

2 things
1: The jew cannot jew on a large scale unless he has the backing of a government, because his primary tools are taxation and regulations
2: Jewery on a small scale is still possible, ie misleading a potential buyer, but if you're smart about your business decisions then you won't get jewed.

If the Jews want free markets, why have we been consistently and continuously losing economic freedom?

So can I put thumb nukes on my dirt (((road))) to prevent NAP violating niggers from driving on it?

sounds right

If the nuke is small enough to not damage the property of others, then go ahead. Good luck driving over it without activating them though

no, roads violate the NAP

>22
>muh extra powder
>totally worse that 9mm
>please clap

>Is this basically Jews: the thread? You realize Jews support deregulated markets and open markets=globalization

Not necessarily my friend, while global trade may help, you still have the absolute freedom to decline trade with anyone you might not like, including and especially degenerates. It is not a forced deregulated and open market by any means, it is free as in freedom to both close and open it, not just recklessly open for people to plunder.

>We need the state to nationalize industry in order to further the interests of our culture and people.

I admire your healthy concern for the people, and you can still absolutely "nationalize" as much of your own property as you like to the interests of whoever and whatever you like. You are just given the freedom to serve what you believe in, instead of being forced to submit to other's rule. You can save the people or people you care about user, and you alone -- other people's business have no influence on you within your private property, your realm.

shit i mixed up my links

>The Jewish Question - by Life, love, & Anarchy (an anarcho capitalist)
youtube.com/watch?v=v1jtKNs5q2o&t=3s

>Right-libertarianism accused of antisemitism
chelm.freeyellow.com/libertarianproblem.html

>(((Noam Chomsky's))) kike hitpeice against right-libertarianism
youtube.com/watch?v=wB3MkTXPJ8Q&t=194s

look into the jewish subversion, and subjugation of right-libertarianism and only then make up your mind.

m8 what did joot do to your image?

>I tell communists that they can use their mode of production in a free society as long as they don't violently impose it

haha yeah, this gives them a nice brainfuck. AnCap is by far the most versatile political philosophy ever conceived of, and yet the amount of misunderstanding it incurs prohibits people from seeing how it can benefit literally anything they want it to as long as it doesn't trespass or become too violent. It's rather tragic, really.

>mfw im finally in a screencap

never forget.
also 146 /lrg/ threads today.

By the way folks, do watch "Right-Libertarianism: The Inception (Documentary)" it's propaganda against us, but they do let some redpills slip through.

Absolutely lost it when I first read that list
top, top tier OC

kek

let me guess
>all CEOs are against the people and my cherry picked libertarians are all Jewish,ha checkmate loltards

>Ah, so mercenaries
The child rapists refuse to solve conflicts in a peaceful manner, they refused to recognize other people's rights, this is not about mercenaries, it's about retribution. The moment you decide to be an enemy of society through your actions you must assume the consequences.
>If every community has their own law it's the same as there being no law.
Law insurances that don't offer satisfactory conflict resolution with most people are not valuable. This is like saying that if every country has their own law then there's no law.
>This is a replacement for a police force, not an army.
It's a defensive army. Why should I pay for any private firm to invade other countries? All I care about is my security.
>if someone commints a crime and leaves town, it would be hard to punism him without a unified code of laws or police force.
Other communities will collaborate in self interest because, you know, nobody wants to live among criminals.
>"a smart businessman" will defeat a nuclear military superpower that can conscript and tax it's citizens.
If Vietnam could defend their sovereignty against the biggest army in the world, I'm sure a rich capitalist country would be alright. Certainly the sustainability of attacking peaceful countries for no reason will not hold any weight on them...

But keep bringing more catastrophic hypothesis man.

sorta, more like
>ebil rich people, poor people dumb. want more power for ebil rich people
>libertarians are nadsis bad goys, they want to shoah us.

I bleached akb with bill murray seed

made me lmao my ass off tbf

The maltese user here is based.

Always makes extensive, well written, replies with tons of patience.

Godspeed based maltabrah

> The moment you decide to be an enemy of society through your actions you must assume the consequences.
i have a feeling you'r missing my point. I'm not saying they shouldn't be exterminated, but using mercenary forces to deal with "bad people instead of a state police or military is a bitof a problem. As I said before, these mercenaries (who have enough power to take out a settelment) could also be used for immoral jobs, or to seize power in the country (or a part of it), abolishing the libertarian system and creating conflict. This doesn't haoppen with state sponsored police or military.
> Law insurances that don't offer satisfactory conflict resolution with most people are not valuable.
Ok, but i'm pretty sure your system will offer even less satisfactory conflic resolution, since it relies on private mercenaries for example.
>This is like saying that if every country has their own law then there's no law.
Well, international law isn't very effective is it? Lots of bad stuff goin on in africa, Ukarine and the middle east for example, and there's basically no intervention.
>It's a defensive army. Why should I pay for any private firm to invade other countries? All I care about is my security.
you shouldn't pay for an offensive army, but
>most landlords will offer you security by purchasing property on their city.
what you described is really not an army. unless you the landlord offers armored divisions and an airforce, wich coordinates with other such armies through a central command
>Other communities will collaborate in self interest because, you know, nobody wants to live among criminals.
Unless some of those comunities have different moral systems (like say muslims or jews who will cover for their own). And the communities that really do want to collaborate, will have a harder time since they are different organisations. Collaboration betwen police forces from different countries is harder even today.
1/2

Thanks, lots of people here with a strong grasp on market incentives and private property consequences thankfully so it's easy to be patient when you don't have to deal with everything yourself, some other days I'm more inspired tho, sick at home today.

>If Vietnam could defend their sovereignty against the biggest army in the world, I'm sure a rich capitalist country would be alright.
Vietnam was a comunist country tough, kinda the opposite of what you propose. Plus they had the backing of China, geography was in their advantage and it did take a tool on them. you'r basically saying "If the US couldn't beat Vietnam, there's no reason to worry about national defense" ,wich is uneducated.
>Certainly the sustainability of attacking peaceful countries for no reason will not hold any weight on them
You don't know your history my man. Ever heard of empires? Besides, it's never no reason, resources, strategic interest, national pride have all been reasons for war in the past.
>But keep bringing more catastrophic hypothesis man.
I'm criticizing you views, what do you expect, of course i'l attack your weak points. Nothing that I braught up is unreasonable. China is a resource hungry country and could attack a weak US. Turkey would attack a weak and divided Europe, especially with Erdogan in charge. Russia would do the same for strategic and economic reasons.

Fake and gay

(((Noam Chomsky))) is a senile bastard. I'd like to see Hoppe destroy him

>these mercenaries (who have enough power to take out a settelment) could also be used for immoral jobs, or to seize power in the country

I have the same concerns about government. At least I know that mercenaries wouldn't have "legitimacy" to step over other people's freedom.

Plenty of immorality from governments to talk about.

>Ok, but i'm pretty sure your system will offer even less satisfactory conflic resolution, since it relies on private mercenaries for example.

What is the difference between a mercenary and a policeman then? What makes police inherently good? You're just arguing from a status quo perspective. Easy to claim everything would be a disaster but you need to provide good arguments as to why, based on human incentives and compare those incentives to the current ones.

>Well, international law isn't very effective is it?

Depends the amount of interaction between countries. If there are two communities that want to have very close relationships, free movement, etc, it is expected that they will have ways to solve conflicts for these interactions.

The easiest way is to subject yourself to third party arbitration, choosing someone fair and making sure the decision is binding. Refusal to solve conflicts is a declaration of war.

>what you described is really not an army. unless you the landlord offers armored divisions and an airforce

You don't need an airforce to defend your territory, you need it to invade others. I don't want to pay for anyone to invade others, doesn't mean I don't want to pay for me to be able to live without being scared for my life.

>Unless some of those comunities have different moral systems (like say muslims or jews who will cover for their own)

A decision that will lead to prosperous communities banning muslims or jews from entering their property. If some people are untouchable, they can't be interacted with.

To what extent do you agree with physical removal? What warrants retaliation?
Do you believe only in peaceful secession or full retaliation against established governments?
Would you consider /lrg/'s hyper-Hoppean brand of anarchism to be different enough from mainstream anarcho-capitalism to warrant a different name?

Hello. Mom and dad never loved me during my growth years, so in order to fill this void in my being I need to exert my internal problems onto other human beings by participating in slavery called "government".

I actually care about people so much I think they should be required by gun point to help fund roads! So they can get to work of course...

I care about roads so much, that I'm going to completely ignore the fact that a clandestine guild of dark occult, child raping, baby eating, blood drinking, satanic, psychopathic, elite group of men that run the world and its politics through blackmail, murder, gematria, and drugs. Besides, current system does such a great job of taking care of them anyway. I've never seen a pothole in my life.

Ancaps btfo!

...

I've noticed a lot of my leftist friends typically have family issues. Is there any literature on this?

...

Nob am argumend :DDDDD

To the degree of voluntary exposure to physical removal.

A covenant should not be able to say: "you became a communist and this is a libertarian covenant" just like that, and kick them out. Covenants must have provisions in their contracts.

I would not be successful in my job if I wasn't able to define contracts in such a way that guarantees my clients won't be able to fuck me over, covenants should be the same, if they want to maintain a libertarian purity then they must force physical removal of democrats and communists contractually, and I, as a libertarian, would search for a place where these provisions I consider necessary for a sustainable libertarian order are covered.

youtube.com/watch?v=5CTfHKXWYAM

Whats libertarian fascism? Sounds oxymoronic to me and yet, it tingles my tongue when I say it out loud.

I assume a private city within a libertarian frame where fascism order is enforced via voluntary contracts?

>be you
>want to join a fascist community
>go to their website
>"looks cool"
>apply with your work experience and what you can bring to the community
>you sign a contract to obey its laws
>travel their and join the community
>leave whenever your contract is over or whenever you like if not defined

pretty much it.

Doesn't exist

I'll give it a watch

There was a /fit/ screecap posted about this in another thread on Sup Forums yesterday iirc. Maybe relevant, check the archives.

Why are you a Libertarian and not a Conservative?

...

Libertarian fascism is the way to go man.

But I am both

I think libertarian fascism could mean voluntary fascism. Namely, a libertarian fascist society must be founded on the consent of all the members of a community

"voluntary" what if degenerates arnt compliant? wouldnt that violate the libertarian aspect?

what degenerates? the people in the community couldn't have gotten their without approval in which case degenerate individuals deemed by the community would've been denied entry.

it's libertarian until you sign between the dotted lines and MUST submit to degenerate-free covenant laws or else. Probably aggressive economical policies regarding neighboring property.

basically private fascism. I would imagine no degenerates would steer clear of your property there, and that's a good thing.

aaaahh

>It worked for Hitler
Pls end this meme.

1) He robbed people of their money by forcing to by state insurance and then said "lol fuck you I'll spend your money on our already super inflated military, go starve for all I care"

2) Because of government intervention there were constant shortages and deficit of basic goods.

3) Workers were literally slaves(they had special "labour books" that were their only ID and when you were appointed to work somewhere by government your ID was taken away by the government and you couldn't move/change place of work without that ID)

4) They forbid people to stop working in agriculture. Not only if you were a farmer Nazi stole 90% of your work just because "muh nation needs it, give it or we will take it with force", they also made agriculture workers slaves chained to their farms. It became so absurd that farmers forbid their kids to work on the fields so they won't become agriculture slaves. Also it resulted in deficit of food and people weren't eating enough.

5) Price/rent/production control. This only means SHORTAGES OF EVERYTHING.

6) "Dude fuck banks lmao, they are jewish" said the autistic retard and crashed the economy. Because of that people had to live nigger ghetto-tier lives.

etc, etc, etc

Nazis should go off the helicopter right after commies.

>At least I know that mercenaries wouldn't have "legitimacy" to step over other people's freedom.
Who cares about legitimacy at this point, they have the power to do it and nothing to stop them.
>Plenty of immorality from governments to talk about.
Sure is, but nothing on this scale, I don't hear of any army extorting cities ar having civil wars betwen different generals.
> What makes police inherently good?
Because they follow a code of laws and are paind by the citizens, rather than working purely for financial gain. There are some corrupt cops, but all mercenaries are basically corrupt cops, since their whole goal is to make money.
> If there are two communities that want to have very close relationships, free movement, etc, it is expected that they will have ways to solve conflicts for these interactions.
Wow, almost like these agreements betwen communities are laws that they follow.
>The easiest way is to subject yourself to third party arbitration, choosing someone fair and making sure the decision is binding.
How is that easy. How would you find a third party that is totally impartial, fair and uncorruptible.
>Refusal to solve conflicts is a declaration of war.
Suers ounds like a nice society, having outright wars when you can't come to an agreement on something, like who is actually an impartial arbitrator.
>You don't need an airforce to defend your territory, you need it to invade others.
You'r delusional kid. A militia can't stop a military invasion. How are you going to take down armored divisions and stop enemy bombers?
>banning muslims or jews from entering their property
How would they know if someone is a muslim or jew? Unlike christians, they are allowed to lie about their fate. And that was just one example, you could just have communities of bastards like the mafia, that cover for each others crimes.

>Thanks, lots of people here with a strong grasp on market incentives and private property consequences

"Market incentives" is something you learn aged 16 in economics class. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Property rights are a mental construct on a level equal with human rights.

Don't try and pretend that your reductionist tripe is somehow intellectual or hard to understand. I went down the AnCap rabbit hole as an edgy 17 year old.

...

*I would imagine degenerates would steer* clear of your property there, and that's a good thing.

What if I go to the cinema and decide to smoke a blunt and talk on the phone?

I will be kicked, because in the ticket there's a right of admission contractual obligation, one that I accept by purchasing the ticket.

In the case of the fascist society, in order to sustain their values they must contractually have provisions against people who would destroy their community.

I'm basically the same, I'm just not sure what to say to those who believe in the physical removal of all communists at all times. I asked one of these people if they believe in deporting/excommunicating/kidnapping people who read Marx, he said yes and tried to defend it. Obviously he was saying that they are inherent violators of the NAP and are therefore implicitly agreeing that violence is permissible and so on

Then you can just have libertarian anything so the word becomes meaningless.

What happens when you're born into a "libertarian fascist" society even though you didn't consent to it?

Daily reminder that anarchism is a dank meme.

The snake memes mostly

>specifics
Yeah, if I have to explain why warlords wouldn't take over, or why people wouldn't be selling their kids to be drug mules one more time...

Alright boys thanks, back to work

I am both friend

It would violate the libertine aspect, not the libertarian aspect. The private city's immigration policy requires a contract. The contract informs you that you can only live there if you accept certain terms. Deportation could be one agreed upon consequence - quite extreme and not something I would particularly seek, but completely libertarian.

>"Market incentives" is something you learn aged 16 in economics class. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

You've got to be kidding. Literally nobody I know in real life has a strong grasp on market incentives, other than a couple of entrepreneurs.

Everyone thinks poisoning rivers is good business practice.

>Property rights are a mental construct on a level equal with human rights.

Agreed. I don't defend I have a god-given right for property. I defend I should do all I can to convince society I do, and then I should do all I can to make sure those who disagree can't touch me.

>Don't try and pretend that your reductionist tripe is somehow intellectual or hard to understand. I went down the AnCap rabbit hole as an edgy 17 year old.

I doubt you even came close to understanding it. You're already strawmanning in 3 small paragraphs.

This is a good point. It has confused me. The child never consented to be birthed into a certain community, what if he wants to live in a mud hut in the neighboring community? Or live in a sky scraper somewhere else? Well since we've already predefined the fact that communities must be VOLUNTARY, be can voluntarily leave his place of birth at any time and go see other places.

This of course is completely removing the internet and photography and videos and all kinds of technology you could use to see other communities whilst your in your birth community, to see if you want to leave.

I think on another note, this is how great traditions are born and heritage is conceived.

>what are adoption services
About 20k to adopt a child currently. Huge market.

>asks right-wing libertarians why they aren't conservative

I was crying at that list was it was posted.

>What happens when you're born into a "libertarian fascist" society even though you didn't consent to it?

children have shared ownership of themselves between their parents, gaining independence as they grow older and can think for themselves. This means that the child who is born in a libertarian fascist society would grow up libertarian fascist until they're old enough to decide "nah, maybe this isn't for me" and go somewhere else. The only around this would be that when they're an adult, the libertarian fascist contract is presented to them (probably a kind of coming-of-age ceremony) and they have to choose between staying or leaving. If their conviction to leave is strong enough, then they would probably be escorted outside the premise to fend on their own. Maybe they can work in the covenant there until they're older and have enough money to move out safely with more of their own resources (as it is permitted), but somewhere along those lines.

I could of sworn was forced to read a shitty novel about this as a child. "The Giver" I think? The plot is literally as i've described, with a few key changes about family and someone's brother or some bullshit.

Both of those things have been happening since the beginning of human history and 100% of that human history has involved a government.

>Everyone thinks poisoning rivers is good business practice.

Yup. Better to externalise your costs and spread them across society than add huge costs.

Threadly reminder that rights are endowed by nature and are fixed, immutable, and unchanging and govern behavioral consequences based on circumstantial synchronicity and action.

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

>okay_it_is_gay_but_thats_okay

Then they are forced to hold their own view of government to the same standard as yours.

There's an amish tradition in which the children are made to live in their community until the age of majority, at which point they are allowed to leave and experience other communities for a time. If they find that the outside world is preferable, they're allowed to leave, and if not, then they can just return home and continue being amish.

I imagine this voluntary Fasco-Libertarian community would have the same tradition, but enforced by contracts.

Kinda throws the whole voluntarism shit out the window doesn't it?

>What happens when you're born into a "libertarian fascist" society even though you didn't consent to it?
That's what has me stumped. I suppose the "fascist" part of the libertarian society must cease to exist if the society is going to maintain libertarian ethical principles

Anatomy of the State is quality

No, because its much better to have that be a downfall than a masonic guild of psychopathic, satanic, dark occultists running the world through murder, blackmail, child rape and drugs.

>when they're an adult, the libertarian fascist contract is presented to them (probably a kind of coming-of-age ceremony) and they have to choose between staying or leaving.

This would be a great free market solution, far more moral than the current system of governance because there'd be a tangible contract to make it real, and everyone would make the best decision.