"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat
This is a thread for the discussion of all ideologies that promote property rights, individual liberty and lassez-faire capitalism. This includes (but is not limited to) anarcho-capitalism, paleolibertarianism, minarchy, agorism and right-wing reactionary-ism against the left (i.e. physical removal, so to speak). All others are welcome to learn and debate us.
Reminder that this is a right-wing thread, so libertine degenerates ('live and let live' faggotry), open-border advocates and faux-libertarians (e.g. Gary Johnson) are not welcome here - people here recognise that property rights imply discrimination and a return to traditional, conservative values.
Although questions are welcome, most of them have already been answered many times, so it is recommended you get to grip with the basics first. Nobody here is obligated to argue with you, so try to avoid using fallacies in your arguments or creating unrealistic scenarios.
THREAD RESOURCES:
>Pastebin: pastebin.com
>Website: libertarianright.org
>Discord & Book Club: discord gg jCVRCR3
INTRODUCTION/REQUIRED READING:
>The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated Summary (David Friedman) - youtube.com
>Anatomy of the State (Murray Rothbard) - mises.org
>Democracy: The God that Failed (Hans Hermann-Hoppe) - riosmauricio.com
>(Further Reading - See i.imgur.com
THREAD THEME:
>hoppewave | Hans-Hermann Hoppe | physical removal - youtube.com/watch?v=u-wMmYSG9JQ
>Against the State - (Hoppewave Hans Hermann Hoppe) - youtube.com
>I need a Pinochet! - youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o
>Drop it like it's Hoppe - youtube.com
/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL
Hello fellow libertarians.
Can anyone suggest me some good libertarian twitter accounts?
Appreciate it
Best threads, hail /lrg/
I'm too edgy for Twitter.
Killing commies is always in defense of non-aggression.
>lassez-faire capitalism
Good man, Ayn Rand would be proud
LfCap>AnCap
Reminder that "Objectivism" deserves a mention in the OP as it encapsulates Nationalism, Capitalism, Meritocracy, Individualism, and Libertarianism all rolled into one.
Posting a realated video. Good old John Galt's 3 hour long speech, from an audiobook:
youtube.com
...
how do you convince people that medicaid is bad?
>how do you convince people that medicaid is bad?
By throwing them off a helicopter, so to speak.
Voluntary bump
Is taking your wife permissible in NAP/Islamic law?
Damn autocorrect trying to stop me from talking about rape.
Women don't have rights.
Even better.
Thank you Arab ball. You always clear up the nuanced aspects of Libertarianism.
serious question, who will build the roads? no memes
>Reminder that "Objectivism" deserves a mention in the OP as it encapsulates Nationalism, Capitalism, Meritocracy, Individualism, and Libertarianism all rolled into one.
>nationalism
didn't Ayn Rand denounce nationalism? Anyway, I don't think mentioning Ayn Rand would do our movement any good since the rest of Sup Forums sees Ayn Rand as a selfish Jewish bitch.
Private corporations. Roads existed before the government decided to become involved in their production, and they're not complicated things
The people who build the roads build the roads.
well if private corporations are building the roads, presumably they will have a monopoly and charge me an extortionate rate to use them?
Don't mention it.
We wuz the original Adam Smith and durka.
archive.is
who's going to organise it? are we going to have to form a commune and waste all of our times?
or will we all volountarily elect a group of people to sort that sort of thing out for us, and then we can pay them for the service?
oaaaaaaaaaaarh.
Why would you presume a monopoly on all roads?
ThatGuy_T
Orwell&Goode
Michelle Catlin
truediltom
(Academic Agent)
If there's more than one, how can you presume monopoly?
That's like saying grocery stores have a monopoly on grocery stores...
People who know how to build roads. No commune, no wasting time. In a sense yes we would elect the road builders. Customers who need roads built would gravitate to the best road builders and vote with their money.
Do you really care what the collectevists think?
They will only have a monopoly on the roads that they own, and competition will drop prices. And does the government not have a monopoly on roads? Does the government charge you with an extortionate rate to use them? The government is comprised of individuals like any corporation, after all. This group merely has the label of government.
well, what else? are you going to have multiple roads running upsides each other? even if you did, you'd still end up with one company owning all the parallel roads if there is no rules in place to prevent monopolies. Not to mention the huge waste of space that would be.
What other solution could there be? What is even wrong with the current system we have at the moment?
thanks!
What if I am arguing with a statist and he brings up muh rivers. How do you stop someone upstream from taking all the water that flowes through his property?
You nead to homestead or buy all river first to do that. Good luck doing it.
I thought "KILL ALL COMMIES" shit was too edgy for me. But today I had a discussion with a few commies.
Oh boy, we need helicopters.
>didn't Ayn Rand denounce nationalism?
This is a common and even understandable misunderstanding, what she denounced was Nationalistic Mysticism, where the collectivism of racial groups, economic classes, or the leftist parts of organized religion is replaced the "Nation". True Nationalism lies in the affirmation of the societies that free men wish to craft and the self interest (isolationist if they choose) objevtive reality demands they live by. Have a quote:
"Once, you believed it was ‘only a compromise’: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of nations be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. A man who has no right to life, has no right to values and will not keep them.
>selfish Jewish bitch
And the understanding they have of her concept (the true nature) of selfishness is leftist, muh feelings, tier.
ALL of the parasites she describes in her novels are exactly what are defined in this board as the meddling, commie, collectivist Jew. She was one of the few based Jews.
She realized that the constitution was incomplete and flawed, the left is actually right when they say this. But the -ONLY- thing that the founding fathers were missing was a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism.
Ironically enough for the left, the person that completed the advent of the American constitution (by hetero, white, cis, men reeee) was indeed a woman; just not one of their women.
youtube.com
She was based.
The difference with a government monopoly, is that in a democratic system we can kick a government out if it starts raising road taxes too much. We cant do that with a corporate monopoly. There is no democracy in corporate monopolies.
1) answered here 2) so what you're saying is that even in a small village, the street outside my house will be owned by a private company. will that also be applied to the pavement? will i have to pay to walk / drive to the shops?
>is replaced the "Nation"
*is replaced with the "Nation"
I think that's a homesteading issue.
If you were first, he wouldn't have the right. If he were first, he would. In any case, it's probably more a matter of communication than arbitration.
linking to articles is not constructive in a debate. if you cant explain yourself then you lose
/lrg/, what cryptocurrency is best to mine now?
Ask /biz/
Ayn Rand did nothing wrong
>in a democratic system we can kick a government out if it starts raising road taxes too much
Not at all. When has a government ever allowed that to happen?
>We cant do that with a corporate monopoly. There is no democracy in corporate monopolies.
True, but corporate monopolies can only exist with the aid of the government, so this isn't a topic worth discussing here, since we are strictly against government intervention in the market. The market becomes purely democratic when it is left alone by the government
I'm not debating with you. I have no obligation to sit here and talk to you and refute your points i've heard a million times before. If you actually care you'll read the article, if not you're just arguing to be edgy and prove yourself right, and no matter what point I come out with you'll make an unrealistic scenario to counter it.
Then he loses, but he's right. If you really want to learn about monopoly you'd read that link.
That seems to be your major hangup.
It's cool man the nap only applies to people, which commies are not.
Hey /lrg/ tell me what you think:
I had this idea of convincing enough members of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties to effectively dissolve the Parties and, along with key Paleo-Conservative Republicans who hate their cuckservative brethren, start a new party in a mass event; the "Meritocratic Party". Declare the Republican Party a failure to the right and vow to push it to the "center" (which I view, essentially, as a giant Middle ground Fallacy anyway) and claim the right in its stead. Invite all Libertarians, Constitution Party members, and Paleocons disgusted with the GOP and form this new Meritocratic Party. It would be necessary to get a bunch of big name supporters to simultaneously endorse it and even convert some big name celebs in a surprise event. Can't be a "minor" party like the old Libertarians, this has to be a threat as a major one on it's inception.
Imagine if Trump made this statement while also extending an apologetic olive branch to PaleoConservatism while also expressing his disdain for neocons, RINOs, cuckservatives, and "crypto-Democrats" (as I like to say). Imagine. Got the idea from Bill Whittle's (superold) "Piranha Party" Afterburner. Meritocrat Piranhas?
In this new 3 party America the new Republicans in the ""center"" would be able to say the this society is a Constitutional Representative *Republic* and their party simply reflects this reality. So then the Democrats and Meritocrats to either side must say that their intent to do is is to modify the society with more Democracy and Meritocracy to the left/right respectively. The objective evil and inferior of the Democratic part would be made know through simple observation.
See the reason the Libertarian PARTY was a bad idea is because it presents an unclear picture and avenue of attack for the left. An "Authoritarian Party" will never be made and for the same reason the Libertarian never should have. Even though Libertarianism is king.
I could get down with that, only problem is getting enough people down with it to abandon their parties, and then do campaign battle with Dems and Republicucks. I figured it be better to massively infiltrate another party, perhaps Libertarian or Republicucks
1) never because a democratic government has never raised road tax to astronomical levels for this exact reason
2) how did you come to the idea that monopolies cannot exist without state intervention? i still havent had an explanation to how this system could possibly benefit anyone except the people who own the roads (a very small amount of people with the financial leverage to actually buy them)
You've argued them many times before, i have no doubt. But you've never actually won one of those arguments, have you? Why do you cling onto these wacky and unworkable delusions?
>ill make an unrealistic scenario to counter it
well you really turned that one on it's head because thats usually what the ancaps who think this kind of shit do. "we dont need roads where we're going. We'll have JETPACKS" or "Dude we will have like 10 roads next to eachother"
both of those sound rather unrealistic to me. so thats why i am still asking
what is the solution to the monopoly problem?
no because academics use sentence structures way too complex for me to interpret in text form because i am a bad reader. if they were spoken to me i can easily cope. i am articulate by mouth but i have never been a good reader so i wont bother as it will literally take me days, and im not even exaggerating
Bump
Korwin Mikke is the most based libertarian politician ever.
He is even going to attend Hoppe's conference this year.
I think it would be easier, although no great feat., to invade the Republican Party and drag it towards Libertarian principles. It has the infrastructure already in place and Libertarians have already made in roads there. If I could wave a magic wand I would get a principled Libertarian running against every Repub in Congress and Senate next time they come up for re-election.Ron Paul proved that liberty is a popular message, but we do not have the comprehensive push in that direction to drag the Neo-Cons off their chairs.
>no small feat
sorry
is this the member of eu parliament people always meme about
Yes. He's a hoppean libertarian it seems.
Please explain how a completely unregulated system of hardcore capitalism isn't existentially incompatible with a society wide NAP. Wouldn't everyone alive chronically violate the NAP?
Not trolling, just legitimately don't see how this would work, so serious answers please.
I'd voluntarily associate with her on the left, iykwim
No idea why the fuck I replied to you, consider it a thread wide question.
>Wouldn't everyone alive chronically violate the NAP?
How come? We would have private protection. The majority of protection we have today is already private.
How so? A lot of the same services are still in place, just provided by the market - no governmental monopoly on stuff like judicial violence.
>1) never because a democratic government has never raised road tax to astronomical levels for this exact reason
So people wouldn't be able to boycott corporations in a similar manner? They could stop using that road and find alternative routes like they could democratically "kick out a government", if the government would ever allow such a thing to happen
>2) how did you come to the idea that monopolies cannot exist without state intervention? i still havent had an explanation to how this system could possibly benefit anyone except the people who own the roads (a very small amount of people with the financial leverage to actually buy them)
Read this mises.org
how based is ron paul?
bumping
extremely based.
Bump
...
My favorite.
What even is libertarian left? How can you have mass social programs without government force? Aren't those called charities?
commies and left libertarians see property rights as only existing because the state protects them, So obviously to be an anarchist you must have a massive central resource redistribution network to take from people and give the resources to the people who need them.
Rights are a spook
nah nigga rights come from god or nature if you're a spookfag.
It's more of the 'fuck the bourgie' type of leftism than the 'welfare state' kind
so can we have some libertarian memes
...
...
...
...
...
...
Pinochet was a statist.
...
Statism and other involuntary positions are justifiable in defence of your life, liberty and property
>my captcha
...
MI GENERAL AUGUSTO PINOCHET
...
post the original non shit version
...
if you are done with watching your freedoms be stolen, go to RIGHT WING UNITED
discord >>>> gg /q7vVFwD
camon guys i need to make the normies laugh before they get interested in this shit
Check out Trutherbot red and Trutherbot blue. Pretty redpilled famalam.
...
...
...
...
cool man, nice flag bearer too.
Hey lads, hop in the Anticom Discord. It's quite comfy.
purD2xX
Are left libertarians welcome ITT?
...
...