/lrg/ is partnered with /mg/ check them out - This is a thread for the discussion of all ideologies that promote self-ownership, individual liberty and the natural order. These include (but are not limited to) anarcho-capitalism, paleolibertarianism, minarchy, objectivism and anti-leftism (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, many are repeated often, so it is recommended you research the basics first. Nobody here is obligated to debate with you, so try to avoid using fallacies in your arguments or creating unrealistic scenarios.
THREAD RESOURCES:
>Pastebin: pastebin.com
>Discord & Book Club: Kd2WD2X
RECOMMENDED MATERIAL:
>The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated Summary (David Friedman) - youtube.com
>Anatomy of the State (Murray Rothbard) - mises.org
>For a New Liberty (Murray Rothbard) - mises.org
>Democracy: The God that Failed (Hans Hermann-Hoppe) - riosmauricio.com
FURTHER READING:
>Reference - See i.imgur.com
>Torrent - magnet:?xt=urn:btih:8d8ec6ef882dee291f119eb69994797574e5d616&dn=Anarcho-Capitalism%20Books
THREAD THEME:
>hoppewave | Hans-Hermann Hoppe | physical removal - youtube.com/watch?v=LP41IK91_qA
>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
/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
bilbo.economicoutlook.net
bilbo.economicoutlook.net
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
measuringworth.com
multpl.com
twitter.com
...
u gotta be rly desperate to try to talk about that "ancap" shit here
Let's talk about what a 3rd world shithole nigger dump Brazil is instead.
...
Who here /minarchist/
>Brazil
>No argument
youtube.com
> free bread with commies
:doubt:
Bamperino
>tfw Pablo Escobar did more for his people than the government
*pat*
...
Bump, reminder that Cantwell did nothing wrong!
Poor Cantwell.
Statists being statists yet again!
Dude I can't believe hes gonna be in there for sixty years... would it be possible for him to purchase sound recording equipment from the commissary and do a podcast from jail?
He's not gonna get sixty, they're gonna get it way down in the trial. Also he's gonna do phonecalls from the shoe and get them up on his site.
There is no welfare in natsoc go fuck yourself.
...
never forget you're nazis too now.
...
reminder that libertarian right wingers are transhumanist scum that wouldn't care if we were all replaced by machines or designer babies as long as it helps the economy
You're retarded, I don't give a shit about muh economy. I'd rather be a human than be a rich robot.
Hail victory, we will not have our liberty until our cosmopolitan enemies are destroyed.
(((anarcho)))-Capitalism
Literally antifa
Where'd you get that idea from? A good portion of us are Christian (in fact it's impossible to have a stateless society without some form of religion to keep out degeneracy), and thus strictly against transhumanism.
Whats wrong with that? I already spend majority of my conscious life in front of a computer, might as well become a cyborg and enhance myself with augments in 20 years.
because I have been in these threads before. People have literally asked me why I thought humans were so special, and why I was afraid of the evolutionary process
when I point out how machines are already replacing unskilled laborers, that transhumanism is already replacing us slowly.
Timmy, your caretaker told you not to go on the internet it makes your brain hurt.
>national socialism has no socialism
Sure, sure. If you genuinely don't believe in welfare then you are a national capitalist or a fascist capitalist, not natsoc.
Those people are freaks, they shit up our threads. Tell them to fuck off.
so you agree that we need some kind of socialism, because otherwise large swathes of our gene pool will die on the vine?
low IQ unskilled laborers will soon be practically useless to the economy. Largest field of employment in america is currently driving, within 10 years self driving cars will replace all those jobs
Do I have some kind of rose colored glasses? I felt like a few years ago when I started getting interested in politics,libertairian discussions were interesting but a little no-fun-allowed. Now, the only places I can talk about these ideas are with a few friends in real life. What happened to our communities?
First, transhumanism refers to augmenting the human body itself, so replacing workers with robots is not actually transhumanism. Second, transhumanism isn't inherent in any libertarian ideology (except anarcho- transhuman- capitalism which the fact it needs its own convoluted title shows that it's not an inherent part of the ideology). I'm sure there are some libertarians who support transhumanism but they certainly don't represent the whole. Personally, I think we should keep our hands off the human body and improve our tools instead (power suits, omnitools, ect.). The body is a temple, and we shouldn't destroy our temple unless we have a wall amputated, so to speak.
I think it would be constructive to discuss what we believe the economy actually is.
Personally, I define economics as the science of assigning human time to tasks so as to maximize value. Although defining "value" is contentious as it is a question for morality, I feel this is not a controversial definition... and one of the advantages of free markets is that definitions of value need not be hammered down, each man voting with his money to define what is valuable to him.
Libertarian bros, I have a few questions. I used to be a libertarian, now I'm mostly just a racist, but I'm thinking a few things through still.
Regarding central planning, is there a threshold you guys would say you can use to tell whether or not central planning would work in a certain situation?
For example, a football (American) team is centrally planned by the coach for the most part and things tend to run smoothly. Corporations also tend to be centrally planned, or am I wrong about that? Also, modern Scandinavian states have large degrees of central planning over certain industries, and the people there seem to enjoy the way things work if we just take their word for it ( Albert life would be better without it, I can't say either way for certain).
Do you think some ethnic groups have a better ability to centrally plan at larger scales than others? I think it's almost certain that's true. What are the implications for this? Is central planning in general the enemy, or is it know-it-all technocrat types that are in over their head trying to centrally plan things that are simply too complex for top down control?
If as centrally planning is necessary for a functioning society (maybe it isn't, idk) in some capacity, do you think larger modern states need to be broken up and made scaled down to population sizes where central planning is still possible? Or are large, decentralized states preferable?
No, I don't agree we need socialism. Robots will not end scarcity.
Oh okay, does he have any chance of being released as innocent? Also whats the rules for phone calls, is it only one a day? I don't think I'll be able to survive with only 15 minutes of cantwell
This.
He handed himself in, so I doubt they'll find him innocent.
Yeah but that was because they said there was a warrant out for his arrest
10 years is more than enough time for the market to adjust. As the market slowly pushes people out of that market's workforce they will move into other sectors of the economy. Economic crashes are always used to scare people into voting for socialist policies, but they never work in the long run. Just ride it out and don't overreact, the market always adjusts, especially over the period of a decade.
>now I'm mostly just a racist
You can be a libertarian and a racist, senpai
>a threshold for central planning
I'm a libertarian-monarchist. I think that the functions of the state should be shrunk as much as possible and then privatized by the monarch. So police, military, courts, ect. would be privately owned and the tax to pay for these is only mandatory so long as you choose to live there. Everything else is owned by private individuals running private businesses with the monarch taking a small cut since they are established in his realm.
>Do some ethnic group centrally plan better than others
Yes. Compare some African tribe to a place like China. One is clearly better at planning a society than the other.
>Is central planning necessary for a functioning society
If we could somehow forever eliminate psychopaths, sociopaths, everyone with a IQ below 90, everyone outside of a single ethnic group with that ethnic group having a high trust culture with a low time preference rate then maybe. Even then I'm not sure. Humans naturally want to fight and dominate each other. You need some sort of institution to keep them from killing each other. The best solution, I think, is to foster a gun culture and keep everyone armed. That's the best way to deter crime as even the most imbecilic moron can understand why they shouldn't steal from someone with a gun. That's how much is necessary to function, it won't be just or somewhere I'd want to live but it's functional.
...
post your memes because Sup Forums is non-argument tier
As a disclaimer, I am not certain my views are strictly speaking libertarian.
My belief is that every form of central planning, whether it's a voluntary or forced authority, makes rules that must be enforced through either 1) penalties to noncompliant members, or 2) arbitrary penalties to all or some members used to fund rewards for compliance. In either case, the administration of such rules is a job that costs human time, so there is an unavoidable cost ("no such thing as a free lunch").
Anarchists generally stop here and decry that all centralization is negative. I disagree; I merely state all centralization is overhead. The profitable management of people rests on the premise that not all liberties are equal, that the liberty to skip practice is not as valuable as the liberty to trust your teammates, that the liberty to murder your neighbor is not as valuable as the liberty to a reasonable expectation your neighbor will not murder you. Thus, the purpose of any form of centralization is to live by the motto "sometimes you gotta spend liberty to make liberty" and to make the trades that are profitable.
I believe the best forms of centralization are those that lay the ground work for decentralized systems that run on the fuel of human nature and base motivations. Unlike ancaps, I do not believe the invisible hand of Adam Smith exists in nature (except to grab a rock and bash one's neighbor's skull in), but I do think the invisible hand can be guided by minimalist central planning. I identify as a libertarian because I believe additional governance where the invisible hand already sufficiently compels is redundant and wasteful.
So in conclusion... When is central planning okay? When it provides more value than it costs, aka so long as it is profitable.
But that adjustment is usually caused BY market intervention, like with the new deal and Obama's stimulus
...
...
Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron and fucking cancer
sage
Communism is the only system with a functioning meritocacy.
I'm NatCap tho
t. Adolf Stalin
Rome wasn't anarcho capitalist.
enjoy your ban.
The economy was already starting to recover by the time the New Deal was implemented. FDR was just trying to make a publicity stunt for his Keynesian policies so he could take all the credit.
Obama's stimulus package was implemented in February of 2009. You can see that in the months prior to it the gdp was already starting to recover. Same deal as FDR, just trying to take credit for natural market forces.
It's Robert de Niro!
Source for those graphs? Obama certainly helped the recovery
No, but its successor had many parallels with AnCapistan. "Freie Reichsstädte" were city states with huge amounts of independence and the whole Empire was only loosely controlled by the Emperor. HRE was GOAT.
>blog
HGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAH
Oh wow just fucking about to listen to you and your argument nbut apprently you have NONE
>"Bill Mitchell is a Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia."
Is that not a reputable enough source for your intellectual pallet?
Yeah, the dude's a commie. That doesn't change the data that he's working with. I was citing the graph not the dude. His interpretation of it is shit but the actual numbers he's using for input are fine.
>Influced by Marxists and literally Karl himself.
>Post-Keynesian economics
>Activist
And you think he's "reputable enough"?
Nice try, Marxist sophist.
Aren't they governments though? Monarchies are a form of governance
AnCaps aren't "dude fuck states and shit, nonody can tell me what to do" anarchists. If you voluntarily associate, you create practically a mircostate. Self governance is in human nature, centralized "representative" nonsense that tries to put millions of people into one basket and rile over them all isn't. City states like I mentioned before aren't exactly that, but pretty close.
keynesian economics is the only economics
So tell me how a microstate is different than a superstate
Like I said, a microstate forming in this manner is formed through voluntary association. If there is a demand for a community only open to white conservative people, a according microstate will form. All of the people joining the community agree that they obey the previously set rules, so even if it is an authoritarian state, they know what they signed up for beforehands. A superstate however tries to represent many people at once, people that might not agree with its rules, but since our current system prohibits an actual free market, in which people could freely associate and discriminate against other people who deem a threat to the community, many people are not represented. See the difference? It all boils down to voluntaryism.
...
...
...
What's he being charged for?
It was more like
>20 years!
>"Can I have bond"
>Fuck off, 60 years!
I'm going fascist until we fix this mess up. Libertarian right is the goal though.
>all the people calling /ourmadman/ Neonazi
Jesus, the day of physical removal can't come soon enough.
holy shit you're right lmao
So did the companies in the banana republics
What does /lrg/ think of a night watchman state?
...
More harm came from his death, than his life.
The war on drugs is literally a spook.
I apologize for my statement. But i still think keynesian economics works best
>But I still think keynesian economics works best.
Then what're you doing on this general?
Definetely better than what we have now. But stopping there would create the risk of the state having to much power over communities that would be better kept governing themselves. Federalism is key in this situation. That way, the governing power is naturally given to smaller and smaller regions. The end game would be having small, self governed microstates. The less people involved, the better they can decide for themselves how they want to govern themselves.
>But i still think keynesian economics works best
Go ahead and tell us why
Far better than what we have today, but still doesn't go far enough.
It doesn't. Supporting the "too large to fail" companies makes it so they actually ARE too large to fail without causing a massive crash. Fiat currency also destroys value.
kill all c-mmunists. purge these vile red pigs
>139931077
Alright, chucklefucks. Here's another graph of the 1930s gdp. Source is here: measuringworth.com
Corroborated here (based off the Bureau of Economic Analysis): multpl.com
What are some decent websites for libertarian discussion?
That's better.
Now one for Obama's stimulus package?
Couldn't find a graph for gdp furing the 2008 recession, but I still have the numbers from the same source. Here: measuringworth.com
Corroborated here: multpl.com
In what ways is it still too much? I kow the police can be privatized and maybe tre military done away with, but I've always wondered how people would settle their disputes without some kind of mediator-- a lot of people are too stupid or stubborn to acknowledge when they're wrong.
I like libertarianism for ideas like sexual freedom, legalizing marijuana, and stuff like that, but disagree economically
Ok. I will, I will write something up.
Exactly! That's why you need antitrust laws.
UMA
Ok the reason why keynesian economics works is because when depressions hit they hit hard. People lose their jobs, people lose their homes, the free market isn't doing shit. Then the government has to step in and give these people jobs and food and clothing and get em working to stimulate the economy.
We're waiting with bated breath.
Privatized courts. They would be relying on their reputation for people to accept them, since accepting bribes from companies to rule in their favor would be violating the NAP.
We've seen private courts before too, such as the Lex Mercatoria system used in medieval Europe.
>I like libertarianism for ideas like sexual freedom, legalizing marijuana, and stuff like that, but disagree economically
Well, I like libertarianism for advocating the liberty of discrimination so people like you could be excluded from well functioning communities.
>that's why you need anti trust laws
>government regulations made something a problem so we need regulations to fix the governments mistakes
How about the government not dicking around in things that aren't their business in the first place? Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Christ all mighty, Gary Johnson and all these social "libertarian" faggots have ruined a whole generation.
And how would the individual be dealt with if they didn't comply with the court's ruling?
Pretty interesting, I didn't know a court could be implemented without some kind of state behind it. I will look into this Lux Mercatoria stuff.
You do know that Keynesian economics and its derivatives are the reason that state backed cronyists control the economy?
Regardless of antitrust laws, if your law makers are paid for, the legislation is useless.
Austrian economics wouldn't allow this climate to form, certainly without a government, or without as monolithic government as he have now (minarchism).
The natsoc in the op image is using the wrong hand, for shame
...
We only have these depressions, when the bubble bursts, because of Keynesian economics.
So no, it is cause of this misery.
>libertarianism
>sexual degeneracy
>weed lmao
You don't know what libertarianism is if that's why you think it's a good thing. We're all about liberty, not freedom. Often they align, but they sometimes clash like on the things you mentioned. If you don't know the difference between the two, you don't belong here.
>"That's why you need anti-trust laws!"
Let me show you the back of my helicopter, user.