Should an individual be forced to sacrifice and immolate themselves for the "greater good" -- the benefit of the...

Should an individual be forced to sacrifice and immolate themselves for the "greater good" -- the benefit of the collective?

If your answer is "no", why do you still support taxation?

Libertarian thread.

Taxation isn't a complete sacrifice, a complete sacrifice would be losing your job to be replaced by someone more "diverse."

>If your answer is "no", why do you still support taxation?
If you want to live without a government and paying taxes, go live in Africa.

Even Libertarians(who aren't memelords) are pragmatic enough to realize some form of government is necessary.

Never said it had to be a complete sacrifice. Do you think individuals should be forced to "partially sacrifice" themselves for other people's sake? Who determines what is a full sacrifice and what isn't anyway? You just described one form of sacrifice.

Fool, Africa is full of authoritarian governments, that's the reason most of its countries are shit.

Are you saying that Frédéric Bastiat, Murray Newton Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block and others are "memelords"? Did you even read a single ancap author?

Better yet, go ahead and use your own unfunded knowledge to explain why we need a State.

Challenge: Don't confuse government with State like you just did. Governments can exist if everyone living under them are doing it voluntarily.

Yes I am calling them unpragmatic memelords.

Your ideal will never be realized. Your theories will remain just that and no one will care.

>i only think in extremes
moron. It does not follow that every principle is taken to the extreme is logical.

I am a libertarian, more of a minarchist, and so I see taxation as a necessary evil but no less evil. It takes a Marxist to think taxation is good unto itself, because it takes a Marxist to believe hurting people for being ahead actually helps anything rather than being zero or negative sum.

My point is simple, high taxes (which we have) is shitty but it's far from the most illibertarian thing in our society. Employment quotas probably are, with employment quotas in existence talking about taxes is almost illibertarian!

>Should an individual be forced to sacrifice for the greater good
absolutely for his or her race, never for an empty abstract like Humanity or Justice though

A fool you are.

My ideal is already reality in fragments. See cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ethereum.

Furthermore, Hans-Hermann Hoppe said that the problem will eventually fix itself. You just can't have everyone live at the expense of everyone else. It's economically not viable. See what happened with Greece? It will happen with all States at some point, including the US. Keep destroying the wealthy and giving away free stuff to others. Keep punishing people for being efficient. Increase taxes to 150% of people's wealth if you want, you are only bringing your end faster.

>My ideal is already reality in fragments. See cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ethereum.
You're talking absolute shit. Cryptocurrencies have become nothing but a pseudo-stock market, completely unrealistic to use as a currency due to their instability.

Feel free to make a salient point any time.

It's a fallacy to say that something is wrong only because it is an extreme. And yes, I think in extremes, and so does you. Because there is no such thing as being "half-free". You are either free or a slave.

That's alright. Minarchists are one of the few non-anarchists I can tolerate because they are wake as fuck, they are not afraid of saying that taxation is inherently immoral.

It's not 2008, you can use your bitcoins to make purchases with a huge amount of services, including popular ones like Amazon. And if something doesn't support bitcoins you can easily swap it for dollars or whatever currency you want.

Altcoins can all be converted to bitcoins. Then you proceed to the logic above.

They are perfectly usable and have been used since a long time. Some fools like you thought they had no value. One fool in particular from Sup Forums itself bought a pizza for 40.000 bitcoins some years ago. Had he not done this, he'd be a millionaire today, since a bitcoin is currently worth more than two thousand dollars and it's only projected to grow.

I've seen it argued that a libertarian society requires abstract thinking - a fascist regime could create such necessary social prerequisites and then draw back government power and taxation once such goals were achieved to create such a society (i.e sterilize people with an IQ of >90, education reform). However there are various flaws to the highly idealistic political model...

Suppose you are right, which you are not.

Cryptocurrencies have nothing to do with libertarianism. The medium of payment is not a massive focal issue for libertarianism.

Taxes should benefit the group, not an individual. Hence SS, Medicare, food stamps and other income subsidies for individuals are invalid public expenditures.

>a fool you are

You talk like a meme you fedora tipping faggot.

Bitcoin and ethereum are retarded, they just crashed to shit over the last two days retard, the entire crypto bubble is dropping. Bitcoin is worthless because anyone can go out and create a blockchain currency that does the same thing, ethereum is a little less retarded because it has functionality but it will lose all its value when a better crypto with more functionality arises like synereo, but as with all block chain computing systems, they require people to buy into them to give them intrinsic value. Block chains are the shit but crypto currencies using block chain technology are a complete meme, they're way to volatile to be a store of good store of value and thus they're shitty currencies.

That sounds like communism, which needs an omnipotent State to become reality, and works by reforming individuals until their ethical values are communist. That's awful.

Most anarcho-capitalistic authors claim that it can become reality through secession. A series of secessions, until the territory is small enough (think of a city or even a neighborhood) to renounce any form of State.

Hoppe goes an extra length to say that we should physically remove some people -- such as blacks -- from our society once that happens because they are detrimental for libertarianism.

bruh. You know what happened to city-states of old? They got fucking BTFO by a huge proto-fash nation called Rome. Your ideology is extremely weak.

>Projected to grow

It literally all just crashed over last few days you mong. Its a dead cat bounce. It'll probably retain some value but a lot of people are pulling out which causes a lot of people to pull out ect. its a loop.

Crypto has nothing to do with libertarianism anyway so I fail to see what your point is beyond being a pseudo-intellectual faggot.

Cryptocurrencies are a pure expression of capitalism. And capitalism is an expression of anarchy. It is, without a doubt, proof of anarcho-capitalism being applied.

They will bounce. They always do. 3 times a year we have doomfaggots like you saying that it's the end, but it's never the end. And what you said about blockchains shows you really don't understand why bitcoin is so valued. The existence of altcoins only increased bitcoin's value.

Check the bitcoin worth again in some months, it will probably be three thousand dollars. Even better, be smart and buy some bitcoins to make some profit.

>secessions occur
>imperialist neighbors btfo the weak state in its infancy and absorb it into a larger nation

what is your solution for this?

>Cryptocurrencies are a pure expression of capitalism. And capitalism is an expression of anarchy. It is, without a doubt, proof of anarcho-capitalism being applied.
You can drop the crypto and this would still be the same statement.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

You can apply this logic to literally any State in the world that is not the US, Russia or China. Their inferior military power makes them vulnerable to take-over by other bigger States, which would imply their system is fragile.

Furthermore, if you choose the calmness of slavery over the tribulations of freedom you deserve all the misery and death that is inherently coming for you because of that choice.

Pol is a collective hivemind of failed individuals who come together over something basic as skin color. They are losers, and from this resentment escalates racism and other garbage ideologies. I look forward to war, as an upper class citizen, to purge America of whiney losers, both black and white, whom of which have no respect for the work and cultivation that defines the individual.

Hello Hoppe

See Ancap communities would definitely arm themselves and do their best to defend themselves because it is within everyone's best interests that they mustn't allow a group of criminals to dominate them. If they don't have the firepower to do that is an entire new subject, but if that was valid criticism you would use it against 95% of the States that currently exist.

Are you illiterate?

Bitcoins infrastructure has very little value. It's too basic, its only function is to hold value but it can't even do that properly, its as bad at value retention as fiat currency, it would need to reach is market cap, and be circulating consistently to retain its value.

Bitcoin will lose its value to competing alt-coins that offer infrastructure that is better at creating and retaining value than bitcoin by incorporating other functionalities.

Heres what will happen

Improved currencies arrise, people move from bitcoin to alt-coin with functionality, bag holders of bitcoin lose money as people stop circulating the currency and start trading or mining the new alt coin, diminishing the power bitcoin has and the value it has, the alt-coin becomes the new standard, fluctuating wildly, then something comes along and fucks over the alt-coin, rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

That's a fair point. If what you described is true we would have ever-improving currencies (since each new currency brings better infrastructure). I don't see that as something bad, it's the most pure expression of market forces.

Bitcoin will eventually become outdated. It was supposed to have died recently but they managed to save it with some technology that speeds up trades by a lot, but it's only a temporary measure, we will eventually reach the same stage where it was in extreme danger and we will need to either find another solution or swap to a better cryptocurrency.

It was never supposed to be centralized around just one coin.

What matters is that it is still not the moment for bitcoin to die because of bad infrastructure. We just swapped to the new technology and we're holding fine, these bounces are normal and have been happening since 2008. The logic behind bitcoin is so that the more miners you have, the harder it becomes to mine, which makes its value increase. Similarly, if the number of miners begins decreasing, mining becomes easier, so more miners will join the scene. These bounces are the expression of that phenomena. It won't die.

here are the issues with that.

A better armed, bigger nation with more man power will dominate your non hierarchal militias against well organized hierarchal army.

A small nation will get crushed under a fascist foot. You'll end up being crushed like the city states the romans crushed, its not practical.

The only reason states aren't btfo-ing each other now is the delicate balance of alliances and nuclear deterrents that stop people from watning to kill eachother

Your state would likely not have the fire power or man power as a new state, your state would not have the organization to fight a larger state, your state would not have the deterrents and alliances that states today have.

Your state would likely not even be recognized as a state in its infancy, and would face significant hardships in a global market. It's not pragmatic, you're too idealistic.

If you are an example of the logical consistency of people coming out of publicly funded schooling in America then it's obvious that this is taxation without representation.

That's nice in theory but in practice it doesn't seem to be so. Somalia was never anarcho-capitalist, but they did take down their own government and remained in an anarchy for years. No neighborhood States ever tried to overtake it and keep in mind we are talking about Africa here. In the end after several years of anarchy some civil wars sparkled and a government of sorts appeared. The civil factor would of course be a non-problem in anarcho-capitalism, the point is to show that other States are not as trigger-happy as theory makes it seem.

I still understand that if a big State tried, it would easily subjugate and annhilate an anarcho-capitalistic community. But it's well worth the risk imo, and the only people involved will be people who voluntarily subject themselves to this risk.

As I said before, I'd pick the tribulations of freedom over the calmness of slavery.

Were you implying that State-printed money and State-regulated economy is somehow capitalism? I didn't think you were this retarded user and what you said unironically applies to you since that sounds like something your public schools would teach

>Were you implying that State-printed money and State-regulated economy is somehow capitalism?
I am flat out stating it. I can hear your autistic screeching from here mate.

Okay but no one has time to constantly watch the market to ensure they dont lose their value that they've put into whatever coin they want to retain value for them.

The point I am making is that these currencies dont do what currencies should do which is retain value, these coins offer very little to average consumers which will stifle adoption, especially once these new coins diminish the value of the old coins.

I honestly could go on listing the reasons why crypto is not all its hyped up to be, but I just had this discussion with a bunch of people on /biz/.

I think it's healthy to be interested in crypto, but its worth considering why it may never be properly adopted and the issues it faces. It's become more like stock trading than a currency which is why it will lose people.

Capitalism consists of plain property rights. It's being free to do what you want with your property. It is, therefore, the expression of anarchy in a nutshell.

If a State intervenes in the economy you by default do not have capitalism.

>Okay but no one has time to constantly watch the market to ensure they dont lose their value that they've put into whatever coin they want to retain value for them.
They do actually, it's called short-term traders. They keep autistically buying and selling several times each day. That's just gambling though, most end up with a net loss, some end up with huge wins.

Long-term trading means you trust the market. You watch all drops and bounces and you never drop out because you see the market has potential for much more. So you don't need to trade several times a day, you know that in the long run you will only win.

Either way, these are all good points, we'll see what happens with crypto in some years. I think it will only crash if States start aggressively prohibiting their usage, and that will probably happen soon (it is already happening in some places)

The issue is that either outside or internal forces will eventually lead to a monopoly of force and a government will arise inside a an-cap society.

It's impossible to keep an-cap societies souly an-cap without some influence coming along and fucking it up.

An-cap will only ever lead to a continuous power struggle, such as in somalia. I think ruling out the idea of waring factions inside an ancap society is retarded.

There are short term traders, yes. Most people are not short term traders. As a result, for crypto to work as a currency it has to retain long term value, but long term value wont work either, because of the volatility and competition between currencies. Crypto does not work as a currency, it wont see adoption from the main stream as they dont have time to monitor and ensure whatever currency they have backed to use isnt about to be btfo by some new immerging currency.

Thats why I said its more like the stock market than like currency now.

Somalia was weak, they were a bunch of savages with no principles, no respect for property rights, no ethics, nothing. And they still lasted decades and had amazing economic growth during that time.

An ancap society would be very small, think of a city or a neighborhood as I said before. And its members -- maybe not all but most -- would follow libertarian ethics, meaning they would follow the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). That means any individual or group of individuals that attempts to force others to do something will be shut down immediately.

It's worth mentioning that their natural leaders would be important in upkeeping stability.

I really see no reason for civil instability with all the above considered. I'm much more afraid of what other States -- which are war machines by nature -- will do, and even that is not that much of a concern depending on which region of the world you are located.