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: AbGmGWH
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
Bump from Nomad
God bless /lrg/
I don't know how anyone can be anything but libertarian.
Hail liberty, death to the democrats.
>tfw Libertarians create the all white nation first and don't allow NEETsoc in because they're fucking socialists.
...
“Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.”
“If the right to vote were expanded to seven year olds … its policies would most definitely reflect the ‘legitimate concerns’ of children to have ‘adequate’ and ‘equal’ access to ‘free’ french fries, lemonade and videos.”
“There can be no socialism without a state, and as long as there is a state there is socialism. The state, then, is the very institution that puts socialism into action; and as socialism rests on aggressive violence directed against innocent victims, aggressive violence is the nature of any state.”
“Egalitarian and relativistic sentiments find steady support among ever new generations of adolescents. Owing to their still incomplete mental development, juveniles, especially of the male variety, are always susceptible to both ideas.”
“Conflict is not unavoidable. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent.”
“In a covenant...among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.”
Socialists and statists will not be tolerated.
This picture was supposed to go with the above post.
Hail Hoppe, Hail Rothbard (pbuh)
Hail Bastiat, Hail Mises, Hail Rothbard, Hail Hoppe, Hail Libertas!
...
> people here recognise that property rights imply discrimination and a return to traditional, conservative values.
Contraband is a contradiction by definition in American law. To believe otherwise levels you closer with Hillary than the founding fathers.
Contraband - Any property that it is illegal to produce or possess.
If the government can seize your property, you had no right to that property. If you had no right to that property, you did not have the right to property
Most of us don't even believe in a government, yet alone contraband. What's your point?
>If you don't have the right to the property then you don't have the right to the property
We're clearly dealing with an intellectual god here, everyone give him room, his brain takes up a lot of space.
>current year
>he's still libertarian
Start reading Moldbug.
unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com
What intrinsically distinguishes contraband from other property?
That contraband is the primary form of discrimination in property rights. If the government seizes contraband on the nature of its criminality, such seizure renders the right to property nonexistent
Misquotation user
> *right to property
I think you and I are using vastly different definitions of discrimination
Your rights do not come from nor can they be taken from you by other men. Only your life can be taken from you if you let it. Don't confuse my use of life to mean just this mortal coil. Your life is your property, the time you have sacrificed to acquire the property makes it your property.
Do you think might makes right?
This is easily solvable by applying democracy not for the individual, but rather the nuclear family unit.
Each family comprised of father, mother, children, have one vote. Whenever one of the children goes on to create his own family he then gets another vote as an autonomous being.
The fundamental rights of Life, Liberty, Property are sanctimonious, but they are indeed being assaulted by the new age idea of democracy for all, hyper individualism that is irrational. Giving votes to childless women and men have distorted the societal balance, akin to giving the vote to niggers.
That's definitely one solution that would mitigate the negative effects of democracy and create a more stable conservative republic, but I still believe that a constitutionally limited princely government is superior.
what did he mean by this
The nature of it being unlawful which means the right to property was never there. It's circularly contradictory.
> you have the right to property, authorities must obtain warrants to protect you from illegal search and seizure (the implication being that they have reasonable suspicion that there is evidence of a crime)
> later enact laws that make some property a crime to possess. Now they have reasonable suspicion to search and seize your property for the suspicion of you possessing property.
> If it is a crime to possess property, there is no right to property. It is in line with the legal usage of privilege, something that the government permits for those in good faith
Privatize environmental protection.
> people here recognise that property rights imply discrimination and a return to traditional, conservative values.
What do you mean by this then?
>He thinks that rights only come from the state
Civil forfeiture and the Nixonian drug legislation are entirely federal
Free association under property rights implies that people will exclude undesirables ie, counter cultural degenerates.
We're not for state seizure of property. Whats your point?
...
Fucking saved.
>property rights imply discrimination and a return to traditional, conservative values
That's very different from how the original post read. So the right to property disallows government intervention in who you permit to enter your property? I agree, discrimination in this regard is a facet of ownership
>Ludwig von Mises wouldn't be welcome in Libertarian Right threads
Not just who you allow in your property, who you choose to serve or associate with in any manner.
Abolish civil rights!
He was a classical liberal who supported the existence of a democratic state, but his work is still monumentally important to the right-libertarian movement.
Had the same reaction when I first saw it.
Why would you assume this? /lrg/ isn't a monolith, and we're a huge fan of Mises' work here.
Tell me what's wrong with the cosmopolitan liberalism of people like Richard Cobden:
>I see in the Free-trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe,—drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace. I have looked even farther. I have speculated, and probably dreamt, in the dim future—ay, a thousand years hence—I have speculated on what the effect of the triumph of this principle may be. I believe that the effect will be to change the face of the world, so as to introduce a system of government entirely distinct from that which now prevails. I believe that the desire and the motive for large and mighty empires; for gigantic armies and great navies—for those materials which are used for the destruction of life and the desolation of the rewards of labour—will die away; I believe that such things will cease to be necessary, or to be used, when man becomes one family, and freely exchanges the fruits of his labour with his brother man. I believe that, if we could be allowed to reappear on this sublunary scene, we should see, at a far distant period, the governing system of this world revert to something like the municipal system; and I believe that the speculative philosopher of a thousand years hence will date the greatest revolution that ever happened in the world’s history from the triumph of the principle which we have met here to advocate.
I feel like a lot of Libertarians had a blind eye for democracy in the early days until Hoppe came along.
That whole quote was disgusting. Egalitarianism is delusional.
I do NOT seek to create a new "ideal" man who lacks any sense of belonging to a larger community. As a Libertarian I accept man as he is.
Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.
So if I read this correctly he is arguing for a global government right?
I wouldn't say there's anything inherently wrong with it. It's just that the idea that free trade can erase all ethnic and cultural tensions is absolute bullshit. Free trade is magnificent in its ability to create peace between peoples, but those peoples would still be better off living independently with themselves, rather than mixing everyone into a single bland mess. Besides, there will always be people who won't accept liberty, and they should be isolated. A culturally conservative society does much more to maintain social stability than degenerate chaos.
Remember the context as well. Mises grew up in the late nineteenth century, and his criticisms of the European empires and centralized monarchies are still worth reading. He grew up in a time when some kingdoms ruled over others and his proposal to fix this was democratic nation-states of people who ruled themselves, which sounds good in theory, and must have sounded good especially after the shitshow that was World War I. However, as Hoppe later explained, World War I was caused primarily by statist-nationalist ideas, not necessarily by monarchies themselves. Mises and Rothbard were both soft on democracy, as he said, but I'm sure both of them still understood that democracy wasn't really compatible with private property.
Mises supported democracy because he believed that the ability to replace a leader with a new one when necessary would prevent civil wars from breaking out, which were more common in monarchies and dictatorships, because there was no way to replace the autocrat. Rothbard supported democracy because he thought voting libertarians into office was the only way to create a libertarian society. Neither of them truly believed in democracy (or in the almighty state, for that matter), they just believed it was the least worst option.
Hoppe did strike the final nail into the coffin of democracy, though.
No, he's arguing for free trade and movement of labor.
I don't see an egalitarian theme in that quote.
It's quite clear he's talking about forgetting the things that make man unequal. Cosmopolitans are cryptically egalitarian without exception.
...
...
Pt2
correlation =/= causation
rather than capitalism, this is the result of a social democracy. people can't be ostracized and even if they are safety nets of sorts such as welfare and anti-discrimination laws are provided for them by the government which makes that ineffective. women and people of older age no longer need to rely on family to provide for them as the government serves that role now. this leads to the degradation of the family unit and ultimately society. there's no much needed respect, empathy, even some kind of cohesive connection between people since they no longer need to look at the prospects of their future. we are heading towards decivilization under democracy.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is that all the shit on your collage is optional in capitalism while sucking ss cocks was mandatory.
Big brained nibbas get the ROCK.
>Moldbug
>Curtis Yarvin, paternal mischling
when in doubt, call him out
>everything goes to shit around 1965
I wonder why?
Dig in deeper. The cultural revolution was implicitly, and sometimes explicitly anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, spearheaded by neo-Trotskyist shills.
Hail Rand!
...
...
...
...
dab on dem haters
...
...
...
Disgusting.
Major difference between Libertarian left and Libertarian right?
>left
degenerate (high time preference)
>right
low time preference
Also Libertarian left is a bit of a meme because how can you be for liberty and on the left.
Commie enabler spotted.
So Libertarian Right should just be Libertarian then?
Right Libertarianism is non-intervention; laissez faire
Left Libertarianism is non-hierarchy; egalitarianism
How is the left-right distinction related to time preference? I would say I have lower time preference than most people (I save most of my income and hardly buy anything) and this guy just called me a commie enabler.
Praise kek
Well I don't believe that all people are equal, but they do deserve to have equal rights.
If that's the definition of "Right Libertarianism" then I would qualify as Right Libertarian. But because I'm an "open border advocate" and don't want to persecute Communists, I'm not consider a Right Libertarian in these threads.
These threads aren't a monolith of ideas, some people here are edgy natcap/physical-removal types, some of us aren't, although almost everyone here opposes open borders.
We use left Libertarian in two ways here, the first, being ancoms, and the second meaning you. You do abide by property rights and non aggression but you are a cultural leftist, a cultural relativist who wants Mass inclusion, which we find is implicitly egalitarian.
My advice to you is to leave us alone and stay in one of the hundred Libertarian spaces that embrace your values. /lrg/ is the only place around for us and we want to keep it that way.
I guess so. Left Libertarians take liberty on a social level seriously and not on an economic one. The more radical even oppose voluntary hierarchy witch is not very liberty minded if you want to ban something voluntary.
Time preference is certainly a tendency not an absolute but if we look at the political systems on the left like democracy or syndicalism we can see that those promote high time preference behavior among the people.
Let me catalog a list of some web companies that have engaged in blatantly anti-consumer practices
Google
>spyware, datamining, manipulated search results
Facebook
>political censorship, datamining, political activism
Youtube
>demonetizing videos, SJW political campaigns, manipulated recommendations
Twitter
>censorship, shadowbanning/throttling, targeted harassment
Microsoft
>datamining, botnet, rewriting user agreements ex post facto
Why haven't any of these companies gone out of business? Especially considering the very low start up and running cost for competitors
It's time for libertarians to admit that the free market has a natural tendency towards monopoly.
>He thinks Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft's monopoly is a result of free market conditions rather than corporatist collusion.
M8 rlly?
...
Both look shit, but damn can that negro play guitar.
>corporatist collusion
That's exactly what I'm saying
These companies acquire a dominant position in the market, and muscle out all competitors. They have so much capital that no one can compete with them, any startups that try are bought out. It's almost become a meme at this point, that if your startup is extremely successful, you'll get the chance to sell to Google.
Even worse, these companies are constantly combining to form larger, more centralized umbrella corporations. For example, Alphabet corp. They're even starting to branch out into things like product delivery services, car manufacturing, and other industries
Do you not know what corporatism is? I'll give you a hint: it's not capitalism.
Do you think such musicians would exist in racially homogenous, culturally "conservative" Hoppean covenant communities?
youtube.com
That's what I'm saying, capitalism needs regulation to promote competition
It might not exist in a conservative covenant, but it would exist in a liberal one and the conservatives could import the music from there.
Isn't free trade grand?
Capitalism has regulation now you brainlet. Regulation has put them in those monopoly positions.
Rlly makes u think when those companies lobby for more regulations
How does it feel knowing that you can't have capitalism without a state?
Real libertarians are mutualists.
you can't just say that it's the regulation's fault that everything is like this. That's a cop out, it's like some religious person waving their hand and saying that god wills it
Pic related, more evidence of capitalism at work
You can't have capitalism with a state.
Why not?
Why don't mutualist organizations out-compete capitalist firms as is?
So you want a corporatist system? Why not go for a fully planned economy? Why not end all traces of capitalism? Tell me in depth your position please.
you don't know what capitalism is. take a good think about absentee ownership
i don't think you know what mutualism is
"mutualism" isn't a thing that a business can do
mutualism is an anarchist ideology
You can't just say it's capitalism's fault that everything is like this. That's a cop out, like some libertarian waving their hand and saying regulation did it.
Am I a bad Libertarian if I think that the death penalty should be extended to human traffickers?
>Why haven't any of these companies gone out of business?
Government won't let them.
siliconvalleywatcher.com
Fuck Off
...
Prinášaš hanbu svojej otčine, ty všivavé hovno.
Sebaurčenie je jedným z hlavných pilierov nášho hrdého národa, a ty ho tu znevažuješ.
Both are fairly attractive. But then again I don't correlate fashion with ideology that well. Anyone can wear a suit.