What would a libertarian society be like...

What would a libertarian society be like? Since libertarian is clearly the most morally correct and rational political philosophy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FHPI1emZFVg
plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/
youtu.be/FHPI1emZFVg?t=14m21s
youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0
youtube.com/watch?v=-T2i9-0PL1o
daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION-5.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

One lacking a collective delusion in which people think it's permissible to steal other people's property for their own ends.

Yeah it's really easy to be libertarian, everything is always someone else's problem/decision

>everything is always someone else's problem/decision
You want other people controlling your life, leaf?

It allows foie gras. It's not moral.

>What would a libertarian society be like?
It depends HOW libertarian. Would there be income taxes, or taxes of any kind?

Before you accuse me of conflating libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism consider that if you follow the NAP to its logical conclusion you end up with an ancap society.

youtube.com/watch?v=FHPI1emZFVg

It would at least be cheaper w/o drug wars and drug related violence

It would likely be harder but more fulfilling.

Hard workers and entrepreneurs would do well. Poorfags would be worse off and hopefully die of starvation.

Essentially survival of the fittest vs what we have now which is parasites getting fat while the host dies.

trying saying all that when your getting raped

No, the only problem I have with libertarians is their (seemingly) wishy washy stance on law and shit like that. I remember watching an interview with Austin Peterson and he literally would not say that murder should be illegal, he just kept saying "Well it's a state thing who's the federal government to say something Is illegal"

Which I totally get on most issues but when it's something so cut and dry as murder a lot of libertarians just outright refuse to take a solid stance on things.

Right libertarianism was invented by rich people to cuck poor people into advocating for their interests.
You are fucking idiots.

Legality has absolutely nothing to do with morality.
See youtube.com/watch?v=FHPI1emZFVg

There are far sided libertarians just like any other political group, all humans have natural rights including life, taking a life is not acceptable

i dont think this is a good idea guys i mean im really worried about this i wish more people took this serious because im seriously terrified about this prospect right now

Looks like an interesting video, I'll definitely watch it at some point user. Again I'm not exactly well versed on the subject so if you have any other info arguing for libertarianism then post it and I'll give it a look

Libertarianism sounds great until you look deeper than the dude weed stuff.

Governments need to exist to do government stuff namely police, fire, and infrastructure stuff.

Libertarianism is a meme

FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE!

If you want to know what "law" actually is in the Western world, this is the most prominent vein of what people think constitutes the essence of law - legal positivism.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/

Reading that - which is just a brute presentation of the position - *should*, I would hope, help you displace value from human law to some kind of independent ethics.

they would look like this

Depends on how severe the libertarianism is. Could be complete anarchy, or a greater society as a whole.

Libertarianism can only thrive in an intelligent society, which we do not have.

Because government bureaucrats are obviously more intelligent than the general populace, and *totally* work in other people's interests and not their own.
Yeah.
Brilliant.

>Because government bureaucrats are obviously more intelligent than the general populace

Except they are.

The delusion is so real.
youtu.be/FHPI1emZFVg?t=14m21s
Timed right where you ought to hear it.

...

Came here to say this

Tattooed girls are ALWAYS SLUTS

And you call me delusional?

Do you really think Tyrone and Jamal adhere to the same moral code as you or I?

No shit no one should feel forced to do shit, but again, our society, collectively, is not intelligent enough for that. You're living in la-la land if you think everyone will be on board with Libertarian ideals.

>Megan, Unemployed

FTFY

If Tyrone and Jamal suicide-by-cop that's their own prerogative.

But back to bureaucrats and their "intelligence" - youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0
youtube.com/watch?v=-T2i9-0PL1o

A libertarian society is one in which the government has a very limited role, and two basic functions.

1. To preserve civil liberties.
2. To stage mass public executions of communists.

I'm an Anarcho-fascist.

Remember, it only violates the nonaggression principal if it's force against a another libertarian. Killing a communist doesn't violate the NAP because it is a form of self defense.

a focus on economic investment and growth

a focus on rational ethics over mind-numbing religious ethics

thus prosperity in both the material and spiritual realms

>Remember, it only violates the nonaggression principal if it's force against a another libertarian. Killing a communist doesn't violate the NAP because it is a form of self defense
Because thoughts are violence. I think you'd fit in more comfortably with SJWs.

...

>libertarianism is anarchism
LET IT DIE LET IT DIE

Thoughts are not violence, avocation of violence is a threat. Being a communist isn't violence, advocating communism, is.

By advocating the destruction of private property they advocate the use of physical force and are thus signing their death warrant.

I have a hard time believing that libertarian society would ever work because, for starters, it would require most of us to be reason-loving, open-minded and logically moral people that don't get all up in each other's shit.
Sorry to be pessimistic, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

>What would a libertarian society be like?

Somalia

>I have a hard time believing that libertarian society would ever work because, for starters, it would require most of us to be reason-loving, open-minded and logically moral people that don't get all up in each other's shit.

Sounds like we need Pinochet-minarchism.

...

Communism isn't necessarily violent. Read the "dirty filthy hippies" part of pic related.

Edgy 13 year old anarchists arent the same as normal libertarians. The government is a necessary evil but still shouldnt be abolished

Necessary for what, exactly?

The person with the most force would take over.

Libertarian society can't exist for long because it's self defeating.

Anarchy is not libertarian.

Libertarians want individual rights but not to infringe the rights of others.

A judicial system and police force are necessary to a libertarian state to ensure individual rights are protected.

>Communism isn't necessarily violent. Read the "dirty filthy hippies" part of pic related.

Dirty filthy hippies have to get that property to share from somewhere, and we all know they are not going to work for it, because if they wanted to do that they are on the wrong end of the political spectrum.

>This is bait.

The fact you think I'm joking saddens me.

>statism isn't necessarily violence

The problem with libertarians is that they are jealous and envious that Trump is doing what they wish they could do. If they would just know their role and shut their mouths this election year, Trump could really pave the way for them.

>and we all know they are not going to work for it
That's not knowledge. They can very well want to produce value themselves. I can't stand collectivism either but that doesn't mean you can erect faulty arguments and have them fly.

...

Don't step on snek

You can have no state and "share wealth and property" voluntarily. It's not impossible - just not my cup of tea.

>libertarian
>moral
>rational

Chose one pothead!

Sage this Hillary superpac shill thread!

>Libertarians
>Morally correct

... One of the major flaws of the philosophy is that it puts no checks on moral degeneracy.

Learn the anatomy of ducks dumbass.
Ducks breathe through their tongues and their throats are designed by blocked up by large fish, so they don't feel pain. They can breathe and they aren't in pain during the feedings for foie gras production.
Fucking liberals.

What I find funny is the Anarcho-communists who use the definition of anarchism "A system in which only legitimate hierarchies may exist.

To me they are saying. I am an anarchist, but I do believe in some hierarchies, but only the legitimate ones.
Is just like saying, I am an atheist, but I do believe in some Gods, but only the legitimate ones.

I like this definition of anarchy, I just don't like the word, I feel like minarchism is more appropriate as hierarchies are just a natural consequence of existence and are unavoidable.

youtu.be/FHPI1emZFVg?t=14m21s

law
prisons
closed borders
national defense
management of shared facilities
enforcement of contracts

>he believes in a literal oxymoron
>not sarcastic

>You can have no state and "share wealth and property" voluntarily.
It's not theoretically impossible, but it is practically impossible on a universal scale

It's degenerate to tell someone what they can and can't do with their own body on their own property.

>That picture of Stefan paired with that comment

Top kek.

you forget that libertarians push for tariffs

Everyone thinks that libertarians society would be almost anarchy.

Its really just what America is supposed to be
"for the people, by the people"
but a fucking leaf would never understand that perspective

The freedom to fail:
as a person
as a tribe
as a nation

Objectively that's not true on all counts.
daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

>Morally correct
Lol what?
>Libertarians excel in an attribute that is based in collectivism and altruism

Stupid leftists.
Most peaceful cities on Earth are Tokyo, Osaka and Singapore; 2 have deep-rooted history of Confucian philosophy, while the other one was literally created by a guy who based his country off of Confucian teachings. While they're butchering a lot of his teachings, because of modern day globalism and capitalism, they're still standing as world leaders in peace.

Analetics:
[2:3] The Master said: “If you govern the people legalistically and control them by punishment,
they will avoid crime, but have no personal sense of shame. If you govern them by means of virtue and control them with propriety, they will gain their own sense of shame, and thus
correct themselves.”

Confucius taught "practicing honour". Most of his teachings are foreign to us, even national socialists, but chivalry back then would understand. The "west" as you think it is, isn't really what people say it is, and it's not falling; the west has already fallen. It fell when it absolved the monarchies and aristocracies, and replaced it with papers and laws created by men elected and voted in by people with money. We're a product of greed, and people are greedy today; they don't work for the sake of benefiting themselves and society, but they work to get money; such isn't a life worth preserving. You're all faggots, the left, the right; they're all classically leftist anyway. The real rightwing died long ago.

>Since libertarian is clearly the most morally correct and rational political philosophy
There isn't a libertardian country on the planet, and for good reason. I take that back, there are some, but those countries are run by warlords.

>you forget that libertarians push for tariffs

Please elaborate Mr. Leaf
In all sincerity
Tell me how the true upper or ruling class benefits from libertarianism

How does citizenship and personal sovereignty aid the globalist agenda

>literal oxymoron

Tell me where what I'm advocating violates the NAP.

The existence of a state that may not use Aggressive physical force.
A state which may impose tariffs on nations which have armies as reparations for their aggression by even having said armies.
Taxes on employers due to the coercive nature of employment.
Voluntarily funded concentration camps for anyone who disagrees with the NAP.

youtu.be/FHPI1emZFVg?t=14m21s

Do you have any original thoughts, or do you just spam ancap links?

>?

Tariffs on nations that have standing armies do not violate the NAP because that nation is being the aggressor by even having an army.

It's easier to point someone to a resource than it is explicitly enumerating how exactly they're wrong on every count. I'm making D&D characters right now.

communism doesn't work on a massive scale because people need price incentives to give a shit about others outside their tribal group

if you actually believe marxist concepts like the labor theory of value and surplus value then you might as well go back to reading a book on economics

>Tell me where what I'm advocating violates the NAP.
The fact that you're a fascist? That's what I'm saying you're so retarded you believe you can have a stateless fascist society

how the fuck do you pay for society without taxes?

There was a time in American history before the income tax

Because Confucian philosophy results in such great countries.
Its all a mish mash now. There's no perfect system, there's no 'pure' system, there is only marketing and buying. We live in a system capitalism that extends even to the ideas on which we live.

We are all traditionalists, We all sell and buy traditions everyday. Libertarians will not escape this until the next age of humanity, but then maybe it may become more relevant.

Libertarian in the original socialist meaning, yes.

Is the libertarian party being co-opted by (((you know who)))?

Do you know what a tariff is? Individuals aren't nations.

leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION-5.html

Capitalism and other flavors of "Free Market" philosophy LACK any form of humanity and morality.

BTW ... Not every interaction takes place on private property. The West is a degenerate cesspool because capitalism had destroyed barriers that morality provided. Now we have men becoming women and this is accepted.

Libertarian philosophy is not possible because the populace cannot be trusted to be moral agents and act to the same degree as an educated libertarian.

Also... simply limiting the size of a government does nothing but place a temporary hold on it's cancerous growth. Eventually it will grow again.

The lack of morality in a libertarian philosophy is it's absolute downfall.

>people need price incentives to give a shit
Not everyone.

Some people will follow the links and find things they've never seen before, others have already seen them and find the ancap answer to "What about the military?" severely lacking. When you just provide links you never get to have an actual discussion, you just give links to some shit that reinforces your own world view. It's a similar problem to only every discussing topics in an echo chamber.

Libertarianism fails for the same reason that communism fails:

What if people aren't cooperative, no matter what incentive they have?

You have to violate the spirit of the endeavour by either compromising your position, or using force.

My definition of anarchy is not a stateless society.

It is a society in which all hierarchies are legitimate.

And a hierarchy in which the state destroys all degenerates who violate the NAP: does not violate the NAP.

So long as the state does not violate the NAP it is not an illegitimate hierarchy as the only illegitimate hierarchies are those that require the initiation of physical force.

Define society for me, and tell me what exactly people are existentially incapable of paying for unless someone threatens them with violence to fork over for.

> "What about the military?" severely lacking
Lacking in which way?
I don't know in what world people are existentially incapable of paying for something they want without being forced by violence to do so.

I'm so tired of this goddammed cardboard-sign activism. When will this douchebag meme die?

Yes, individuals are not nations, however, when that business funds that nation with their taxes, they become intertwined with the state.

You could possibly make the argument that the business isn't there or paying taxes by choice, but that does not make it any less true that the army that the opposing nation has is funded through taxation of those businesses.

>when that business funds that nation with their taxes
When you buy and sell goods with other people, what they do with that money has nothing to do with you. You don't fund the mafia when you buy bread from a baker and the mafia afterwards extorts that baker.

Libertarianism without conservatism is a dangerous, rotten ideology. Paleoconservatism is the only way to go.

>>libertarianism is anarchism
That image is from south sudan.

Not whatever the fuck that dumb bitch is talking about.

Libertarianism isn't about cooperation. It's about leaving everyone the fuck a lone to do as they please and suffer the consequences or reap the rewards of their own actions.

Somalia was a failed socialist state. Don't know why this became a meme.

...

society-the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
community-a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.

ok I think you used some words incorrectly but I understand I think. lemme answer.

I think your asking about supply and demand of resources between societies.

I have something you want,
you have something I want,
we both are incapable to steal from each other,
so each respective society will attempt to acquire resources with peaceful means
Its called like trade or something I think

there would be no roads

>You don't fund the mafia when you buy bread from a baker and the mafia afterwards extorts that baker.

You most certainly do, albeit inadvertently. Besides in most cases such businesses only exist because of the state, corporations are a legal fiction, thus they are an extension of the state. So I suppose I should be more specific.

A tariff on all imported goods being sent by corporations based in countries that have standing armies.

Because it's no one's right to put checks on others' "moral degeneracy". Consult religion about it, not the state.

...

My reply to you was tongue-in-cheek because degeneracy is subjective.

I'll work with the example you give of degeneracy: men becoming women. What we're looking at society becoming is one in which government actively supports this kind of behaviour. One in which government takes tax money from people and uses it to subsidize sex change operations. If you think a libertarian government is a bad idea because it won't stop degeneracy, then take a look around, because most governments in western countries actively encourage it.

Libertarianism's relationship with morality is different than whether it allows it or disallows it. Libertarianism instead views government as an entity that should itself be limited to only doing moral things.

But one thing you'll find with libertarianism, is that as much as other individuals are allowed to act degenerate, you as an individual are allowed to reject their degeneracy from your own life. Transexuals are quickly becoming a protected class of people in our society. You can pick and choose who comes into your home, but that's about it. I can't speak for all libertarians, but I do believe that most of us think that businesses and private organizations should be allowed to decide who they do and don't associate with, just like an individual can with their private home. Rejecting degeneracy is currently legally forbidden, you can get sued for not wanting a homosexual in your place of business. Under libertarianism you would have the freedom to reject degeneracy both as an individual, and organizations of like-minded people.