This thread is for discussion of property rights, self-determination, natural order, right-libertarianism and the PHYSICAL REMOVAL of COMMUNIST FAGS from our board of peace. A reminder that this is the Libertarian RIGHT General. Left-Libertarians, Cosmopolitan freaks, Open borders cucks and other assorted libertine degenerates need to fuck off.
Questions are welcome, however many are repeated often. We advise you research the basics before asking.
FURTHER READING: >Reference - Seei.imgur.com/wCIpgNA.jpg >Torrent - magnet:?xt=urn:btih:8d8ec6ef882dee291f119eb69994797574e5d616&dn=Anarcho-Capitalism%20Books
THREAD TUNES: >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 >8 * h.net/anarchy
"Net neutrality" is a misnomer. No policy is neutral if you enforce it upon others.
I see nothing wrong with allowing ISPs to operate their networks as they please. Whatever inconveniences they make to the public, they will pay for in diminished profits from a shrunken customer base.
Elijah Ramirez
...
Xavier James
I'm guessing that in ancapistan, little barriers to entry in the market combined with ridiculous consumer demand for net neutrality would probably ensure that companies would uphold it in order to keep making profits. Net neutrality without government intervention.
Gabriel Morales
Yeah, pretty much.
Today, ISPs deliberately slow their connection speeds and charge higher rates for connections that run at the normal speed (sold as "faster" speed). In Ancapistan, any entrepreneur could put an end to that by just selling normal internet speeds at better prices. No government could keep you out nor subsidize your competition.
Grayson Thompson
Ironic, people are pushing for regulation of ISPs when really it is the fault of regulations that monopolies can exist and net neutrality is fucked over.
Jordan Cooper
>the PHYSICAL REMOVAL of COMMUNIST Isn't this essentially just The Revolutionary Tribunal
>The Revolutionary Tribunal is instituted to punish the enemies of the people. The enemies of the people are those who seek to destroy public liberty, either by force or by cunning. >Those who have sought to mislead opinion and to prevent the instruction of the people, to deprave morals and to corrupt the public conscience, to impair the energy and the purity of revolutionary and republican principles, or to impede the progress thereof, either by counterrevolutionary or insidious writings or by any other machinations; >Every citizen has the right to seize conspirators and counterrevolutionaries, and to arraign them before the magistrates. He is required to denounce them as soon as he knows of them.
Julian Peterson
That moment when NASA gets BTFO by a private firm.
Gabriel Evans
What part of "You get to throw people out of your private property" don't you understand?
Austin Diaz
>You get to throw people out of your private property There's nothing new or revolutionary in this proposition.
Matthew Mitchell
Exactly. It's common sense.
Austin Diaz
So we have this hard-ass policy of PHYSICAL REMOVAL of COMMUNIST already implemented in our current system? Seems pretty mild, considering all the helicopter memes and such
Aiden Murphy
What the fuck are you even talking about? Of course we haven't got this implemented in the current communist run socialist goverments.
Angel Allen
I have the permission to throw off anyone out of my estate, isn't that the point?
Logan Watson
The point is to make socialist free societies.
Lincoln Brooks
So if my neighbor is socialist, I get to evict him from his house?
Oliver Thompson
What part about "You get to form private societies where communists and democrats can be thrown out from." don't you understand?
Dylan Price
Technically no, but businesses can deny provision of life sustaining goods and services due to property rights so the socialist can starve.
Christian Baker
Convince me to be a Libertarian. I am in your hands gentlemen.
Ryan Martinez
>"You get to throw people out of your private property" >"You get to form private societies where communists and democrats can be thrown out from." As you can see, you moved the goalposts.
Noah Young
Read “Anatomy of The State” by Murray Rothbard. It’s available as a free PDF and is only a 40+ page long essay.
Juan Wilson
How? If it's your private property you get to do whatever you want to do with it that's the point, only the best societies would survive. Ergo only democratless communistless ones. I didn't move the goalpost one bit.
Benjamin Barnes
That wouldn't be that far from the Revolutionary Tribunal, when you think about it: if someone is found guilty of "seeking to destroy public liberty," he'll be essentially imprisoned to his own property.
Eli King
Okay why should I read it and where can I get it?
Isaiah Mitchell
It’s available at mises.org for free and as a downloadable PDF.
James Lewis
>You want to live in a civilized society. If you disagree, you ought to leave. If you agree, read on.
>To maintain a civilized society, absolutely no one may ever initiate force against another in his life, liberty, and/or property. If you agree, you're a libertarian. If you disagree, you're either confused or you're an uncivilized fuck.
Thomas Long
Answers one of my questions not the other one
Dominic Foster
> If it's your private property you get to do whatever you want to do with it that's the point But the socialist is living on his own property, and your "private society" has the right to evict the socialist from his own proprety?
Luis Cox
>you want to live in a civilized society
I do indeed, everyone does. But what do you mean by civilized? And why is a Libertarian society more civilized than other societies?
>to maintain a civilized society, absolutely no one may ever initiate force against another in his life, liberty, and/or property.
Okay, I agree but surely there is more to a civilized society than just preserving those three principles?
Nathan Wood
It debunks the need for a state at a fundamental level. It's basically baby's first anarcho capitalism.
William Ward
The private society means that this let's say "State" is owned by someone, so it wouldn't be the socialist's property.
Socialists could make their own societies that would fail very often since they'd have to steal from eachother.
Kevin Baker
Okay, thanks. Could you perhaps elaborate on why you're an AnCap and how they differ from basic Libertarians?
John Diaz
The discord isn't working by the way
Asher Wood
Anarcho Capitalism is Libertarianism taken to ultimate conclusion.
All monopolies are bad so a monopoly on force and law is just that, bad. Anything the goverment touches it perverts.
Levi Cooper
>The private society means that this let's say "State" is owned by someone, so it wouldn't be the socialist's property. So what you're saying is that you're forced to hand your property over to some private entity and rent it from that company?
Aaron Garcia
Old link, try this: Kd2WD2X
Robert Barnes
But surely government needs to monopolise on defence, law enforcement and courts? Can they be provided for by the free market?
Michael Taylor
Doesn't work, its the same link mate
Julian Hernandez
Shit, my bad: Ps2MwGX
Luis Martinez
>Can they be provided for by the free market? Yes for the courts. Check out Lex Mercatoria.
Do I enter it just like that? Because that's not working
Chase Smith
Oh god, how is such a basic principle so hard for you to understand? Let's start with the begginings, without goverments people would own property right?
>without goverments people would own property right? Let's say yes.
Liam Cook
I recommend Hans Herman Hoppe about this.
Joshua Green
You type in the invite code when asked for an invite code.
Connor Edwards
Try this one: H67dt7G
Elijah Clark
>But what do you mean by civilized? Civilization is the result of humans respecting private property rights. You couldn't have a high standard of living if your neighbors constantly raided your house and took your stuff.
>Why is a libertarian society more civilized than others? Because a libertarian society would not have a centralized authority that is subject to the will of the uneducated masses with the power to beat people up, take their stuff, and throw them in cages if they resist.
>Surely there is more to a civilized society than just preserving those three principles? I do not dispute this. Libertarianism is simply the recognition that those three are the foundational principles. You cannot promote secondary principles like discipline, cooperation, ingenuity, or heroism if you do not first cultivate a respect for life, liberty, and property.
Isaiah Rodriguez
This is all I'm getting
Carson Collins
>H67dt7G
Juan Carter
Thanks for your reply. Could you perhaps elaborate on this point?
>you cannot promote secondary principles like discipline, cooperation, ingenuity, or heroism if you do not first cultivate a respect for life, liberty, and property.
Aaron Allen
People would be free to associate and as human behaviour teaches us, people tend to form societies.
Supply and demand laws would apply to those societies too, but essentialy the best form would be the most widespread one. We claim it's right-wing libertarianism.
Now let's say you have a state the size of Luxembourg owned by someone, he'd be the ultimate decision-maker in this land. Now a demand for a societies where democrats and socialists wouldn't be allowed does exist, so a supply would spur up. You can't rob people of their property unless they voluntary agree that in the case they violate rules they can be kicked out. You can't go to let's say some hippie society and claim it's yours.
Adrian Hernandez
I'll try and get it for you.
Connor Diaz
Thank you. Are you in it?
Levi Walker
THIS ONE SHOULD FUCKING WORK: DeBka
Colton Rogers
>DeBka
It did thank you
Aaron Cox
You're welcome, if you can, try joining the Right Wing Alliance Discord server as well.
Jeremiah Howard
>Now let's say you have a state the size of Luxembourg owned by someone
My quibble here is this: how would someone come to own a state the size of Luxembourg? The natural rights argument presupposes that you have property rights BEFORE the formation of societies, so you'd need the consent of all property owners in a given area to gain the area's ownership. Would all property owners within this Luxembourg-sized area confer their consent to this owner, Leviathan?
Blake Price
An-capistan would start out with very small areas, peope would most likely gradually form bigger voluntary states but some people are just naturally better at gaining and maintaining capital than others. So states the size of luxembourg would most likely exist, but the competition for customers would make all "states" small. This is all theoretical, the natural argument is the one of gaining capital, there are multiple theoritical ways to go into an-capistan.
Robert Rivera
Certainly. I'll elaborate on the four examples I provided.
>discipline An undisciplined child hits, restrains, and steals from his cohorts. To discipline such a child, you must teach him to respect the lives of others ("don't hit"), the liberty of others ("don't bully"), and the property of others ("don't steal").
>Cooperation Few if any people have the physical and mental constitution to live on their own, hence we've organized into societies and divided labor amongst ourselves. This is why we have farmers, bakers, smiths, carpenters, and so on. As Adam Smith points out in his Wealth of Nations, these workers do not do their jobs out of concern for others, but simply out of concern for themselves. This is what drives the free market and the resulting prosperity. If one does not respect the life, liberty, and property of those who he does business with and thus relies on, he shouldn't expect them to respect his own life, liberty, and property (hereafter referred to as LL&P). The resulting mutual disrespect of LL&P would undermine cooperation and division of labor, forcing men to retreat to their own means to not only survive, but also to now defend themselves from new enemies.
(continued in next post)
Ryder Cooper
I still don't see the natural rights justification for this form of feudal ownership. Assuming I can get kicked out of my own home--by an entity I didn't at any point give my consent to--for having wrong political beliefs, it's a bit of a stretch to say that I own the piece of property in question.
Ryan Cooper
Because you don't, in the situation you described you live on someone else's property. Nothing stops you from being in the 1% and having some land that you can own and call it your own, especially if all land was privatised. I can't describe the system because it's based on the natural laws of society, the enterprenuers would make them ( the societies ) not me.
Dylan Stewart
>Ingenuity Cooperation and division of labor clearly increase one's own prosperity, in that you can take on one task and trade the fruits of your labor with others, thus benefitting from all necessary jobs (farming, carpentry, smithing, tanning, etc.). Since cooperation is a binary concept—you either cooperate with another or you do not—, there is only one other way to increase your consumption. That is to improve and make more efficient these necessary jobs. A farmer accomplishes this with a tractor, a carpenter accomplishes this with power tools, a fisherman accomplishes this with a net, and so on. In essence, when people are allowed to experience the prosperity of cooperating with one another (which can only happen when everyone's LL&P is respected), they are more predisposed to the experimentation and innovation that drives technological progress and increased standards of living.
>Heroism Another natural outgrowth of cooperation. When you grow to depend on others for food, shelter, water, clothes, and so on, you start to see the value in respecting their LL&P. You stop saying "I won't steal from you" and start saying "I will make sure that others don't steal from you", because you realize that the farmer's plight, the butcher's plight, the carpenter's plight, and so on, are all your own plight. Here you see selfless and courageous individuals rise up to defend their communities against outside threats. Heroism emerges from the fruits of cooperation, and cooperative bonds can only exist between those who respect each other's LL&P.
Luke Clark
>the situation you described you live on someone else's property It's only someone else's property if I have given it to him, for my ownership and consent precede his ownership. Were you to abolish the state and give people's property to a band of oligarchs, that would most certainly be stealing.
Lucas Russell
I never claimed the last thing you said would happen and it wouldn't that's what goverments are for. What would happen is what I said - some people are better businessmen who make better decisions and aquire more capital, that's how big private societies would exist. Maybe I did too big the Luxembourg maybe after 2000 years of ancap that'd happen.
Brayden Davis
But again, for this to happen, everyone needs to sell their property voluntarily to these people. Before that, there are no private societies as you conceive them, and no unhousing of people will be justified according to natural property rights and principles of Lockean homesteading.
Jayden Gonzalez
There would be much smaller ones then, if it's size you argue about I do not care for it. Neighbours would have to band together and form at least some agreements to limit conflict that's how it'd start.
Isaiah Butler
In 30 years you could have private law societies like Hoppe describes. You don't have to "take" anything, you can buy, you can inherit or you can build.
Jaxon Allen
>Neighbours would have to band together and form at least some agreements to limit conflict that's how it'd start.
And no neighbors can sell the neighborhood or the ownership of his neighbors' property to a third party without the other property owners' consent. Your hypothesis is, as I understand it, that people would voluntarily sell their property to some larger entities, and yes, there's nothing illegitimate in that from a natural rights perspective.
Kayden Rogers
Is there anything else you want to ask about my beliefs? Honestly Hans Hoppe explains it best.
Oliver Martinez
>Is there anything else you want to ask about my beliefs? Not really, no. I'm actually decently acquainted with especially Hoppe's arguments for private defense, and I understand the basic catch of the "covenant ancapism" he espouses, but sometimes I like to approach the discussion as if from an outsider perspective. Thanks for the chat.
Nathaniel Hall
No problem, and thanks too.
Colton Price
Libertyfags are 2 steps away from enlightenment
Jaxon Cruz
Alright, I'll bite. I get that jews have a disproportionately large influence in our government and entertainment, and that they have altered them, so as to promote degenerate lifestyles amongst the goyim and neutralize us as a threat to their survival.
What threat does transhumanism pose to us?
Sebastian Williams
Here's just a preview of what's coming: >Designer babies that are super strong, super intelligent, genetically unique from all current humans >Body modifications that vastly improve strength, speed, stamina. Robotic legs, arms, muscle fibers >Cranial implants that grant perfect memory, boosted IQ's, the ability to surf internet in your brain >Gene therapies that can turn males into females on the DNA level. Alter behaviors, gene expression And slightly further down the line: >Biological immortality (think it's not possible? it's coming) >Advanced, self-evolving AI that far surpasses all human limitations >Post-human life forms that totally dominate all life on earth in every possible respect
This is the end of all all life as you know it. Everything will be assimilated
Joseph Collins
Hold the fuck on since when is transhumanism the enemy? Its humanity's destiny.
Christian Morgan
PRAGMATIC IDEA TIME: > Syrian refugees especially fake ones pose a problem > we currently have a welfare states that attract immigrants to leech and this triggers the Fascist & the Nazi
Okay so solution the first: > rather than worrying most about what to do with Syrian refugees we need to stop their flow in the first place > end the war in Syria, let Putin & Assad finish them off, cancel all backroom support of arms to literal west hating terrorists, don't even try to deny it CIA > In the meantime, the state military we currently have is the current means of defending people > allow & support Libert style charities/foundations to go to Syria to help aid the displaced people in their own country > maintain with other countries a safe zone for the charities to work, within safe Assad controlled territory, while sending enough military to protect the charities as they are citizens and we have a state military to protect them, this is not invasion or nation building, this is just moving their defense location to follow the citizens they tax to defend
Now with the flow of refugee's from Syria 99.5% reduced. How do we deal with the border and people coming for the welfare state? > open/closed is false dichotomy > ultimate goal is privatization > pragmatic approach is to maintain the current sponsorship + visa system > restrict welfare to citizens only > restrict citizenship as it is currently, with english/culture tests, maybe even extend the timeframe to 10 years as Leyonhjelm proposes in Australia > this means people who come here, need people to vouch/provide for them and they need to work and assimilate as much as possible before EVER thinking about becoming a citizen and leeching taxes/theft off the enslaved masses in the west
What do you guys think? I'm thinking open/closed borders is a bullshit decision for 2017/18 and we are approaching the Syrian refugee crisis at the tail end of the issue. All credit goes to literally Trump for the Syria solution.
Eli Wood
>Its humanity's destiny. I fucking hope not. It will be inhuman, monstrous. It will be the death of humanity
Daily Reminder: Everything has it's basis in these truths/arguments
The NAP, property rights, self-ownership, natural rights, liberty, everything we hold dear comes from this. > Life - Liberty - Property That is to say, oneself, the liberty to engage the use of our faculties in life/with the natural world, and the fruits of our labours. In other words.... > Self-ownership, Human Action, Property rights You own & are responsible for yourself, your actions & the effects of those actions. Resulting in... > The morality of consent & voluntaryism > The immorality of violence, coercion, initiating force, theft, murder, assault, rape, slavery
Sebastian Cook
I see what you're saying. You need to restructure it better so others can better distinguish your conclusion from the content of your argument. Here: >Designer babies that are super strong, super intelligent, genetically unique from all current humans >Body modifications that vastly improve strength, speed, stamina. Robotic legs, arms, muscle fibers >Cranial implants that grant perfect memory, boosted IQ's, the ability to surf internet in your brain >Gene therapies that can turn males into females on the DNA level. Alter behaviors, gene expression >Biological immortality (think it's not possible? it's coming) >Advanced, self-evolving AI that far surpasses all human limitations All of which culminate in: >(((Post-human life forms))) that totally dominate all life on earth in every possible respect
Gavin Gutierrez
I think personally, transhumanism goes against what it is to be human. How can one appreciate life without death? The soft/smooth without the hard/course? Everything is a connected duality that gives both meaning. Life to me is a great play, an act that will eventually end and the curtains will be drawn and transhumanism sounds like a living hell in anything but the sense of materialism & survival. Not for me mate.
Isaac Clark
Does this mean I as a citizen can arrest, jail or deport the sadistic antifa?
Mason Taylor
Remember when David Friedman visited these threads and BTFO you Hoppeans?
