Can we Please get a reprieve from all supremacy of any kind on this board: libertarian thread

Can we Please get a reprieve from all supremacy of any kind on this board: libertarian thread.
> discuss Libertarian issues
> free markets
> guns.
> drugs.
> taxation.
> anti-social justice warriors.
> anti-communism.
> anti-capitalism.
> ant-nationalism.
> anti-usury.
> anti-consumerism.
> anti-capitalism.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
youtu.be/wX5vKs4fqQ8
youtu.be/Yii1u2Lz-II
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Whats your alternative to capitalism then? Because I sure as hell wouldn't share my stuff with others for free lol.

>libertarians are anti-capitalism
*breathes in* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Free markets, Capitalism, and markets are not one and the same, Capitalism allows For the Richest To control The economy through Consumerism and Usury. Not much would change except you would be self-managed and you wouldn't have to pay rent because Property is dictated By occupancy not Through a government based deed.
You haven't done any research on traditional anarchism/libertarianism have you?

Right-libertarians would call my definition of capitalism as "corporatism" or "corporatocracy" But it really comes down to semantics.

bump/

Ah, yes, another libertarian who is a libertarian until somebody cons someone or is mean to someone. Sorry Gary Johnson didn't make it

"wouldn't have to pay rent" so you made the house yourself? And you're producing your electricity and clean water yourself ?

Nah I'm more of a ron paul libertarian dood. and have you Heard of Voluntarism? cause that's the basis for all libertarian thought.
No, you would buy the House you Just wouldn't pay rent to a landlord my dood. You just own the house you still buy it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

>No, you would buy the House you Just wouldn't pay rent to a landlord my dood
Barring an individual from buying a house and renting it out to others is inherently anti-capitalist

But what if you can't buy a house? If you don't have enough money up front? And the dude owning the house doesn't want to wait 20 years till you paid it off ? I'm honestly REALLY sceptical how the hell youre supposed to solve the general dilemma without capitalism

You would receive a loan from a credit union or mutual bank that you would pay as time goes on.

Hitler on Multiple-Cultures, from Mien Kamph

youtu.be/wX5vKs4fqQ8

...

No shit sherlock, Private property is theft when it is used to exploit people out of their money without a voluntary transaction.

hey i haqv

Me thinks you protest too much.

"Private property is theft" HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

Oh, my friend, you have a lot to learn. when we say private property is theft we don't mean it in the same way a communist would, we mean it in the sense of usury a person can own and live on private land its just that this land shouldn't be used to steal or con people.

Say you own two Houses right? and you only live in one of them and you have never even set foot on the property of the other one, you are depriving someone of living there possibly inadvertently. Mutualists don't want to steal your shit so long as you actually use it.

If you wanna use somebodies property you have to obviously pay for it. Or do I understand your argument wrong that they are supposed to share their land with you for free?

OK, that settles it. You can fuck off back to /leftypol/ now because Ron Paul would already have laughed you out of here. So-called "left-libertarianism" is as much an oxymoron as smart memeflag poster

So you basically wanna force people to give everything to the "community" that goes over the basics of living? heh. Good luck with that.

Everything that I worked for is mine and stays mine. Why should people even build additional houses if they just get seized anyway.

so say a Large banker or landowners such as The Rockefeller or Rothschilds who own a vast amount of property but never actually use it.
Nope, we want hyper-individuality you would never be deprived of the product of your labor and forced to give it to anyone.

why would you Build a second house if you never use it?

It wouldn't be "seized" if you occupy it you get to keep anything you make so long as your property is not neglected.

You seriously misunderstand traditional anarchism and libertarianism I suggest reading "what is property"

You can't say private property is only legitimate when you like how it's being used.

If I own a home, I have the moral authority to do with it what I please, and if I want to rent it out to someone I can. There is no violation of any voluntaryist priciples there.

Because I may need it one day. What if I have a family and I want to provide my daughter her own house when she leaves the "nest" so to speak? I can't wait another 20 years to provide her a house or scare away some hippies appropriating my 2nd house. What if I had 2 houses because my wife had her own but she moved into mine but later on we get divorced ?

You're acting like the home would stay perfectly fine forever if somebody moves in. Reparation, restoration etc has to be done from time to time and who the hell pays that? And what if the dudes who moved in are people I don't know and complete cunts that damage the building or live like apes in it?

for rental, family, or sale. why would you need a second pair of shoes if you never wear them?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

Who would define "neglected "?

What if I go on vacation? Can my home be reclaimed? After exactly how many days, hours, seconds, milliseconds of my absence does my home transition to an unowned state?

so i get your bicycle if you never use it? i mean, there are plenty of people out there that could use it more than you...

do you actually use Both pairs of shoes on a regular basis?

yeah sure.

I'm not reading your Wikipedia article, you started the thread so make the arguments

>anti-everything
What are you pro- of ? Do you support democracy for instance?

Yes you linked me that already several times but I see no benefit for me as houseowner in letting othe rpeople use my property for free. High risks no rewards wow.

So people can get and wear my summer shoes when I am wearing my winter boots? Can I veto those with very bad foot odor or am I not allowed?

That sentence provided no clarification of the supposed distinction between your ideas and marxist ideas, it's a bunch of nothing.

Don't ask stupid questions you're obviously too far behind the discussion so either catch up or shut up

Ok , in short Mutualism is a form of Libertarian voluntary socialism which advocates for the ownership of the property to be dictated by Occupancy, so If you actually live in a house and you have another house for say storage you are "occupying" the house since it is not being wasted. Larger corporations would be turned into Co-ops ran by the workers and Smaller business would be ran individually with employees being freelancers. A credit union or a mutual bank would distribute loans to its members (The members of a community perhaps) through Voluntary donations to pay for public services while collecting tolls from those who are not members as well as a small amount of interest just barely enough to cover the cost of The management. This is the layman's version of mutualism and it can go way more in-depth.

Marx actually stole a lot of ideas from Proudhon and added stuff like usury from the collective and the dictatorship of the proletariat and anti-markets, Mutualists are market anarchists.

>larger corporations would be turned into co ops

Okay now you've lost me. Turned into co ops by who? People would not be allowed to voluntarily organize into a tranditional business organization and purchase labor? People are not allowed to freely sell their own labor? So people do not own themselves? How can you reconcile that with "voluntarism"?

"A credit union or a mutual bank would distribute loans to its members (The members of a community perhaps) through Voluntary donations to pay for public services while collecting tolls from those who are not members"

Sooo.... basically having not enough money because humans are humans and then you gonna tax them? And who pays for the houses slowly degrading over time? That would cost a sum each month. And maybe, just MAYYBE that's called a rent!

"Larger corporations would be turned into Co-ops ran by the workers"

You mean seizing them from their owners. Just call it what it is.

The main reason why your whole system is flaud is because that you forget that humans are egoistical beings. We don't do shit for free if we feel used. And thats what would happen sooner or later. Some would be "more equal" than others. Whew you're basically a commie just with a little bit of a hippie mixed into the cake.

You're not a market anarchist if you dicatate what people can and can not do with their own property or labor.

flawed*

So pretty much everything There would be allowed in a mutualist system, The co-op thing would be gradual and Personally, I believe that Nietzche's reevaluation of values would Pretty much take care of this.
Im not .

No taxes would be abolished, please note that taxation is not voluntary, the wiki article can explain it far easier then i could.

Gradual is meaningless, would it be coercive?

Didn't you claim to be a voluntarist? That would be definition make you a market anarchist

If it's voluntary it would fail. That's not much of a new thing if you think about it.

s while collecting tolls from those who are not members

But what if non-members tell you to fuck off? If they don't wanna be "generous" ? Would you take their stuff by force?

Yes it would be entirely voluntary, Much of An-cap ideology and theory is derived from Proudhon.

> But what if non-members tell you to fuck off? If they don't wanna be "generous" ? Would you take their stuff by force?

No, they would be denied access and if they could not pay up if they become violent themselves they should expect it to be reciprocated.
> If it's voluntary it would fail. That's not much of a new thing if you think about it.

That depends on your definition of failure we dont want to seize anything from anyone if they don't like the way a community is leaning they are free to stay or leave but it would be in their best interest to go with the flow.

Are you not going to address the contradiction you made by claiming you are not a market anarchist but are a voluntarist?

This is one of the basic things we will properly not be ablee to find common ground. In my opinion every big operation that relies on generosity will fail. No exceptions. Imagine running a country just by donations. That wont work. You have to force people to pay for community things like streets because else more than half of them wouldn't give you a penny.

I AM an an cap and I'm pointing out contradictions in your "theory"

I never denied Being a Market Anarchist.

Read "practical anarchy" by molyneux and you might find there are actually plenty well thought out alternatives to a central monopoly on violence

Literally right there

The Voluntary donations come from The members of the Credit union or bank, not The people using the service.

what i meant was im not dictating what people can and cant do with their property.

And, yer wrong.

youtu.be/Yii1u2Lz-II

How nigger?

>when the kikes and commies start getting scared
>b-but what about libertarianism, goy?
>yes, I believe in rights now!
>can't silence us or deport us now because now we're on your side!

You said people cannot create a voluntary agreement to allow access to their property in exchance for something from the other party

you just sound like a incoherent babbling drunk.

I'm most certainly not gonna buy and read a new book just because you couldn't deliver an answer to the main problem in your utopian system: Greed. Human nature.

Kek

No. Go fuck yourself.

I suggest "what is property" There's a Pdf out there I'm sure for free, it goes a lot more in-depth into Mutualism and traditional anarchist economics. Any anarchist who is against markets isn't an anarchist.

I'm a fan of Stirner myself.

Paleolibertarianism/Hoppeanism is the only viable form. All else succumb to pathological egoism, corporate excess, moral degeneracy, or forced cake-baking.

It's free and not very long. No one denied greed in human nature. The existence of green does not make necessary coercive social organization and you have a very primitive conceptualization of the concept so read the book or shut the fuck up

Let me explain something to you.

As long as we as the different beings we are continue to live in each others territories en masse we will have more trouble than resolutions and more war than peace.

This is about dignity and respect. True diversity is each group living inside its own borders. Doing otherwise causes massive issues.

Do you understand?

then you will really like this dank maymay

Not mutualism since the Majority of Corporations would become co-ops. we really don't have a set opinion on borders.

Are you refering to racial groups? How does that counter any argument put forth by an ancap?

Nice meme My friend.

Why do you assume the majority of corps would become co ops absent coercion? Co ops tend to be poorly run and less efficient than other business organization so they would be out competed

>very primitive conceptualization
Can you prove that people have changed since the group known as homo sapiens emerged? Social systems eventually corrupt, especially if they grow in size and complexity. The brains behind it all haven't changed, though the tools and ideas might have.

I'm quite fond of mutualism and find it quite complementary to libertarianism. Currently exploring the development of technology to bring it to more people.

At the end of the day, however, it's fundamentally an economic system and doesn't really address political concerns.

>when you realise that libertarianism fails in the free market of ideas

I do not respond to insults, grow up.

Nigger I won't start reading one of your books now just because you can't actually answer my question properly.
Nothing in the world works without some kind of force. Be it physical, moral, or materialistic reward. You and your anarchist friends would end up homeless pretty soon pretty fast because you severly misunderstand the reality of the situation.

I'm not making that argument and I don't have to. I was refering to your other posts in which you outlined a stupid reason that voluntary collection for services would not work as if no one had ever thought of it before and you just single handedly deconstructed anarchocapitalism.

You asked a meaningless abstract question so no I see no point in attempting to answer it, leave the discussion if you're this far behind

Because with the disolution of property and personal wealth also creates an inability to control borders. This results in war.

Only by agreeing to borders and boundries, personal and group property can we properly negotiate trade between different groups.

Otherwise those who do not agree to your comunist based system will just take and control.

Let me be clear.. anarchists are not against the use of force, we are against the INITIATION of force. Is that distinction within your cognitive reach?

"meaningless abstract question". Yeah no. It's neither abstract nor meaningless. My main point was how are you supposed to get enough money to support everyone without forcing people to do so by force or with taxes. Because donations sure as hell won't work.

I'm not OP, I have been argueing against his idea of so called "left anarchy" throughout the thread. I am an ancap, that does not mean I advocate the dissolution of property, quite the opposite

>we are against the INITIATION of force

Who decides what is a legitimate initiation of force?

>loves the free market
>doesnt anticipate corporate tyranny

Ancaps or libetarians have the most fucked up logic, even moreso than communist.

>Enough money to support everyone

What the hell does that even mean? That's my point, that is a meaningless question. Who needs to be supported and what does support constitute?

"Nope, we want hyper-individuality you would never be deprived of the product of your labor and forced to give it to anyone."

That directly contradicts the statement of your partner in crime, so to speak. Maybe try to actually answer for once instead of weaseling around it ?
If you can't win an argument, try to degrade the cognitive abilities of the person you debate. You sure got no better plan mate?

Initiation of force is by definition illegitimate fuck tard

Food, Living space, electricity, clean water, clothes, the good old basic stuff.

Can you point out one instance of corporate tyranny that wasn't directly enabled by government coercion?