Convince me to become a libertarian Sup Forums

>be me
>start out as republican when I was a kid
>become a lolberg at age 17
>become socialist at age 22
>become nazbol at age 24
>become fascist at age 25
>now 26
Thinking about becoming a lolberg because I'm getting sick of the government trying to limit my gun rights. I've also become less sympathetic to socialism since I've learned that most workers don't know shit about running the means of production since I became a member of management. So Sup Forums, convince me of libertarianism.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

individual rights > whatever trendy nonsense people with power wanna force on everyone for no reason

Also, post some convincing reading material please. What are the best libertarian philosophers that advocate hierarchy on not only an economic level but also a social level (race, etc... etc...).

Shit, most ancient Romans, god bless them

Would meditations by Marcus Aurelius be a good start?

I didn't read any post republican stuff, orators like Cicero are good enough


But nonetheless the real heart of liberty comes from the Enlightenment, the culmination of geniuses of the time like John Locke, Descartes, Adam Smith, some American founding fathers
The essence of the Enlightenment, when people basically stopped being retarded finally, is what should inspire you and instill the virtues of personal liberty, property and defense

You don't need to read the actual verbose writings, condensed textbook versions should be good enough

I dont care what you are. You change political alignments faster than I can change my socks. You'll be a liberal democrat in 2 years anyways

What are your thoughts on the articles of confederation? A libertarian friend of mine says that the constitution is too statist and that we should be going by the articles.

I honestly can't find a political affiliation I'm completely happy with. I'm wondering if populism would be a better term for myself.

A wet dream, that would invariably lead to a STRONGER United States

I've thought about it, it's simple really given that actual competition between the states would incur innovation, growth and the continuation of American Exceptionalism


Statism just elads to decadence and decay as we can see

>only going most of the way

You can ((())) all you want, but have you read up on Ayn Rand? Hoppe is also someone you should look into.

Well I have a big problem with anarcho capitalism in that I feel like it would lead to a new form of feudalism. Before I became a socialist I was flirting with ancap until I did a thought experiment. I thought about what would happen in an ancap society and came to the conclusion that corporations would just take the place of the government and would be far worse because they would have zero checks and balances in place. That lead me to becoming a socialist at the time because I felt it was actually less statist and more democratic. I was a filthy ancomm for a short period around this time. With that said, I still don't feel like complete ancap is in any way sustainable. It would be nice if there was a fusion of fascism, confederalism and libertarianism although I'm not sure what it would be called.

Corporations bottom line is making money. They would have little reason to do anything similar to what the government does concerning social policy. The non aggression principle prohibits any initiation of force. When you understand the scary combination of corporations + government, you would reconsider statism quickly. In Ancapistan, a corporation can't force you to consume their product, but in a statist society, they can go to the government and ask them to mandate a certain product, like vaccines. The government can do this because initiation of force is not prohibited for them. The state is based on the use of force.

lolberg is beaten by jews and gov, fascist is only beaten by jews. so remain a fascist I say

Hoppe, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith are all good places to start.

well said Leaf

What high school did you somehow graduate from

Skip Libertarianism an go straight to the final (I do not exaggerate) redpill; Objectivism. Libertarianism is incomplete Objectivism, Objectivism without the epistemology.
youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk
I posit that Aristotle, John Locke, and Ayn Rand are the 3 greatest individuals to ever walk the face of the Earth.

>Corporations bottom line is making money. They would have little reason to do anything similar to what the government does concerning social policy
If blacks make up a large portion of their market demographic they'd have good reason to support social policy that panders to those demographics.
>The non aggression principle prohibits any initiation of force.
It doesn't in any way seem enforceable.
>When you understand the scary combination of corporations + government, you would reconsider statism quickly.
Why can't we have government nationalize unethical corporations such as Google, facebook, monsanto, etc... etc... while keeping free market principals in place for more ethical small businesses?
>In Ancapistan, a corporation can't force you to consume their product
If you're someone working on their land buying everything from the company store they can.
>but in a statist society, they can go to the government and ask them to mandate a certain product, like vaccines.
True if the state is weak and doesn't care about the nation.
>The government can do this because initiation of force is not prohibited for them. The state is based on the use of force.
Everything is based on violence to some degree though. When you're fired from a job (usually rightfully so) you've had an act of economic violence levied against you because you can starve to death due to being fired. The government is also backed by violence because it has a military behind it enforcing it's laws. The same applies to corporate mercenaries. The "monopoly on force" argument doesn't resonate with me t.b.h. famalam.

>I've learned that most workers don't know shit about running the means of production since I became a member of management.
This is why elective absolute monarchy is the way to go.

>This is why elective absolute monarchy is the way to go.
That actually sounds like a decent idea. Although I'm worried about who would be elected.

Don't listen to the Ancaps, they're the joke fringe of our movement.
Most libertarians are either minarchist or NatCap, much more achievable and practical philosophies.

Libertarianism is trash. Demographics make a nation great. Try the same laws and rules with another race and I doubt you will get the same result

No anarchy

How can Ayn Rand say initiation of force is wrong, but say the existence of the state is not. The state functions through force, and in direct conflict with upholding individual rights.

you should look into the national anarchist movement.
Sound shit!

Is there any way we can have liberty and demographics?
I've heard of them. They seem like alright dudes.

>pragmatism
>ideology

Pick 1, statist.

>become X
You have no substance, the fuck do I care what your next waivering flavor of the month ideology you enslave yourself to? Sage this shit.

A NatCap government could easily incorporate eugenics and a ban on immigration.
Not all libertarians are weed smoking open borders advocates.

Libertarians are cucks with their NAP

Unless you have the numbers (you don't and never will) you need force to exert your authority. You'll get cucked by the left every time.

Nah, I'm just too open minded for my own good.

Don't fall for the Anarchist meme. Be a minarchist. The entire definition of true libertarianism is in the preamble to the declaration of independence.

>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

That's the whole package. Where do rights come from? Birth. What are they? Life, liberty, do whatever the fuck you want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. How are they protected? Government. Where does a government get it's authority? Consent of the governed.

Tell me friend how an Ancap system could possibly be implemented in America, and how could it's existence be ensured without falling to an outside force or devolving into feudalism and microstates?

>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
>that all men are created equal
The equality part bothers me.

...

How about you shut the fuck up and stop investing your time into politics cause you’re obviously too fucking retarded to handle it

I usually do shut the fuck up, especially since I'm an introverted beta irl, but I use internet anonymity to investigate politics and philosophy.

It's equality before the law. Not equal in outcome or ability.

You flounder at every given oppurtinity. The time wasted teaching you would gone within the two years it takes for you to latch on to something else. Come to conclusions on your own accord and try having an original thought for once.

Okay OP lets start with you being in management. You will need to delegate. Would you rather have employees that can think, and solve problems on their own, or have employees that need to be hand held and micro managed ?

>Become lolberg
>Turn into socialist
The fuck is wrong with you?

I've actually read too much philosophy for my own good. Most philosophers, right wing or left wing make very good criticisms of the system but most of their conclusions are wrong. For example, Evola made good criticisms of modernity and equality but his conclusions seemed very extreme. Same with Marx with his conclusions about capitalism.
I'd rather have employees who can think. I hate having to micromanage morons. I'm curious as to where you're going with this.

equal under the law =/= egalitarian

I operate under the belief that everyone should be held to the same set of standards in a given society, but in no way does that mean that everyone achieves the same level of success. You make the best of what you're given, that's how meritocracy works.

the articles failed because their ideas were too advanced for their time. they'd be a massive success with current technology

Oh I see. You're not actually fascist. I've had a commie ask these same questions to me. They aren't even fundamentally questioning anarcho-capitalism, it just criticisms of capitalism in itself.

1. That likely wouldn't be profitable or beneficial in the long run

2. You defend yourself against people who violate it accordingly. If it's force, use force to defend yourself.

3. Nationalized businesses compete with the free market. This creates an unleveled playing field because the nationalized ones have the state and tax dollars to bail them out. You don't benefit from the free market at this point.

3. Just leave. Nothing is forcing you.

4. The state is usually created with good intentions, but the capacity for humans to use the states power of legal initiation of force is too great. It will always corrupt.

5. Firing someone isn't violating the NAP. Only you are responsible for your own survival and well being. Not your employer.

You give liberty to those who you have delegated responsibility to, and fire those who underperform. You also reward those who are loyal, and perform well the responsibilities you have assigned to them.

>Oh I see. You're not actually fascist. I've had a commie ask these same questions to me. They aren't even fundamentally questioning anarcho-capitalism, it just criticisms of capitalism in itself.
I consider myself a fascist but I sympathize with Strasserism and the national syndicalist falange although I've moved economically to the right since I got back into the workforce.
>1. That likely wouldn't be profitable or beneficial in the long run
Assuming the demographics stay white. Which I doubt they would under ancapistan.
>2. You defend yourself against people who violate it accordingly. If it's force, use force to defend yourself.
I doubt a single person or a neighborhood militia would be able to defend itself against a well trained corporate military force.
>3. Nationalized businesses compete with the free market. This creates an unleveled playing field because the nationalized ones have the state and tax dollars to bail them out. You don't benefit from the free market at this point.
I don't think nationalized businesses should be bailed out either.
>3. Just leave. Nothing is forcing you.
Well, I really doubt that someone living paycheck to paycheck can just leave.
>4. The state is usually created with good intentions, but the capacity for humans to use the states power of legal initiation of force is too great. It will always corrupt.
Force can be used with or without the state. A small militia can use force. A tribe can use force, as well as the state. I have no problem with force or violence. Check out Geroge Sorel. Libertarian friend.
>5. Firing someone isn't violating the NAP. Only you are responsible for your own survival and well being. Not your employer.
I can see the logic behind that. Although I think it's much harder for someone to survive on their own without an employer, especially if they have no money or skills to start a business in a competitive market.

That sounds like fascism imo. (not that I have a problem with that).

> I can see the logic behind that. Although I think it's much harder for someone to survive on their own without an employer, especially if they have no money or skills to start a business in a competitive market.

Then you better get an apprenticeship when you are young and kick ass to learn valuable skills.

Look at it this way OP. The relationships you have with others is your private property. Libertarians understand the need to maintain, and manage their private property.

OP, you cannot and will not be able to understand Libertarianism unless you first understand what it really means to be an individual. The fact that you have changed your views so often shows me that you are lacking direction and depth. I think the more constructive thing for you to do is become a true individual first - I saw somewhere you were saying you were an introverted beta, which needs to change - and then you will know what political alignment is right for you.

Well, I'm going to play devils advocate and say that the best apprenticeships offered in my area come from my local electrical workers union and I made the mistake of going to a completely private college and now I'm working a mediocre job in middle management retail (even though I went for STEM). The electrical workers union didn't accept me. They only wanted the best of the best. Maybe I'm not the best but they seemed much more meritocratic than the private collage I went to that was willing to accept just about anyone.

Try classical liberalism. Forget the utopian libertarianism bullshit.

You're not a fascist. I promise you. Stop being what is hip and just be you, you little faggot.

I am willing to bet that you have other talents that you have not unlocked, or realized yet.

...

>people think we're offering utopia

We're not fucking commies, user.

In Ancapistan there's starving and violence---for the weak.

say my name say my name

To accept Liberty you must first reject the very idea of Utopia.

KEK

Stop doing what's fashionable you airhead and think for yourself

Ironically enough, I'm pretty good in sales. I'd be better in business overall if I was better at keeping a budget. Although when it comes to money management for other people I'm decent.

"It is only through retaliation that force may be used"
Force must be placed under the purview of an objective arbiter. Which is the only proper roles o a government.

There you go. =D

John Stewart Mill is a must