Time for another /lrg/ boys. Brought to you by Portubro.
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 THEME: >hoppewave | Hans-Hermann Hoppe | physical removal - youtube.com/watch?v=u-wMmYSG9JQ >Against the State - (Hoppewave Hans Hermann Hoppe) - youtube.com/watch?v=HLaqr3QorCw >I need a Pinochet! - youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o >Drop it like it's Hoppe - youtube.com/watch?v=HPKGgo4kGQM
Is anyone even debating whether gary johnson is a libertarian at this point? the uppity cunt openly supported tpp pre-elections iirc
Dylan Russell
Thank you Greekbro.
Christopher Reyes
Apparently they are because he not only got the LP nomination twice, but he also got 5 or so million votes in the general election. Despite Austin Petersen being a much better candidate and having called him out on that stupid cake position of his.
Gavin Bell
...
Elijah Diaz
...
Levi Scott
...
Henry Hill
...
Jayden Moore
...
Lincoln Stewart
...
Carter Russell
...
Jack Lopez
...
Brody Taylor
...
Owen Allen
I see, I'm not following the american LP closely but from what I've seen they have nothing to do with liberty after all. Ron Paul must have had his reasons to run for the republican nomination and not for them after all.
good reading material, nicely done
James Flores
...
Nathan Sullivan
It's impossible to have capitalism and anarchy capitalism needs the state
Hunter Reyes
Thanks, and yes Ron Paul is probably pissed. Although he switched parties from Republican to Libertarian again, we must remember he has to keep his real power level low. And by that I mean 90s-Lew-Rockwell-reports-tier power level.
Xavier Price
Logically and praxeologically false.
Easton Thompson
>logically false False >praxeologically false it's never happened I wonder why...
Hudson Diaz
The over of a territory or covenant doesn't have to adopt pure liberal market policies in Hoppe's view right? Like let's say we form a joint stock sovereign corporation and make a private nation. Since it's private the sovereign corp could have taxes, welfare built into its charter, etc.
IMO a lot of Hoppe's thought just devolves into "we should be nationalists but admit we're exclusive and removing kebab"
Joseph Allen
>capitalism needs the state no it doesn't >It's impossible to have capitalism and anarchy actually it's impossible to have collectivism and anarchy. A free market and Laissez-faire capitalism are actually the prerequisites to have any decent form of anarchy or non-statism in general.
Aaron Butler
Then present your argument as to why capitalism needs a state please.
Jayden Johnson
Yes although whether or not those would be successful remains to be seen. Just say "Can I be a nazi in my own covenant?" The answer is yes: whether or not it would be a good place to live and an economically and socially viable place to live would be the fun in seeing what models work and what dont.
Parker Martinez
>actually it's impossible to have collectivism and anarchy. A free market and Laissez-faire capitalism are actually the prerequisites to have any decent form of anarchy or non-statism in general. WRONG! What's stopping people with enough money hiring militias and then conquering land ands businesses to form a state? How will you circulate money? How will your businesses stay up while the rate of profit decreases? Why will most big business men want it when they can just buy votes from our current democracy? How do you prevent private courts from being bought out?
Oliver Kelly
That's basically what I'm saying. Since there is no "fair" way to decide how to break up most states, and any attempt to do so would require terrible violence, many of us should just accept the states that we live in and begin to regard them as commonwealths. I understand why Hoppe thinks having many small states competing with each other would reduce leftism, but in practice that seems very far away from any realistic scenario. Better to have economies of scale with a country or trade zone.
Landon Gonzalez
>reduce leftism Yes almost like people are aligning with ideologies in their self interest hmmm not sure you can reduce that
Joshua Moore
First for Gary Johnson
Justin James
Also having a commons is pretty important for many market functions. Housing regulations are a good example. NIMBYs in big American city make it harder to build new buildings, and it's costing unbelievable amounts of money in economic growth because cities can't grow the way they would under unregulated conditions. It's also driving up the cost of housing to absurd levels. Having a commons to prevent such behavior seems obviously good to me.
Aiden Wood
What's stopping people with enough money hiring militias and then conquering land ands businesses to form a state? People who pay companies to protect them from scumbags who wish to take their property away.
How will you circulate money? Like we used to before central banks existed? We're heading into incorruptible and inflation-less cryptos anyway.
How will your businesses stay up while the rate of profit decreases? Why would the rate of profit decrease?
Why will most big business men want it when they can just buy votes from our current democracy? Big businessmen who get funds from the government and take advantage of the regulatory power it endows to them are just as part of the state apparatus as the Clinton family. They will need to be taught a lesson, abd will need to step up their game because of the new competition.
How do you prevent private courts from being bought out? That doesn't happen in state courts right? Anyways, competition from other private courts.
Kayden Baker
>People who pay companies to protect them from scumbags who wish to take their property away.
This seems insane to me desu, and I'm a very big market guy. It would lead to a nightmare world of all against all in which economies of scale and cooperation collapse in the face of violent conflict. This stuff is the reason it's hard to get normies to accept more radical applications of capitalism, no one thinks having Pinkertons gun down workers who don't want to work for their boss anymore sounds good.
Hudson Wright
Have you read The Private Production of Defense? It's not as scary as it may sound.
Bentley Brooks
Yes, yes it really is. You guys are idealists, but unfortunately that stuff doesn't work in the real world. It will never happen though, normal people would never accept such a world. At best you would have "private" police in the sense that sovereign corporations operating as de facto nation states would have police. So police.
Jayden Parker
And yet the state, which boils down to "surrender all your other means of defense and loyalty to other states and we'll protect you after we've extorted you for money" works.
Blake Bennett
Modern states do some things well, the primary one being forming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is actually what creates high trust societies and allows for cooperation on a large scale. Places with lots of non-state violence are run by organizations like the mob, and regardless of how fancy the logos are they are still ultimately gangsters. The state is better than them even if libertarians like Hoppe won't admit it.
Oliver Wright
Legitimate use of force. Yeah, right.
Brandon Martinez
Reminder that "Objectivism" deserves a mention in the OP as it encapsulates Nationalism, Capitalism, Meritocracy, Individualism, and Libertarianism all rolled into one. Libertarianism is only useful as a technical qualifier and is basically incomplete Objectivism. Objectivism without the epistemology. youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk
Objectivism deserves a mention in the OP. Posting a related video. Good old John Galt's 3 hour long speech, from an audiobook: youtube.com/watch?v=8F5nhYo5nx4
Colton Lewis
Im the guy in question.
I'd be more than happy if this was included in the pastebin
Ethan Garcia
The state decides what constitute legitimate.
Easton Rodriguez
What right do they have to do so?
I'll add it, so to speak.
Connor Taylor
So if the state decides you should give your house to refugees and hand out papers telling niggers how to rape your daughter you'd be okay with it, it would be legitimate. Fuck you.
Matthew Cox
>being this much of a statist put your commie flag on mate
Hunter Ortiz
...
Owen Hill
...
James Phillips
...
Henry Adams
...
Juan Evans
(((cato)))
These guys will get the helicopter first.
Levi Diaz
I fucking hate the Cato Institute. Such garbage I see from them. In fact, i think all "libertarian" think-tanks/groups are pozzed but for PFS and the Mises Institute and its branches. C4SS, Cato, LP, etc. - they all cater to socialists.
Also, Maltabro what do you think of my OC in the first post?
Grayson Murphy
i feel like we've had a lot of people who will get it 'first'
Ryder Fisher
>we libertarians, we gud goys goddammit
Joseph Morales
can't seem to get any peers w/ deluge
Tyler Cruz
Right-wing libertarian is euphemism for fake libertarian. National borders are enforced with government threats of violence, period. If you want to enforce national borders, you are ipso facto not a libertarian.
Josiah Stewart
...
Daniel Evans
>even if they commit no criminal offense
Hoppe is not a libertarian.
David Sanchez
I've had it open on deluge since I reposted the magnet, 0 seeds 0 peers most of the time
britainbro are you seeding? Any idea what's up with the torrent?
Anthony Walker
'Physical removal' in actuality never called for the use of force, but rather the collective denial of access to private property, which is in accordance with non-aggression.
Liam Johnson
Seems to contain all our main talking points, 10/10 portubro
Jaxson Turner
You don't understand libertarianism.
Dylan Brooks
it's getting bigger
Asher Morris
This is retarded. All of society isn't gonna exclude "ill-behaved" people.
Justin Davis
Hoppeanism isn't libertarianism.
Hudson Campbell
You're right. First comes a "stop." Followed by a "I told you to stop doing that" in case of non-compliance. Which is then followed by a "stop it, goddamn it!" - this gives the perp two options: conform to the covenant community lifestyle or be expelled.
Michael Turner
>Hoppeanism isn't libertarianism.
This. Hoppefaggots are just trying to wrap their bigotry up in libertarian garb. They even take Hoppe completely out of context in order to do so.
Asher Richardson
nice shilling AnCom. Come out, come out, show your true colors!
No one on Sup Forums would un-ironically use the word "bigotry". We all knows that's leftist new-speak.
Camden Bennett
It is. It's just not AnCap (the autist dreamland) but Minarchism (actually viable and seen in some form or another in human history)
Dylan Gonzalez
You people just want to live in a sterile, conformist bubble. Most people, thank god, aren't like you. People generally don't mind associating with other races or people with different religions, political beliefs and lifestyles.
Christian Martinez
Nah, you're just blinded by statism, failing to engage in abstract thinking, your arguments clearly reflect so.
>National borders are enforced with government threats of violence
You're trying to argue against a hypothetical private property society by telling us that national borders are coercion. There's no national borders in what we're seeking, but there's borders, that's for fucking sure.
And here you're simply thinking that cities and society will remain like if there was a state. That somehow people will not seek for rules, for communities that engage on private restrictions, that contracts are not going to be the main system for social interaction, and you're wrong.
Bentley Evans
>trying this hard you messed up mate, you almost had me with your first post, that hoppe statement was unnecessary and you ended up playing yourself
James Walker
>People generally don't mind associating with other races or people with different religions, political beliefs and lifestyles
That's what they say if you ask them, no doubt.
Tell them they have to purchase property in the ghetto or to live in Mexico though. See how they vote with their wallets...
Leo Smith
Bears enforce the borders of their caves with deadly force. Does that make them governments?
Joseph Hall
What Hoppe describes is not minarchy but anarcho capitalism. There's no state whatsoever.
Voluntary associations guided by contractually enforced rules are totally compatible with anarcho capitalism.
Brayden Moore
'All of society' is in fact all of a covenant who privately agree they want to live in a (likely smaller) town or district where they set certain social standards.
True, but those people are partaking in economically inefficient procedures anyway. Homogeneous societies are advantaged.
Jace Murphy
Apparently, you've never heard of "gentrification". And millions of Americans live in Mexico, dude.
Benjamin Parker
There would be no pluralistic cities in a stateless libertarian society? You're delusional.
Lincoln Powell
Doesn't he promote a monarchic state to enforce the rules?
Grayson Howard
Not. An. Argument.
Also not what I said. It's possible there would be pluralistic cities, that is true, but there is a large and viable possibility to move to a smaller community, especially considering how the state encourages movement of people to one central city, and libertarianism promotes the opposite.
Not at all.
Liam Moore
Gentrification is what happens when the rich neighbors pay for poor neighborhood infrastructures and services so they make them somewhat habitable with time and enough tax money thrown at them.
It's not a natural market phenomenon. If rich people's money stayed in rich people's communities, the only gentrification you'd see would be through mass eviction of undesirables.
>And millions of Americans live in Mexico
Mostly in gated communities or rich areas far away from the people they vote to import.
To put it simply, given a private property society, would it be possible to have mostly white private cities? Yes.
Would these cities be more prosperous than multicultural cities? Will they have more economic opportunities? Most likely.
Will they have to pay for other private cities to have security? Nope.
So where do you think the "dude multiculturalism is so lit" white guy will want to live if he gets a hold of some money? In a private city of multicultural poor or a private city of nuclear white rich?
Hoppe uses monarchy to argue against democracy, claiming that monarchy would be superior, but he's not a monarchist himself.
Gavin Green
> state encourages movement of people to one central city, and libertarianism promotes the opposite.
Not really. Government subsidizes sprawls and rural communities because it builds and maintains roads everywhere and provides postal services to the most expensive areas. In a libertarian society, we would probably live in tighter spaces.
Isaac Stewart
A priori false. You should read 'democracy the god that failed', we call it required reading for a while - it explains this.
Lincoln Lewis
...
Carson Rivera
>the fascist ball looks evil
mmmh
Matthew Williams
That's extremely narrow-minded and also wrong. There's much more to society than (((roads))) and postal services. Big cities didn't even exist historically until the centralization of power became necessary for the government to maintain and exert its power to a big amount of people. Particularly here in Greece, the socialist government had to practically bribe the people back in the '60s and '70s to make them move to the bigger cities, in order to then set its plans for a social state in motion. We had to wait for tens of years and a military junta a la Pinochet (although much shittier) to get electricity and roads to the rural areas of the country, and if it was up to the socialists it would have never happened at all.
Juan Diaz
wat
Bentley Parker
Why is David Friedman bad? I bought his book Machinery of Freedom. Seems pretty ancap to me.
Henry Lopez
In anarcho capitalism, the efficient thing to do as an individual, in lieu of a state, is to purchase property there where your rights are somewhat guaranteed so you can focus on your own area of expertise. Yes, the market might have solutions for everything the state offers, but let's get practical, nobody wants the responsibility of having to manage hundreds of insurances personally.
This would undoubtedly generate a massive demand for private cities, gated communities and covenants, all of them would have specific rules and laws which would be enforced via contract, you would acquire access to these properties, but you would still voluntarily subject yourself to rules, because you want to know your neighbor is also subjected to those same rules. Self interest.
These private cities would need to answer only to their inhabitants and nobody else. They would have no obligation to provide services outside of their borders, so rich people would pay for police to patrol their houses, not to patrol the slums in search for another victimless crime.
This means richer cities will be far more secure than they're today, and poor cities would be far less secure.
This by itself is a detriment for business to import immigrants. Immigration is highly subsidized by the fact that immigrants will be able to purchase cheap property yet receive services they could never afford unless paid optimally. Immigrants would be much better off in their countries of origin in average, enjoying the taxes from the few rich people their countries have, than in "outlawish" areas of an anarcho capitalist country.
1/2 ->
Gabriel Evans
Another aspect of private cities would be that it opens the possibility of efficient discrimination in order to maintain property value. Would not be out of the picture to have cities that only allowed 100+ IQ individuals to purchase property within, for example. This kind of segregation would lead to prosperous models being emulated throughout the country. If a city is doing good and the demand for their properties can't be covered by the supply quick enough, other city businesses will quickly catch up and provide similar conditions.
Libertarianism cannot be compatible with democracy and therefore libertarians would be wise to purchase property there where democracy is strictly forbidden.
People who think people of color incur in high externalities will be wise to purchase property in cities where whites are the only ones allowed, and the success or failure of this model would lead to replication in other places or lead as example of failure.
This text is all from a big pamphlet I'm working on about private cities. Need to polish the ideas and structure but these would be some of the main talking points.
Thomas Williams
agreed, David is much better than his father.
Nicholas Bennett
If you were to read just one Hoppe book, which should I get? Which is the most definitive encapsulation of his philosophy?
Kevin Nelson
Democracy, the god that failed.
Levi Hernandez
>a liberal gassing hitler lmao ancaps
Elijah Clark
nah, he looks more angry than evil have you met an openly fascist person that wasn't angry? especially with all that degeneracy going around? I don't blame em tbqh
I'd say , but wait for others to chime in too
Aaron Hernandez
Hoppeans or "paleo-libertarians" hate him because they're disagreeable pricks and they feel threatened by real libertarians.
Ryan Walker
thanks bros
Ian Allen
>real libertarians there you go faggot
Aiden Clark
Meh, he's consequentialist instead of deontological which isn't my favourite, but I still like the guy. I could change it to milton friedman.
David Parker
Even if you read another Hoppe book first, D:tGtF should definitely be on your list.
Dominic Mitchell
Cool red herring, bro.
There is nothing about agorism that prevents private borders either. Our argument against borders is strictly about government borders as such. No left-libertarian would say that there would be open borders in every case. It's just we're not so xenophobic.
Cameron Price
What makes you any different from university social justice warriors who want to shut down the free exchange of ideas on campuses?
Luis Cruz
>nice shilling AnCom. Come out, come out, show your true colors! >No one on Sup Forums would un-ironically use the word "bigotry". We all knows that's leftist new-speak.
Fuck you, I'm more Rothbardian than you could ever dream of being.
