Libertarians enable degenerates

I've seen entirely too many Libertarians and ancaps on the board lately. Let's talk about your ideology.
Libertarians are one of two things:
>enablers of degeneracy
>not libertarians
Prove me wrong: pro-tip you can’t :^)

If a Libertarian recognizes that there is degeneracy in the world, and that the right thing to do is to prevent that degeneracy from occurring, then they are not Libertarians. Acting against degenerate people for the singular purpose of preventing their degenerate behavior is an aggressive act against the degenerate person, denying them their liberty to do as they please. Thus, if you do not allow degeneracy that does not threaten you, then you are not a Libertarian, but instead an Authoritarian, because you believe that your understanding of moral right and wrong gives you the authority to take action against degeneracy.

You don't understand Hoppe.

The problem with government is it neuters the natural human tendency to be in-group oriented. Under Hoppeanism, the tribal elders or church elders have far more social sway and ability to ostracize because the government isn't there as a safety net.
Tribes that are degenerate will die out due to natural selection, just like we're seeing today.

Not to mention that insurance companies will charge more if you allow faggots to move in next door, for obvious reasons. Groups of people will get together to sign contracts that fine you for selling to felons, blacks, jews, or faggots, and this will be common because people will want to preserve their property values.

Libertarians create Weimar Republics. Every time.

You watch traditionalism assemble a puzzle. He does it perfectly.
You decide you'll assemble the puzzle by orienting all the pieces relative to one another the exact same way that traditionalism does it.
You stop just short of actually connecting the pieces together.

The question is WHY you neglect the final step.

Passive aggressive abstractions of weak men who wouldn't shoot the man fucking his wife. Literal cucks.

>prevent that degeneracy from occurring
It's called letting people suffer the consequences of their own actions without any help from me. The reason degeneracy has gotten so bad is the laws and safety nets remove consequences. In the past, these people would have just starved to death.

Libertarians are bascally communists, except instead of worshipping the state, they worship the magical free-market.

At least theocrats stand for something and are guided by their cmpassion.

>church and tribal leaders
>social sway and ostracizing people
This is the most interesting thing about Libertarians to me. I won't claim to understand your ideology more than you do, but how do you allow for the authority of tribal/church leaders to exist while also saying that nobody should be beholden to aggressive moral authority?

If those leaders continue to lead, won't they create a nation that consumes the original setup of total freedom? They will ostracize until they simply set up borders and a culture. It seems to me that Libertarians don't want full liberty from the authority of others, but just liberty from the current government so they can choose the next system of authority from scratch. Rather than participate in the current system of authority and fix it, they prefer to try to deny the system's authority entirely, which is not pragmatic.

Required reading: Reactionary Liberty

And where do you think laws and safety nets come from?
No push to raise strong, responsible people didn't just create some vague underbelly of dependents, it literally glutted the shit out of it, not to mention filled it further with women and negroes besides.
Those people became a majority very quickly, especially once the Feminists convinced women that they could conceivably exist without men.
All of them discovered they were useless and that things were getting bad for them very quickly. They forced the system to change, just like they'll force any system to change either democratically or violently through overwhelming odds, in order to keep them fed and uphold the illusion that they were strong and independent.

That's the problem. If you free people from guidance you WILL enslave them to dependence, you CANNOT have freedom from both and as far as I'm concerned, freedom from dependence is a truer freedom.

>magical free-market
Markets are not some imaginary unicorn. They always seem to appear even in communist states. However, what we have today are not "free markets" they are managed markets. Free markets really only exist as theory in textbooks.

While that seems like a solid theory, you forget that there are organizing forces that will come for your wealth. Those degenerates will not starve, because smart ambitious leaders will come along. They will promise those degenerates your stuff in return for power, and then what will you do?

The current system of government seems to be doing precisely that (democratic appeal to degenerates), but the only way to stop it is to fight to control that system, not to flee from it. Clinton winning the popular vote is a great example of this.

How is aggression involved in family or church affairs?
Not remotely.
Excommunication is the only measure necessary, and this is most effective in the absence of government.
Think about it. You can't have your citizenship revoked. You can't be banished anymore. You have this magical entity that defends your interests regardless of whether you deserve it.
Excommunication, banishment, and ostracism. Communities have stipulations about this written into the all their property titles.

Just because I think you have a legal right to do something doesn't mean I love and cherish your existence. I hate degenerates as much as the next guy. Just hecause I object to something being done by a state doesn't mean I object to it being done at all.

You guys seem to be getting off topic. Libertarians don't have to enable degeneracy. Anyone can just not support it, or reduce support for it by avoiding taxes as much as possible. They can also flee to unregulated countries. People seem to always forget money holds no loyalty.

What I am seeing today is the result of people wanting to feel virtuous using other peoples lives and money. That is not true virtue.

Private negro removal

To clarify, maybe a nation with a leader can exist without coercion. Not saying it's impossible, only that there's no slippery slope because there was no abridgement of property rights in the first place.

Well let's consider the impacts of a modern form of excommunication. When people with extreme viewpoints get doxxed, and society refuses to give them jobs, speaking opportunities, or to work with them in the free market, is that not a form of aggression? I recognize the following example is not a personal affair, but can't we extrapolate excommunication to the international level and call sanctions a form of excommunication? Haven't we excommunicated North Korea from the free market as a sort of aggressive and non-violent response to their behavior?

Excommunication seems like a recognition of a moral authority to me, and a recognition of that authority inevitably leads to the creation of a state to support that authority. Prison is just a form of excommunication from society. Your citizenship isn't revoked, and you aren't banished to a different country, you're just excommunicated to a prison cell for awhile because the rest of society doesn't accept you under the moral authority of a system of law.

I think you're right. Perhaps enabling is too strong a word. The question I'm after might need different wording, its more a question of how a Libertarian can recognize moral authority in their own personal life and not inevitably apply it to other people. Hell, even defending your personal property would be putting your own moral authority into practice, what if the offender doesn't believe in personal property? You would have to recognize your morals are authoritatively better than his to enforce your private property rights.

Excommunication is not a recognition of authority. It is simply the exercise of property rights.
>Do not step on my or my family's property again, otherwise I will remove you.
Denying opportunities is absolutely not aggression. This is one of the most important principles of natural law. You should read The Ethics of Liberty if you're interested in theory like this.

Likewise, excommunication is not an affirmation of moral authority, but of personal sovereignty over your own actions and property. Libertarians hate the modern conception of prison and only recognize remunerative punishment in most cases, such as forced labor. This is simply self-defense in a sense which is allowed by natural law.

I'm willing to agree with you that excommunication is an exercising of property rights. The question is then what authority do those property rights extend from? If they come from natural law, where does that authority extend from, and who/how does one enforce natural law? Authority from God and application from his followers perhaps?

Thread might die. Interesting discussion, I might ponder the questions that came up and put together a more concise thread sometime. I suppose the more refined question is at what point is the enforcement of natural law supposed to end? Does natural law not apply to private degeneracy?

There are several different schools of thought on this question. There are pragmatic arguments, the Objectivist argument, the natural law argument, and Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Hoppe's argument is in style right now and there's a lot of back and forth on whether it's logically sound, but I like it. All of these are invariant across different persons, which makes them universal arguments. I'm going to bed but, if you want to get into the weeds, read Hoppe's Economics And Ethics of Private Property and Ethics of Liberty. Both are free on mises. org

k keep me posted

Degeneracy doesn't happen naturally, it comes from the perverse incentives by central governments.

If good ideas, namely non-degeneracy, are good ideas, they win out in the long run if people are free to choose and bear the costs for their decisions.

You hate degeneracy, so do I. But you are only complaining about the symptom, not the problem.

I think basic libertarianism, like how our founding fathers intended America to operate is a good idea.

Today's libertarians are nothing but LARPers who basically just virtue signal about the NAP and other gay shit.

I can't hate them because I think they legitimately have good intentions, but so many are so autistic and so self-righteous

I wish we actually operated on Natural Law, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. Nowadays, mainstream politics is pretty much a game of "pick a right to lose!".