When did you grow out of libertarianism/ancap? I was 22

When did you grow out of libertarianism/ancap? I was 22.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw
mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/
youtube.com/watch?v=-q1fSNzYNhg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_frontier
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I was never into LARPing.

I am at center and I have always been at center. It works perfectly here.

You only get breadsticks if you order food
So no, they're not free

Never been into make-believe crap
Big gov or bust, is the only reasonable choice.

23. I realized that libertarian philosophy and economics were bullshit, moved into anarcho-communism for a few years, grew disgusted by how SJWs had completed hijacked it, and now I guess I'm a small-l libertarian again, just a much less enthusiastic one.

NAP is a myth

I just did a few days ago. But I still think that if it was implementable it would be the best ideology/political system.

I was about 17

22 is too late, you are already mental damaged forever.

Amusing, but you DO realize that the "free" bread sticks are folded into the cost of your meal, right?

Is there any trace of a movement for AnCaps IRL? I get a sense that it's mostly teenagers shitposting online.

Around 19 I think. Went full-blown Nationalist/Reactionary Modernist.

>I want to take your hardworking money to give it to Pedro and Tyrone

I've been authoritarian right since I was born. Bless my mom

>moved into anarcho-communism for a few years

This is such a diametric shift that I hardly believe you had principles to begin with.

When I realized the NAP doesn't apply to commies.

libertarianism is all fun and games until someone becomes a multi-billionaire.

according to libertarians, this is a good thing because it will be even easier for him to create new business, significantly improving the country's economy and increasing employment positions. but this almost never happens.

what really happens is that he will start buying out other companies and create monopolies, significantly reducing production quality and manipulating prices. he will soon become financially content, and stop actively increasing his estates. instead, he will start giving "gifts" to all private media and newspapers, he will start buying out mps or senators, he will start funding political campaigns, etc... until he pretty much controls a significant part of the public opinion and the establishment. bonus points if he is a jew.
we've seen this happening since antiquity, it's not just a speculation.

Moving from one kind of anarchism to another isn't a "diametric shift", tripfag. I've always cared more about freedom than economics and property rights bullshit.

I think we need a movement of sorts that combines the realities of race and tribalism with libertarianism. My problem with a lot of people in the "alt right" is that they are critical of capitalism and embrace people like hitler who couldn't have possibly been worse for the white race. Many of the best whites died in WWII for nothing.

Call it biolibertarianism or whatever, but rejecting the system that grew the white population more than anything else, capitalism, seems dumb to me. Peace, free trade, free markets, but with an understanding that people like to associate with people that are like themselves and incentivizing movement of other races with welfare benefits damages everyone involved.

i never grew out of it, just realized that it's a pipe dream meme ideology.

i still believe we should have a lot of libertarian qualities in our society, but most of them don't work.

anarcho-communism doesn't exist. You can't have communism without violent expropriation of the means of production. It's an outright assault on freedom. Moreover, it can't be stateless, because you'll need a centralized group of people to oversee the gulags and labor camps.

The Left is stacking the deck so they can implement Communism in the West.

In this, both Libertarians and Nat Socs, and anything inbetween, can agree.

>autistic ancaps can't recognize jokes

This same autism and strict adherence to MUH PRINCIPLES without any recognition of the real world is what makes you an ancap in the first place.

I never thought libertarian/anarchism was good idea since I lived around niggers


idealogies is depended on the people/culture
Somalia and Liberia is living proof that freedom+niggers=disaster


which is why a I believe Libertarian Conservatism is the only kind that is reasonable, it could work if people had values, than again chimpouts are usually random as fuck regardless

Many people on the alt-right say that they'd love a libertarian society, it just wouldn't work in a non-white society. Basically they say "let's get our white society first, and then I'd love to defend the merits of libertarianism at our first town hall in the new society."

You can't have property rights without violence either.

Never.

It will save us.

A covenant has no limitations, National Socialism does.

Not An Arguments: The Thread

youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

i can tell you exactly when i'll "grow out of" anarchy: when christ, our king, returns

monopolies cannot exist in a free market

When did you grow out of politics?

Self-defense isn't 'violence', as you know. It doesn't violate the NAP.

>inb4 stealing these machines from the guy who paid for them is self-defense kekekekeke

>libertarianism/ancap

Which do you mean specifically?

and like other user's said


it is a pipe dream

Factual statement.

I'd like to know how you plan to defend yourself (rather your property, which is what we were actually discussing) without using violence.

if i produce 1 million units of milk per day and the last 10 competitors of mine produce 1 thousand units each, i don't think it's appropriate to say that there is no monopoly.

I was an anarchist when I was 18. Luckily it didn't last long. I weren't an edgelord though, I wasn't antifa or dressing like some freak with anarchy symbols. I just simply hated how the ones in authority are all retards and incapable for leadership.

Yeah and everyone is equal in a communist state :^)
Wake up, Stefo.

I think he means and thing that leans on the freedom scales that seems unrealistic

>in my fictional world i just made up right now to debunk your argument, there's a monopoly, Q E D
georgios and dimitri awesome denbts great pay

I never was a libertarian except socially liberal when I was a teen.
Libertarianism is a distinctly American disease.

holy shit
welcome to 1963
even keynesians have admitted more recently that monopoly wasn't possible in a free market

By using a gun? What kind of stupid question is that.

Okay, I will concede to that if you explain me the exactly why can't monopolies appear in free market.
Don't just spout memes and your ideas. Explain what exactly prevents monopoly from appearing.

nah.

if people (niggers) fail to live up to free-market principles, that's not the fault of the principled, or of the principles themselves. that's just grounds for exile, ostracization, whatever it takes. anything that's peaceful.

So you're going to shoot them? That's violence.

>autism: the post

i would be absolutely amazed if there was even one person who rejected even one small relevant aspect of libertarianism or anarchism because he didn't actually know the distinction between aggression and self-defense and thought libertarians/ancaps were in fact advocating some sort of strict literal "turn the other cheek" passive nonsense.

is this even possible?

Why are you not answering

You don't get to whine about violence being necessary for other political philosophies when you're still relying on violence to enforce your property rights- you simply define it as "okay" violence. Guess what? That's what every other political philosophy does too.

yes, but birds of a feather flock together. any society that is built around an ideology will eventually be corrupted by people bothering to think for themselves, and as thus the society can not remain stable for large amounts of time.

look at the united states. it had a very refined view for it's time, and it gave rise to some of the best advancements ever made by humanity, but now it's a mockery of what it once was. the initial ideals are still there, you can find them by just going to a library. people do not want to listen though, they want to feel comforted.

over time as more people begin to subscribe to different ideologies, they will begin to fight for their own. this is inevitable and nothing you can do will ever stop it. a libertarian society can not stay stable.

I described myself as a libertarian for a while when I was about 18. I was really just a liberal though. I've since grown up and become a communist.

sorry i was busy. here you go

mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/
youtube.com/watch?v=-q1fSNzYNhg

>you're relying on violence to enforce your property rights with self-defense
>so you can't complain about aggressive violence that isn't used to defend anything
thanks for your input

Pretty much.
For start, it's literally impossible to create a libertarian, let alone an-cap society today. Those ideologies are fringe ideologies and not even 1% of population supports them.
But even if you could magically use your wand and create an-cap paradise, human nature would do it's own and in some time you'd literally have same shit we have today.
States, nations, religions and so on.
However this is lost to an-caps and similar idiots because they are autistic people who don't understand humans. It's literally Autism: The Ideology.
On utopia scale even communism is below.

Are "lolbertarian hate threads" a daily thing now?

Curiously, I was also 22

15

i realized that allowing gays and open borders would lead to the demise of anything conservative

15

i realized that allowing gays and open borders would lead to the demise of anything conservative

i still agree with them about everything economically

not socially

when i realized it was a tool of the jews

16

it was 2gay4me

the united states is not a society, it is a government.

the founders intended the states to experiment with law and order independently, to isolate grave errors from each other as they would be tested in one state before another, and to have provable, experimental results to draw upon when theorizing that which would be workable; to see first what had worked in state X that would secure liberty and increase the blessings of free enterprise in the other states.

the framers immediately set about to take that away entirely and they succeeded. they cut off the possibility of ideologies proving themselves next door to each other by centralizing power, setting the nation up for the civil war. all progress we made was in spite of the "refined" mythology of the US as one nation, one "we the people." but as that cancer grows, then you get people dropping out of the so-called social contract.

when the framers locked themselves in the PA state house and went up to the second floor to defraud us out of our confederacy, a sufficiently forward-looking libertarian society would have kept them there indefinitely as a prison.

the real problem is raising the level of sophistication and education of a sufficient amount of the nation so as to innoculate the society against all this meddling.

Don't quote me fucking Mises.
Explain me in your own words why is monopoly not possible in free market.
Also, did you ever consider world outside of America isn't in same position, culturally, socially, geographically, as America in 19th century?
Did you ever stop and think: wow, Americans were literally few million people owning a vast empty resource-filled continent, isolated from great empires of Europe?
Did these thoughts ever cross your mind?
Did you ever consider how bloody was the frontier, despite the fact land and resources were abundant?

>i have aged
>i have simultaneously adopted a series of increasingly bad ideas
>there is a conclusion to be drawn in light of these two facts

I remember when this place was more a of a 50/50 ratio of natsoc and libertarians/ancaps


but the natsocs belligerent stupidity and loudness drove literally everyone away

I wouldn't bother writing an essay on Sup Forums mate, linking to mises arguments is absolutely fine.

Basically anyone who had a monopoly and used it to raise prices would create a strong incentive for new entrants. In the real world, monopolies like telefonica in mexico are usuallly created by the state.

I'm not anarcho-cap btw.

ok jamal

I used to be a fascist when I was about 13 and a conservative when I was 16. I think you guys' political development has gone in reverse.
If you don't get more left-wing as you age then you're a bit retarded.

To explain you further: I don't give a fuck what Americans do to your country. I believe libertarianism, even if possible to implement, would ruin you. And that's actually great for the rest of world.
But we're simply anonymous people, and as an anonymous person on Cambodian horse rider forum, I'm being honest and I'm laughing at you for your idiocy.
I'm also laughing at how fucking ignorant are you of the world outside of America.
You're totally oblivious to the fact there are vastly different cultures and ways of life.
No, you presume entire world is like (white) Americans, only flavored, and present libertarianism as some universal system. You're naive retards.
But by all means, go ahead. Libertarians, Bernbots, Shillary fans, Drumpfarts, spics, future sure is bright for your country.
Not a single sane leader or a movement.

>reiterate that
i knew from that flag you would have trouble reading english.

>Did you ever consider how bloody was the frontier, despite the fact land and resources were abundant?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_frontier

>American frontier
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>"Wild West" redirects here. For other uses, see Wild West (disambiguation).
>Dykstra argues that the violent image of the cattle towns in film and fiction is largely myth.
>The image of a Wild West filled with countless gunfights was a myth based on repeated exaggerations.
>Murdoch, David (2001). The American West: The Invention of a Myth. University of Nevada Press. p. vii. ISBN 978-0874173697.
>DiLorenzo, Thomas J. "The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality". The Independent Institute.
>Beth E. Levy, Frontier Figures: American Music and the Mythology of the American West (University of California Press; 2012)

even the jews know you're wrong.

you're not doing too good tonight.

thanks for the example

>OP doesn't realize that the "free" breadsticks here are "free with purchase" and are an incentive to buy the slightly more expensive pasta at Olive Garden
You are a faggot and your picture is wrong.

well i didn't slowly change over time like you and that other guy. and "when i was X" for X < 30 is not going to move me to consider anything you have to say.

christ called me back to him and now i am anarchist until he returns. that's my story.

that said, i am perfectly capable of arguing on behalf of libertarians for their ideas up to where it becomes inappropriate, and arguing against them, in kind.

Paleolibertarian here who never bought into the AnCap utopia.

Reason is simple. In real world, especially outside of America, no one was ever that insane to argue power should transfer from people, at least nominally, to moneyed corporations. Fetishism of individual too was radical thought only existing among fringes of society.
It's really simple. It's not really about tangible things like laws or money, it's about ideology. It's about way of thought.
Outside of America, no one will disagree with ''need of nation, as whole, is supreme law''. Even old Romans, who were pretty ''libertarian'' in some ways, wouldn't disagree with this statement.
Early Americans, like Jefferson, were extremely wary of big firms and banks.
Again, Americans are specific breed, they appeared in specific conditions, from a specific ideology.
World is composed of many many cultures. Libertarians fall into same trap as communists, they try hard to ignore all these unpleasant factors and try to make some universal model that could never work in real life conditions.
I'm not talking about economy. I'm talking about destroying the legitimacy of the state as a representative of people, and replacing it with entities that are neither representative nor accountable to people.
It's a dangerous game.

When I realized it would only give the jews more powers

>there are people on this board who fell for the libertarianism meme

>Historian Waddy W. Moore uses court records to show that on the sparsely settled Arkansas frontier lawlessness was common. He distinguished two types of crimes: unprofessional (dueling, crimes of drunkenness, selling whiskey to the Indians, cutting trees on federal land) and professional (rustling, highway robbery, counterfeiting).[230] Criminals found many opportunities to rob pioneer families of their possessions, while the few underfunded lawmen had great difficulty detecting, arresting, holding, and convicting wrongdoers. Bandits, typically in groups of two or three, rarely attacked stagecoaches with a guard carrying a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun; it proved less risky to rob teamsters, people on foot, and solitary horsemen,[231] while bank robberies themselves were harder to pull off due to the security of the establishment.[232] According also to historian Brian Robb, the earliest form of organized crime in America was born from the gangs of the Old West.[233]
You're just quoting opinions that suit you.
As you can see, in that abundance of land and resources, some humans found it easier to rob others than to earn as normal people.
That's how it is in life. Humans are sadly not rational actors, in plenty of situation.
>even the jews
Ah, my favorite time of lolbertardian, the anti-Semitic one.
Did you know Rand (Rosenbaum), Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman were all fucking Jews?

I'm convinced Ancaps are really just big fans of cyberpunk dystopia and want to purposefully make it a reality. No one can be that retarded on purpose.

This is what these idiots don't understand.
Nation, religion, language, culture, ethnicity, those are things around which people, majority of people, mobilize.
Those things are evolution of means to ensure cooperation of certain group.
State is simply an evolution, an organism, nominally detached from personal interest or desire for profit, concerned with welfare of society as whole.
These things are powerful symbols for uniting people. Once you destroy these symbols, with what will you replace them?
Pure materialism, consumerism, chase for profit, narrow self-interest?
It's absolutely not sustainable.

I never was one I just sort of slowly transistioned from cuck socialism to a weird mix of national socialism for the state and extrememly liberal social positions which borderline could be called libertarianism except that I think they should only apply to a restrictive group of people I call American citizens, the definition of which may need to be revised.

>Okay, I will concede to that if you explain me the exactly why can't monopolies appear in free market.

>Explain me in your own words why is monopoly not possible in free market.

Why are you not answering Basically anyone who had a monopoly and used it to raise prices would create a strong incentive for new entrants. In the real world, monopolies like telefonica in mexico are usuallly created by the state.

>I'm not talking about economy.

lmao

What made you change to a more degenerate position?

I simply switched subject from pointless discussion about economy to a discussion where I can explain my point easier.
I'm not an economist, and economy is not everything in fucking life.

You could always just post this.

Nothing is more degenerate than individualism. Nothing.
And your picture is a childish exaggeration.

cuck

I disagree with lots of your statements that "no-one outside of America disagrees with".

Corporations are just groups of people co-operating (shareholders, employees, customers). Corporations are much more accountable to people than the state is, you can choose not to buy an iPhone but taxes are mandatory. They only hold very limited political power.

Capitalism is often unpopular, as you note but it has been incredibly successful all over the world with some variations. Look at Singapore or Chile.

Oi ur a cheeky one. The point, which must have escaped you, is that self defense is not violence.

pic related

>forming opinions based on an over simiplified internet meme
>being this retarded

wew lad

Nothing is more degenerate than collectivism. Keep the fuck to yourself you Borg shit-skin.
Tell me wherein the exaggeration lies. I'll wait - literally forever.

Where is the oversimplification? What "more complicated" proposition do you have that assuages the worry that picture gives rise to? Hmm?

>le cuck meme eks dee
Using the words of your meme "ideologists"
>not a argument

What made you think it was ok to steal?

...

...

I'm still pretty much 90% liberal.

...

>Nothing is more degenerate than individualism