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: Ps2MwGX
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
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Hey man
Nationalist here who's pro-markets but anti-Austrian.
Why do so many Right Libertarians avoid learning about economic theory outside of Austrian school stuff?
Keynesian economics isn't the meme or boogeyman you make it out to be.
I disagree
Well how would you know if you haven't read or don't read about it?
>pro-markets
>keynesian
Studied it in college, not a fan
Capitalism requires a state.
Capitalism requires, or is fundamentally based upon, private property.
Private property requires some entity isomorphic to a state to enforce realistically/pragmatically.
I used to read regulatory codes and fantasize about repealing them.
>DONT ANYTHING NEAR ME
The thread
This is pretty much how I actually feel.
This was an interesting read, I had no idea what the political climate used to be like. Pretty sad desu, they should make a movie about Mises, Hayek & Rand from their fleeing Socialism/Fascism through the fall of Liberalism, to the rebirth of the liberty movement.
I dunno mate, Keynes was pretty fucked up. It's not too far-fetched to postulate that he became so popular because he gave both the left & right wing statists the justifications they needed to push their shit with economics backing them. He has caused us a lot of grief.
...
...
...
Milton Friedman was behind the Monetarist school which is largely viewed as being wrong in many key areas or discredited due to events such as the 2008 financial crisis.
Do you know anything about Neoclassical or Keynesian economics? Have you ever read anything about them?
I can tell you the answer. No. Most austrian-school-fanboys don't have any clue about any other economic theory, because they usually reject the use of logic at the start.
...
What does his theories of Money/Credit etc have to do with that video or his understanding of basic economc, market activity, statistics and what not?
Most people have no clue about most things because most people don't read and get their shit from videos.
True. And that is also the case for libertarians.
True of every group but I've found Libertarians are more likely to read Libertarian & Marxist books than most groups A lot of Libertarians have gone from one or the other to Libertarian, a lot of stories of people going from reading Marx to Rothbard, or whoever to Rand.
I haven't heard many stories of people doing economics (Keynes) then going on to read Austrian & Marxist works, least of all conservatives that tend to be raised as conservative nor lefties that tend to craft echo chambers more than the other two that love to argue with their ideological opponents.
All in all though, problem is no cunt actually reads, which is why 90% of debates are two strawmen going at it.
r8 my economic reform lads
>completely cut corporate and social welfare
>drop tariffs but secure borders and control immigration
>end the central bank and fiat currency
>implement a low flat tax and a simple understandable tax code
>outlaw lobbying and preferential legislation
Holy shit they're releasing s series of essays by Rothbard soon plus a fifth volume of Conceived In Liberty.
He's literally more prolific dead than authors alive today.
What's your banking policy?
That's happened to a lot of Libertarian/Classical Liberal authors, they wanted to write so many thoughts on so many subjects that unfinished essays/books are found when they die. Happened to Hayek, Mises, Rothbard you name it.
More than I can say for a lazy cunt like Marx or the intellectuals behind Fascism.
what do you mean? central bank would be kill, the banks have to actually fend for themselves now
Sorry I've taken so long to get back and reply.
I'm open-minded. Recommend some literature that will convert me to Keynesian economics.
Yeah but like explicitly free banking? Any currency is legal tender? Gold standard solely? Competitive fiat? Preference either way?
Pretty good, provided I allow taxation.
whatever works, my philosophy is more of taking the government to shrink and freeze it, kinda like taking a placeholder so nobody else can ruin it instead of trying to run it myself
Fair enough, I'm not sure outlawing lobbying would stop it from happening though. Would be a big ask of the government not to be influenced by powerful people.
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money - John Maynard Keynes
Introductory Macroeconomics: A Modern Approach - Jeffrey Woolridge (Really any introductory text on econometrics will do)
Any introductory text on macroeconomics.
Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics - L. Randall Wray
Any text on advanced macroeconomics.
Modern mainstream macroeconomic thought is dominated by Keynesian (well, to put it more technically Keynesian-Neoclassical synthesis) thought/analysis, so most standard books by professors will cover Keynesian-style topics.
What's up senpai?
Fair enough, I will look into them and read probably at least most of them, for you I'd say just research Hans-Hermann Hoppe if you haven't much already.
You want the guy to read through The General Theory? What the fuck, at least recommend something easier that might be persuasive like a Keynesian work on the great depression & the GFC to compare to the Austrian view or some econ 101 propaganda. Fuck me dead cunt.
I remember when I was like that. At least when I first researched communism in high school I wasn't fooled.
...
...
What would you recommend and discourage then? Also, Hans-Hermann Hoppe goes for you, too.
...
why shouldn't he read it directly from the source though?
it's like telling someone not to read the Communist Manifesto to judge it for himself
...
...
...
...
What do you people think would happen to a 100% free market country once automation and AI start talking more complex jobs?
...
people do the jobs that haven't been automated yet
>but everything is automated
>including people
and so we enjoy the nirvana of technological singularity
How complex? Man-made computers can only outdo God-made computers (human brains) to a certain extent in certain areas.
The same thing that's happening now, people will get educated for a different job and move to a market with more demand. Jobs aren't some static number that machines are constantly eating up, jobs will appear as markets expand and disappear as markets contract.
The people who's jobs are replaced will move into the jobs that aren't automated, and the economy will grow. Same thing that happened in the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions.
...
Yeah, but the demand for not-yet-automated jobs wouldn't grow proportionaly to the newly automated jobs.
Complex enough to serve food, fly airplanes and boats, do accounting and law related services. Hell, maybe even teach. I firmly believe that this isn't far off. Maybe in 30 years we may have an AI that replaces 20-30% of white collar jobs.
False. The State is the primary institution that violates the property rights of individuals.
what do you mean? you understand that we're about supply-side economics, not demand-based keynesianism right?
supply precedes* demand
*not make, precedes. Very important difference, look up Say's law.
>tfw slowly molding my gf into this
I know what you mean but it's close to 500 pages of quite complex economic theory, best analogy I can think of is telling someone to make a barefoot hitchhiker pilgrimage to the Vatican before going to a church & talking to a priest. Difficult for a laymen.
Honestly there's a lot of literature from different perspectives on the great depression for example; Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard etc which can be directly compared to Keynes views & link into Krugman's views and flow into the GFC. It's a lot more accessible to read the public written arguments from a group of economic titans to compare and go through your econ 101 mainstream stuff & then into the big stuff.
I don't know how anyone could skip straight to & struggle through The General Theory & equivalent works.
...
Where do you think property rights are consistently or universally enforced from without a state or something analogous to it?
They can't/won't be, the state is necessary to capitalism.
Brotha, the point of AI IS to serve as a substitute to the human intelectual process. Can you imagine some job that a human would do better than a complex, fully developed AI? Even fucking prostitution is being replaced by machines.
The industrial revolution replaced our physical efforts, and the AI revolution will replace our mental efforts. After that happened, what the fuck will we do? It's not like there's much more demand to be satisfied outside of these two.
he can read notes, summaries, videos, as he reads passages if he's confused
my point is to focus on the first source though, always and every time. The moment you introduce another person's thoughts on something they might confuse their opinion as the source itself, even subconsciously
building on your church analogy, you are telling him not to read the bible for himself and instead let priests digest it for him. I wouldn't insult his intelligence.
>After that happened, what the fuck will we do?
conquer space my man
>but robots will do that
and we'll do it together
What a retard
>After that happened, what the fuck will we do?
Mechanics, engineers, soldiers, stuff like that. Combine that with transhumanism which makes us more useful and there'll be plenty of jobs for us.
How exactly would private property rights be consistently and universally enforced in a hypothetical system without a state?
Try whatever you want, you're going to settle on something that essentially functions as a state.
Private property requires 1 person to make a claim & defend it, or two people to agree, or an institution to protect/uphold the idea, but protecting property (which is necessary for life) does not mean that the whatever defends property is necessarily a state. A state has specific characteristics that aren't necessary to argue, defend or believe in the concept of property.
I think people assume way too much, the idea that dispute resolution only ever equals a state is the same as saying education only ever equals public education, clearly you don't have to be a state to provide education, nor do you need to be to provide arbitration or collective force or various other things.
Dude we should get rid of government so I can do weed whenever I want. Dude weed lmao.
>libertarians think it's ok for me to harvest the entire atmosphere as long as the air pumps and storage tanks are on 'my' property
Does a security guard function essentially as a state? Or can a security guard protect your person/property without having a violent monopoly over a give geographical area or a claim to be above people & their property? Does a security guard claim to own/control that which they protect like a state does?
Clearly not and that is just one example off the top of my head so I don't think it follows mate. Similar =/= same.
How is that wrong?
>all libertarians are ancap
8/10 missing some things regarding structure but other wise good
>dude we should have a government so that we can do what someone else wants
>dude free shit lmao
a straw for a life
Explain exactly what it is that the State provides that protects private property. Is it their enforces that they use to steal people's private property in the form of taxation or eminent domain? Is it their conscription, which steals the property rights of every individual to their own body and conscious? Is it their regulations that stifle competition in the market and create vast monopolies? Is it their selling of their coercive rights to the highest bidder to do with as they please?
Anarcho Capitalism is a system of rights developed by Rothbard that uses the Natural Law of Man as it's axiomatic foundation. It is used to determine the answers to questions of the form "Does a person have the right to X?". The NAP is a logical progression from this axiom. Essentially what it states is that aggression against a non-aggressor is always unjust. No one has the right to aggress against another that has not aggressed against them.
The upholding of these disputes would probably be handled by private courts as was done in the days of Common Law and the Natural Aristocracy.
what about structure am I exactly missing?
"it should be pumped full of hormone disrupting chemicals and chemicals that affect how our minds function"
Brabeck isn't wrong, Chile privatized their water and it worked out for them.
...
Because public water worked for Detroit
> Private property requires 1 person to make a claim & defend it
Ok, now personally defend your private property when it's land you hold that's potentially hundreds+ kilometers away. To effectively do anything like it you need an institution that covers property considerations for the whole area somewhat equally and effectively.
State protection is basically a natural monopoly, whether you like it or not people overall like participating in a safe and stable common market with well-known, established, and enforceable rules. Complete decentralization of property arbitration or the use of force is just ridiculously inefficient and can't establish the types of markets that a state or some analogue to it can.
You need a form of bank not specifically a centralized bank but how would the banks operate also while not related to economic structure what kind of borders were you thinking of implementing I do agree wholeheartedly though with those choices but some could use more explaining
if it's ok to you for a private entity to harvest natural resources without recompense then you obviously don't see anything wrong with that scenario.
to see why it's wrong: imagine you buy some property and have a nice spring that feeds your well. i come around and buy some property above you and build a huge well that traps all the water that passes under my property. water that would have gone to you now goes to my well. your well is now dry. this is ok to you?
you didn't read the original post. This is no place for dude weed lmao's (even though I smoke weed myself now and again)
...
the only libertarian solution that solves the issue I brought is Georgism. You're right that not all Libertarians are AnCaps but how do non-georgist libertarians solve the issue I brought up?
it was just an on topic pic you nogs. Water should be privatized. but arguments like "what if air is privatized?" are fucking retarded because not all libertarians are retarded ancaps
I unironically think we need to seize/nationalize all natural resources which as the true means of production. A factory is not a natural resource but it uses natural resources. As long as the factory pays for all the natural resources it uses at a market rate (land rent, air pollution, water, noise, em spectrum etc) then it has the freedom of the free market to behave anyway it sees fit. If the factory only wants to hire Aryans and pay them a penny a day I don't care. Just as long it pays for the rights to the natural resources.
Super abundant goods cannot be privatized
>water being sold instead of distributed by the state is an issue
>Water should be privatized. but arguments like "what if air is privatized?" are fucking retarded because not all libertarians are retarded ancaps
>water and air are different even though they're both natural resources
mfw libertarians can't even maintain a coherent logical framework
I don't see how a minarchist state wouldn't stop egregious violations of human rights like the privatization of air. One could also argue that the NAP would be violated with an action like that but anarchism never works and ancaps are retarded. Property doesn't exist without the state.
>i don't get it
you would still be allowed to harvest water
you'd just have to pay a market based tax on it
this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. if this is difficult for you to understand then please stick to memes.
so you'd only have to pay pennies a year to fill up your well out in a rural area but nestle would have to pay billions for the amount of water it harvests.
honestly neither can be realistically privatized. The only arguments against ancap are strawmen except for the questions of degeneracy, which Libertarian Fascism/Hoppean philosophy takes care of
> hundreds+ kilometers away
Not necessarily. You can also reclaim it at a later time, employ people to risolve disputes if they come up in relation to it, or to do defend it. It's not that black and white.
> people overall like participating in a safe and stable common market with well-known, established, and enforceable rules
True, that doesn't necessarily mean the rules or the people that enforce or debate the rules have to be centralized in order for dispute resolution to occur.
> Complete decentralization of property arbitration or the use of force is just ridiculously inefficient
The point you're missing is that the services can exist without having some characteristics of the state, whether you think centralized & area based is always better than decentralized & case based is another matter entirely. The point is does whatever method or structure mimic a state? If it lacks very core parts of what a state is/does then it's not the same thing just because it provides a similar function.
Is it voluntary?
Is there recourse?
Are there alternatives?
Can monetary contribution be stopped?
Is it decentralized?
Does it claim to own/control above persons & property?
The state has very specific consistent answers to all of these questions, it isn't hard to imagine alternatives that are different in 1 or all of these questions. Whether you think they're effective is another issue.
Does it cla
I still don't see the big issue, especially when it's privately distributed so the owner will have to compete with others and thus make sure the water isn't toxic.
Water can certainly be realistically privatized. You can build a well and sell the water from it. You can own the land of an oasis. You can own a dam. Air, however, is super abundant and cannot be privatized unless made novel, such as compressed air or oxygen.
A lot of people get this notion that under an ancap society there would be monopolies and only monopolies. They attribute all the negative qualities of monopolies to the ancap market, which makes no sense at all.
this is true I meant like all water including the ocean (which can actually be filtered of salt now)