/lrg/ - Libertarian Right General - The Counteroffensive Edition

Motto of the day: End the FED, price war now.
This thread is dedicated to the discussion of all things libertarian - private system of government, natural law, laissez-faire economy, and sovereignity, as well as organisation, tactics, and long-term strategy.
We encourage debate, so long as all parties recognise that property norms are inherent in each civil exchange between multiple consenting individuals.
Communists explicitly reject property norms and as such will not be respected.
Discord server: /H67dt7G
Pastebin link: pastebin.com/0rkTentN

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Om7rUCY3f_U
youtube.com/watch?v=oHv9NyeS3s0
youtube.com/watch?v=FcQBJPZKR28
youtube.com/watch?v=do5eQ5tEoRk
youtube.com/watch?v=MtvmgfI2zyM
youtube.com/watch?v=0uiJGDShHJg
youtu.be/TICdCM4j7x8
lewrockwell.com/2013/10/murray-n-rothbard/why-does-the-us-love-them/
youtube.com/watch?v=-rPFmCD---Y&feature=youtu.be
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

First for the physical removal of trannies.

Are voluntary duels to death a violation of the NAP?
I would assume so, on the same grounds as "voluntary slavery", right? You cannot sign away your inalienable rights, and isn't that what you're going when you agree to duel to the death?

Frequent misconceptions:
>What is the libertarian stance on open borders?
A full privatisation of all property implies the owners' full right of exlusion or inclusion to their property only, being responsible for the accomodation, as well as legally for the good behaviour of their invitees, which automatically rules out inviting jihadis and other savages with no concepts of property norms into civilised lands in large numbers. As long as a state exists, however, closed borders (forced exclusion) are preferrable to open borders (forced integration), if for no other reason than there being fewer people within the reach of a State to be expropriated by it.
>Is capitalism Jewish/degenerate?
Capitalism is the natural order of things, most commonly used in regard to the economy. It is the lack of restrictions on grounds other than natural law, which must be equally appliable to everyone. Deviation from this model ultimately means higher time preference rates among people, meaning immediate satisfaction is preferred over long-term investment, which in turn leads to less interest in production and more interest in leisure activities, meaning general poverty. This goes to show that socialism, not capitalism, works best for the Jewish interest of turning the gentiles into hedonistic cattle.
>Who would build the roads?
Scarcity of space implies the need for people and goods to move from point A to point B. Generally, this means that roads must be established, as land transport remains one of the most heavily used modes of transportation. There is a market for roads in any society, the state just holds a monopoly over it.
>What is the libertarian position on usury?
The main problem with interest loan provision is the historical monopoly the highly tribalistic Jewish communities have held over it, often due to state intervention (which was comparatively extremely rare in those times).

...

Recommended reading:
BOOKS
>The Law by Fréderic Bastiat
>Democracy - The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
>Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
ARTICLES
>Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property by Llewellyn Rockwell - mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property
>A Realistic Libertarianism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe - lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/
>For A New Libertarian by Jeff Deist - mises.org/blog/new-libertarian
>Nations by Consent by Murray Rothbard - mises.org/sites/default/files/11_1_1_0.pdf
>Race! That Murray Book by Murray Rothbard - archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html
>Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray Rothbard - mises.org/library/egalitarianism-revolt-against-nature-0

Nomad bump.

Media:
PODCASTS/VIDEOS
>tomwoods.com - Tom Woods Show
>radicalagenda.com - Radical Agenda / Letters from a Charlottesville Jail / Cantwell & Kessler / LIVE from Seg! (Christopher Cantwell)
>youtube.com/stefbot - Steben Bolynu :DD
>youtube.com/channel/UCR7pD2JAMKUx4LH93YWjaXw - morrakiu.com - Morrakiu
>youtube.com/channel/UCRr7mGBwURyRGM2BRPV3hNQ - Augustus Sol Invictus
ARTICLES
>mises.org - Mises Institute
>lewrockwell.com - Lew Rockwell
>propertyandfreedom.org - Property and Freedom Society

Videos/podcasts:
>What Must Be Done by Hans-Hermann Hoppe - youtube.com/watch?v=d_ybi1MeC3c
>For a New Libertarian by Jeff Deist - youtube.com/watch?v=tsUmV0wNXlc
>Radical Agenda by Christopher Cantwell with Morrakiu - radicalagenda.com/2017/06/07/radical-agenda-ep313-morrakiu/
>The War on Terror by Augustus Sol Invictus - youtube.com/watch?v=wy2O7CPNmqI
>Libertarianism's Ultimate Logical Conclusion by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=Om7rUCY3f_U
>The Leftist Invasion of Libertarianism by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=oHv9NyeS3s0
>Attempts To Reach The Left: An Unmitigated Disaster by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=FcQBJPZKR28
>Individualism and Group Interests by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=do5eQ5tEoRk
>The Truth About Libertarianism | Immigration and Borders by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=MtvmgfI2zyM
>In Defence of Capitalism by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=0uiJGDShHJg

a fellow bump from your Allies at RWA

I suppose that so long as you do not withdraw consent during the duel, it is a legitimate contract.

Truly our greatest ally.

Would self aware machines be considered human for all purposes under Nap. This is my understanding but i want other opinions

Bump for my homeboys, great paste Slovakbro!

Only problem, you didn't use my sweet new thread image

Death Squads guys? Anyone wanna form some right wing death squads to physically remove antifa?

No! fuck robots civil "rights"!

What did you guys think of Hoppe's PFS speech? I absolutely loved it. youtu.be/TICdCM4j7x8 for those of you who haven't seen it yet.

If you withdraw consent mid fire and are then struck by a bullet, are you within your rights to then "defend" yourself?

Well using the logic of Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty, if they could assert that they have rights or otherwise show some understanding of the concept, they would have those rights to the extent they did not violate the rights of others.

I said self aware. For all intents and purposes that would be mostly done by anti social guys and the alike. It would be boring to have something emotionless for long term. Im not talking about the things that people have to bang, or anything obviously made as such. If something is a human equivalent in all functional means other than a natural origin.

You're already in a situtation where two people are shooting each other, so go ahead. who cares where the line of it being self defense or an agreed upon duel?

Join AntiCom. Go to their events.

Voluntarily exchanged bump

Well what if this is instead taken to court? Say the duel ends after the consent is withdrawn, however the person is still struck by the bullet. Can they then go to the courts and have a legitimate rights-based claim against the person they were dueling?

wAQ&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov#

Best song
Remember kids Physical removal is the only way!

>Fake libertarians calls other people fake libertarians

Rothbard hated Pinochet.

The duel is ended after the first guy pulled the trigger and the other guy still gets hit with the bullet after the duel has ended?

thats fucking stupid. is that really your question?

The bullet was shot when the person had consent to shoot.

According to Hoppe, Rothbard was not a real libertarian because he supported open borders all the way up to the 90s.

Rothbard also hated left-libertarians like you. He also said that the only reason fake libertarians like yourself hate Hoppe so much is because he is so methodological and aggressive in his argumentation that no faggot ass left libertarian even has a chance against him.

Yeah even Rothbard said he was wrong. thats why he changed his views idiot.

Source?
Why would a libertarian hate one of the few men who defeated communism. Makes absolutely no sense. Granted he wasnt an ancap but i believe he was a net plus from salvador allende

the point is that it is not just about the consent. it is also about the credible threat that is present as soon you agree.

lewrockwell.com/2013/10/murray-n-rothbard/why-does-the-us-love-them/

If you don't understand why, you don't understand Rothbard. During the Cold War, Rothbard was more concerned about America's belligerence around the world and the authoritarianism of anti-Communists than about Communists themselves.

Pinochet is a good meme because dead Marxists by helicopter. However, Rothbard's criticism of Pinochet was during his shitlib phase, so it is not to be taken seriously. Late Rothbard best Rothbard, but still not nearly as good as Hoppe.

It's strange that /lrg/ is so virulently anti-Communist. Rothbard was never a red-baiter. Remember, it was than hysterically anti-Communist, anti-Soviet Cold War era Right that marginalized Rothbard and destroyed any libertarian presence in the Right. Now you people are behaving the same way as they did.

While the man who i have taken as psedonyms regime wasnt perfect one could argue that part of the problem was other military elites. Pinochet privatized social security and everything but the copper industry (i think if he could gotten away with it that would of gone too)

So now that sjws make up so much of our generation. How are we going to repopulate after we physically remove them? How are the majority of men going to get married when feminist marxism is rampant on the left.

Well I'm trying to understand a general concern here, not exactly a specific scenario.
If Person A enters into an agreement with Person B to do an activity that takes up some amount of time to complete, and then withdraws consent to the activity after it had already been put into motion, can they then hold the other party liable for the result of that action?

>It's strange that /lrg/ is so virulently anti-[The Ideology Responsible for the Greatest Human Rights Violations in History]
Hmmm

I love Rothbard and I love liberty. Fuck you left Libertarian kike.

This thread is stupid.

>don't tread on me
But
>let's keep the government

government =/= state
i think it's safe to say that we support a PRIVATE system of government that is voluntarily agreed to by every party involved versus the state which is a public institution and there's no form of agreement between the participants in such a system to be a part of it in the first place

>i think it's safe to say that we support a PRIVATE system of government

Not even a little bit. Don't pretend you speak for me.

>go let that boot heel go up your anus

A private system of government based on land ownership and voluntary association would solve a LOT of problems in society, actually. Political and otherwise. Read Hoppe faggit.

libertarians think i have the legal authority to harvest the entire atmosphere so long as i do it from my own property.

it seems like you didn't even bother reading past what you've quoted;
>voluntarily agreed to by every party involved.
if you want to be an individualist you are free to do as you like, but it'd be a safe assumption that the vast majority of people living under a free market property system would choose private government in forms of renting private property, and rightfully so.

What are the general arguments against egalitarianism?

LIBERALALA

youtube.com/watch?v=-rPFmCD---Y&feature=youtu.be
Lew has the scoop.

bump

Also, Rothbard said something about americans not caring much about unfair distribution and trade of land because they got the homesteading treatment.
What about countries that didn't, like basically all of LatAm? Hoppe talks about it on Democracy, but I don't think his example of pre and pos soviet europe applies here, since Portugal and Spain took ownership of land and distributed it amongst who they wanted it, and prevented homesteading.