Libertarianism (as understood everywhere except in America):
>Both capitalism and the state are intertwined systems of oppression founded on and perpetuated by the exploitation of the weak and they must be dismantled and substituted by horizontal, egalitarian institutions where people cooperate voluntarily in their pursuit of the common good.
American "libertarianism":
>Waaaah taxes! Waaaaah the EPA! Waaaah the state forcing me to buckle up! Waaaaah!
What a fucking joke.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Libertarianism actually exists in America, in states like Wyoming and Kentucky, and in the whole US in the 1800s. America is the center of the world and the site of the only successful libertarianism so who gives a shit about eurocucks
Here's equality for you, you faggot loving, nigger loving, communist scum.
>libertarian
>not capitalist
Go shoot yourself commie fuck
>implying the faults of society are capitalism's fault and not the state's fault
>implying I should be responsible for the weak
>implying the weak deserve to be put on the same level as a hard working intellectual by default
>implying communism isn't instantly guaranteed to fail due to the tragedy of the commons
>implying communism is possible without a state due to the resource allocation problem
>implying taxation isn't theft
>implying the EPA isn't an anti-capitalist structure and doesn't need to go
>implying the state should force morons to buckle up
>implying personal freedom is possible without economic freedom
imagine being this retarded
>disregarding the oppositions argument
>then using your own logic to defeat yourself
is your endgame the abolition of the state?
but while you're doing it, you're imagining that everybody will just decide to be commie afterward?
they'll keep telling you that while they're buying guns and building fences around their houses
>freedom/anarchism
>communism
pick one you fucking antifa cuck
ICE PICC
C
E
P
I
C
C
Both right and left libertarianism are meme ideologies. Left because people will not magically lose their selfishness and live happy ever after in communes and right because the richest will create monopolies effectively replacing state power with private tyranny.
Here, I knew I wrote this for a reason:
>when you ask an ancap who will enforce the NAP
monopolies are only sustainable with state power
market economics constrains any individual entity with the constant threat of undercutting. even in natural monopolies (where economies of scale make the ideal number of firms 1) there is no barrier to potential competition.
in this case, the less urgent threat of being toppled as the single firm in the industry is less of a downward force on prices. however the economies of scale are so great that it makes up for the lack of competitors in the industry.
The NAP is the same as self-defense. You or any one protecting you is enforcing the NAP for you. It's common sense.
individuals will. with their guns.
individual incentives give you every reason to fight back when others initiate force
but the fear of retaliation is a deterrent against you initiating force
the world will have violations of rights. but it will be on the individual level, where empirical evidence against aggression will continually accumulate in the form or dead muggers and rapists.
there is no state force that can violate rights with impunity. private security guards and body guards have no incentive to initiate force. they will only respond to threats against their employers.
no single authority enforces the NAP. it will simply arise spontaneously as a result of individual incentives.
>horizontal, egalitarian institutions where people cooperate voluntarily in their pursuit of the common good
And if people decide to voluntarily not cooperate?
And what if you lack the physical or economic means to actually defend yourself or your property from barbarians like literally millions of people in this country at this very second?
Your only choice is to rent from a property owner and hope their hired security is adequate, at which point you've just forfeited all your freedom anyway and decided to live in a pseudo-state.
>it will simply arise spontaneously as a result of individual incentives.
History suggests large groups of people would likely make a living just being roving bandits of raping and pillaging barbarians, not having to fear any kind of real standing army or organized force beyond maybe a few hundred disgruntled property owners.
It would just be feudalism all over again.
>systems of oppression
WRONG
No one outside your collegiate bubble use that kind of language.
with no middle east wars, there are no muslim refugees.
with no drug war, the sale of drugs is in legitimate businesses that compete in a market. there is no market share left for niggers on street corners, and no career path for the criminal
if the mexican cartels are no longer criminal, then there is no civil war between cartels and the Mexican government/DEA. the flow of "refugees" as a result of this "war" is halted
also there's less GIBSMEDATs luring foreigners in.
the streets are going to be much safer. and fewer brown people are coming in
and remember, there's going to be way more guns in white people's hands.
American Libertarianism actually exists. Your criminal "ideology" is astroturfed by oligarchs because you're useful idiots.
>b-but t-the weak
You are an authoritarian, period. Every single thing you describe is authoritarianism.
>horizontal, egalitarian
Oh okay, so I say "no, I'm going to do what I want," and they can't stop me, right? Right? There won't be a group of thugs who come and shoot me for trying to work my own property, right?
Or maybe instead just like in Revolutionary Catalonia, it'll be a lie come up with by criminals like you to justify murdering people.
Private police are more efficient then public police, and more cheaper than paying taxes, because they are influenced by the market.
Fucking Dumb ass. . .
Libertarianism is an ideology that states all should begin with an equal chance and not have their fate dominated by anyone else.
Anarcho-communism is the exact fucking opposite you basement dweller.
Private police would require payment, and either it is going to be restrictively expensive meaning some people are going to have to fend for themselves or it is going to be a trivial expense essentially making it no different from a public police force, because everybody is going to basically be obligated to pay for it anyway if they don't want to get gutted by neo-Mongolians.
It really just seems like a roundabout way of establishing an opt-out state.
The main difference is that private police forces are accountable for what they do, and if services aren't to satisfaction, they can pay another firm. Public police, or any other public service for that matter, can be as shitty as possible, and still be paid.
>perpetuated by the exploitation of the weak
AKA niggers. The left floods the West with 3rd-world primates, which makes having a proper conservative white society impossible. They revel in crime and vote for Marxism like clockwork.
FPBP.
Interesting video, now what if one of those neighbours were to opt-out of the private security altogether and have their house filled with undesirables all the time? Do you think they ought to have the freedom to say run a crack den or harbor fugitives on their property, to the obvious detriment of the neighbourhood around them? Do you think your neighbour should be allowed to run a boxing ring in their backyard? Cockfights? A brothel?
I mean there is always going to be the odd one out in these communities, and allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want with their property is going to lead to the entire community suffering sometimes, due to noise, or simply being uncomfortable having a totally anarchic plot of property right beside them.
In the 1800s you'd expect to lose your life in a toxic mine for pennies an hour for 16 hours a day on a daily basis, or you'd be a slave, or maybe a malnourished child factory worker.
As romantic as pre-business-regulation USA seems in fiction, in reality you had countless masses living in abject poverty and misery, as was the common case during the industrial revolution. A change from simple agrarian living to industrial society necessitated also a change in the structure of the society itself, regulation was inevitable, you had literal assassinations and dynamite bombings and strikes occurring all due to the bad conditions in early industrial America, people were not happy.
>systems of oppression
Kill yourself faggot
>Freedom
>Collectivism
pick one
>Do you think they ought to have the freedom to say run a crack den or harbor fugitives on their property, to the obvious detriment of the neighbourhood around them? Do you think your neighbour should be allowed to run a boxing ring in their backyard? Cockfights? A brothel?
No, as that would be damaging to the community and the community has every right to ask them to stop or expel them.
But it's their own property, they can't be expelled from it, or asked to regulate their behaviour on it.
>>freedom/anarchism
>>communism
>pick one you fucking antifa cuck
b...bu...but what about thah transgender LGBTQJFAHSK+ Muslim refugees?
>antifa get the first helicopter rides
If the activities harm the community, the community has every right to expel you.
But that "harm" is totally arguable, is noise harmful? Is something unsightly harmful? Is smell harmful? It is totally arbitrary.
soooo many 'anarchists' on /po/
kys impotently minded fagit
the fake gains claimed by progressives were only possible after market economics built the wealth to improve human life.
I'm grateful for the foundation that market economics built, and I want to continue the system that built it.
a hundred years from now, they'll recoil in horror at our lack of some now-unimaginable technology that started off prohibitively expensive, but became affordable to every human.
>(as understood everywhere except in America)
Why would anyone be interested in that?
t. maxarchist
in different nations with different histories, social theories being practiced, and different languages, who would have ever thought a word might not have a single universally accepted definition?
op is a faggot.
Of course it depends. Noise and smell are relatively unimportant things, so it is safe to say most people would care less about it, maybe ask them to stop. The issue would only be an issue as long the perpetrator would keep it up. Drugs being handed out or child prostitution is a more serious matter, as the community wouldn't be so lax about it.
In short, there wouldn't be any tomahawk missiles shot like in le strawmans, rather issues being handled with rational thinking. Most people are already somewhat rational, and you don't need the state to be rational.
>I'm grateful for the foundation that market economics built, and I want to continue the system that built it.
That's great, I'm honestly thankful for the days of laissez-faire pre-industrial society as well, but industry changed things, workers need some kind of assurance that they aren't going to get their legs chopped off on the job, they need some assurance that they're going to get paid enough to eat as they don't just grow their own food anymore, they need some guarantee that they aren't going to have to sleep on the factory floor in order to keep their jobs because they actually live a significant distance away from their workplace now. We need some regulation, otherwise you're going to return to the days of railroad strikes, political assassinations, Pinkerton massacres and mine explosions again, the people will not accept being mistreated, they will cause total disruption and chaos if they aren't given what they need, this is what history has proven, this is why regulations exist.
I just think without an ultimate authority on the matter it is going to devolve into arbitrary chaos, there needs to be some entity to bring down the hammer decisively, when all else fails.
Emma Goldman used the words 'anarchist' and 'libertarian' interchangeably.
And she was not writing about the oxymoronic 'anarcho-capitalism'.
>"i need to be hand held": the post.
If people are unable to conduct themselves correctly, why would we select a hand full of the same people to control everything? To this day a single statist hasn't came up with an intelligent answer.
Reminder that it is essentially incomplete Objectivism. Objectivism without the epistemology.
youtube.com
It is the only possible /final/ redpill.
No, libertarianism means the second here too.
Little state and regulations. There's some state and regulations for the important things, like standing armies (if agreed upon) and such.
Yes, it's fully equal. Everyone is equal to live how they see fit and with their own capabilities.
Because again, there needs to be an authority on the matter, your "solution" to the problem I suggested isn't a solution at all, "we'll work it out in some way" just isn't going to work sometimes, I mean I myself have had to deal with shitty neighbours before and I well enough understand just how fucking stubborn and unreasonable many people are in this world, you tell them to turn the music down and they turn it up instead. If your solution to that problem is ultimately just "trying to reason with them" you are not going to have a nice neighbourhood, some people can not be reasoned with, some people need to be lynched, and it is a whole lot more convenient when someone actually has the legitimate legal authority to lynch than forming a spontaneous illegal lynch gang and giving it a shot yourself.
>I just think without an ultimate authority on the matter it is going to devolve into arbitrary chaos
There's nothing saying it can't now. The allusion of the state being the ultimate authority is actually when it descends into chaos when the public let the rioters run amok and don't take matters into their own hands to stop it, as the state sits down.
When everyone knows that they have the power, then people start to behave more orderly.
Case in point:
Germany the other day.
If the rioters knew that people would shoot them in the streets, they wouldn't riot.
> there needs to be an authority on the matter
Again, literally taking a batch of people that are equally likely to be stubborn and unreasonable and giving them the power to control the fate of a nation. Decentralization is preferable, because everyone is accountable to what they do. The state, however, can make it's own rules and not follow them. Can't murder? The police can, if they play their cards right.
>If your solution to that problem is ultimately just "trying to reason with them" you are not going to have a nice neighbourhood,
Reading comprehension: 0. I said that issues are dealt with the amount of force depended on the issue. I never said that reasoning is the only way of dealing with things, it is just preferable.
>it is a whole lot more convenient when someone actually has the legitimate legal authority to lynch
>yeah lets let only a few people be able to do what they want, just because it's more convenient.
Everyday I'm assured statists are sheep.
Point of order, one of the few universal words are "huh"
"Huh" isn't a word, it's an auditory expression. That's like saying "ow" is a word.
...
>cooperating voluntarily in the pursuit of the common good
No society will ever accept this, and neither will I. I will work for my own family's good and nobody elses. Capitalism is the only system that acknowledges that this is an unavoidable aspect of human nature, which is why it creates the most prosperity and class mobility.
>I said that issues are dealt with the amount of force depended on the issue
Yeah that's not an answer, you are just saying "sometimes certain things are necessary given certain circumstances" but you really have zero authority to do anything besides attempt to reason with them, anything else would be in violation of their freedom to do what they want on their own property.
>anything else would be in violation of their freedom to do what they want on their own property.
On their property and purely on their property. If they are doing activities that is harming anyone else against their will, the community can exclude them. What can't you get through your dense fucking skull? Property rights isn't some impenetrable barrier. If you are doing some shit that the community finds harmful, they can remove you. Read Hoppe.
>If they are doing activities that is harming anyone else against their will
And I re-iterate, that would mean you could sell drugs and pornography to kids, run a brothel in your basement, or some other deplorable thing that doesn't do any harm against anyone's will and you wouldn't be able to stop it, despite the fact that it would seriously disturb or upset many people in the neighbourhood.
Are you implying rather that someone making you feel uncomfortable is enough justification to use force against them? Disagreeing with their business ethics? Their morality? Where do you draw the line? When does the gay bathhouse next door become something that can be removed by force?