/liberty/ - Libertarian General

This thread is for the discussion of the libertarian ideology, decentralization and current events, local or global.

-Recent articles or events:
>Hans Hermann Hoppe on the EU: A Sinkhole of Economic and Moral Perversion
lewrockwell.com/2016/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/sinkhole-economic-moral-perversion/
>The Death of Conservatism, by Paul Gottfried.
lewrockwell.com/2016/07/paul-gottfried/death-conservatism/
>Abolish government police, by Murray N. Rothbard.
lewrockwell.com/2016/07/murray-n-rothbard/abolish-government-police/

-Sources of information:
>libertarianism.org/
>mises.org/
>lewrockwell.com

-Questions:
What are the prospects for freedom in your country?
Do any parties promote the reduction of government and decentralization there?

Other urls found in this thread:

econlib.org/library/CEE.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I agree with almost all the Libertarian arguments but they need a bit more reality...When will you become Nationalist Libertarians?

Because nationalism isn't really an opposition to globalism, it's just globalism lite.
Both nationalism and globalism believe in strong central governments and economic and social interventionism, often enforcing an official "culture". The only difference among the both is the number of governments to be (either one or a few hundred). Nationalism isn't for decentralization and reduction and devolution of government power to society. Nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with freedom.

What that "Libertarian Nationalism" even is? You can't just smack together two different ideas and pretend it's an ideology that actually exists and makes sense.
Is there really any relevant literature on this ideology or is it entirely a term made up by Sup Forumsacks?

Q1. Why are you not ancap?
Where civilisation is heading there is no freedom worth having, a nationalist state will prop up a culture that lets freedom flourish (think USA minus 30 years or more).
Q2. How will you sustain this freedom when you can what current trends are doing?
Libertarian Nationalism is not a mishmash, it is a respect of freedom in the culture and freedom is granted to the citizens by means of a constitution (specifically the US constitution). However, it is also the recognition that this is only sustainable with a strong support from a government. This need not mean the government controls much (certainly not economically) nor that rights of citizens have to be suppressed, simply that there is a default support for the country from the government, the policies it is allowed to enact etc

*can see what current trends are doing

Implementing libertarianism is basically giving the Jews a free pass to completely taking over your media and allow them to brainwash the silly gentiles in doing all kinds of decadency such as destroying their lives with heroine, prostitution, bestiality, pornography, modern art, homosexuality, etc

Literally Sodom and Gomorrah.

Are you by any chance a pedofile?

>implying it's the benevolent State that protects us from the jews

Shoo shoo. Sup Forums is a Keynesian nationalist board.

go away fag
bring back Sup Forums to 08 standards

Austrian Nationalist, baka

You forgot:
econlib.org/library/CEE.html

We have the VVD which is a conservative liberal party, and like most countries a much smaller actual ''libertarian" party.

Nonetheless according to the Political Compass the Netherlands' was the closest European country to based purple quadrant in 2012, so that's good.

>Any of these countries being right wing

except maybe Poland this is simply retarded

A nationalist state, yes. It's the ''liberty movement'' of the last 300 years that allowed the Jews to gain such wealth and influence.

I personally am a conservative, constitutional monarchist, white nationalist, authoritarian and militarist.

What I don't get are all the communists who oppose libertarianism.

You can run a commune in a libertarian society. The rest of society will gladly trade with you.

They want power, it has always been about power, they cannot win ideological arguments

If you're a full blown communist you want the entire world to become communist.

Technically, a communist would support capitalism because communists believe that the unleashing of capitalism will lead to the next stage of history, which is communistic.

Go to the revleft forum, communists actually vote libertarian in the hope that it will lead to massive wealth disparities, child labour and pollution so that the 'proletariat' rises up again, these people are delusional just like libertards

Ah libertarianism. When the market demands people to turn into docile low IQ slaves with drug addiction and there's nothing that can stop that process.

I'm just going to poison the water supply THAT I OWN. IT'S ON MY PROPERTY. I'm just going to poison it with some krokodil and then offer to treat people at the only hospital in the city, the hospital that I OWN, the hospital WHERE I CAN MAKE THE PRICES AS HIGH AS I WANT and then I'm going to fail to treat them and instead harvest their organs and sell them to the Chinese.

You couldn't be further from the truth.
The FCC and Telecom regulation, which only sprouted in the latter half of the 20th Century, granted Jews a government sanctioned monopoly over the media (six corps owning 90% etc etc)
Were competition allowed entry into the market, their stranglehold would not be secure.

Whatever prolonged "liberty movement" you're talking about ended long ago, you should reevaluate the government's protective capacity.

The fact that all the countries are in the top right show how the lower left quadrant does exist.

The lower left halves of the red and purple don't exist either.

There are only three extremes in political science, anarcho-capitalism, liberal conservatism and communism.

Nice (((meme))).
Stop shitting this board, stupid Stormfront Shills.

...

...

saved ;)

...

...

...

I'd like to begin a crash course in this type of stuff, where should I start?

...

Atlas shrugged, i'd say. Are you 15?

Only a Swede can be this ignorant. Have fun with your socialism, tell Sadiq I say hi.

Do you really believe that these convoluted overspecific scenarios would be endemic problems?

Henry Hazlitt -- Economics in One Lesson
Quick read, brings you through a lot of topics

Libertarianism: A Primer

Or if you're more into difficult books you could read pretty much anything in OP.

any place for a right wing anarchist?

In economics circles we libertarians have to emphasize the roll of the entrepreneur.

It's the only way we can start to eliminate the marxist way of thinking about surplus labour.

>Alberto has all memes and no arguments

What is that exactly? There's anarcho-capitalism.

pls continue

molyneux is an old fuckin cunt in his midlife crisis

Start with something like 'Wealth, Poverty and Politics' - Sowell, or 'Road to Serfdom' - Hayek, do not start with Atlas Shrugged ffs

not an argument

This.
All the bullshit scenarios of an upper class of pure evil can be dealt with by someone else competing with them and taking their spot

>implying its all memes

It's just arguments to ridicule lolbertarianism and ancap. I just mock you faggots

No, I'm 22 and have a lot of spare time on my hands which I want to turn into something more productive than shitposting on pol

Find me a single genuine communist nowadays who actually understands what communism is about.

Most are either just the feel-good type people who want everyone to be friends and nice to each other or the self-righteous "I was kicked out of my job for underperforming" haters of people richer than themselves. And then there are the subversive globalists who keep the regular thoughtless communists/socialists directed against nationalism.

>Ron Paul on the far left
No

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

It's abundantly clear that you got your opinions from these memes. Had you spent five minutes looking into the fundamentals of the ideology, you'd be able to recognize them as bullshit.
You aren't convincing anyone, you're just exposing your intellectual laziness.

What are you doing bro? studying? working part time? NEET?

No disagreeing here

At one point, didn't someone like... Make all that literature up?? You know.. Kinda like everything.

The nose knows.

And yet here we are, both of us, on pol.

It depends on what you want to learn. What do you want to learn? Ethics,politics or economics?

>Find me a single genuine communist nowadays who actually understands what communism is about.
You won't find them on Sup Forums, that is for sure.

Well, for starters, you could go to >>>/leftypol/.
Or ask nicely on /lit/.

>Had you spent five minutes looking into the fundamentals of the ideology
I did bro.

>you'd be able to recognize them as bullshit.
argue then. For example, tell me why this one is bullshit

Study at uni but summer break is like 3 fucking whole months. Only have a part time job as bartender, so lot of free time to do nothing right now.

Hoppe is probably the most right wing person on earth and he is an anarchist.

Communism is like what Slavoj Žižek says, 'pure ideology'.

:^)

im a reactionary anarchist
supporting old school monarchist feudalism,
like the world was in the 6th century,

imagine it as a mix of old rx and ancap ideas

To be clear, it's "left" on the libertarian spectrum. As far as I know, Paul is pretty much a moderate libertarian (in comparison to other people). If anyone in the government went farther right they would be ostracized (though yes, he does not hold a position anymore).

Well, I always recommend Capitalism and Freedom, but that's because it's easy to knock out in an afternoon and you'll get a good sense of whether or not you respect Friedman's economics.

Daily reminder that the mormon church is the greatest ally of libertarianism.

Maybe some literature about your course would be better? I'd say libertarianism is a dead and stupid ideology, easily on the same level as socialism and communism. It was literally never tried

I don't think you could count yourself as a libertarian. The comparison between anarcho-capitalism and feudalism is just a meme.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist myself (I'm more of a classical liberal) because I'm not convinced it would work, but in theory, anarcho-capitalism does not operate like feudalism at all.

>/leftypol/
That place is empty and full of morons. And communism is an outdated ideology,as capitalism has evolved on the opposite direction than Marx's predictions

guys I support and generally agree with them are:
de maistre - french philosopher
evola - italian philosopher
kaczynski - famous bomber
korwin - polish politician
...

I guess you get the idea

>I did bro
Sure

It's bullshit because:
>There's no reason to starve a kid you could simply give away
>There's no reason to fend off people trying to take care of your baby just to let him starve
>Most importantly, it's perfectly permissible under the NAP to defend the kid if you're barring him from leaving and forcing him to starve

Was that so hard? You just exposed your laziness even further.
How can you claim to have looked into the ideology while your images directly contradict themselves on the most basic levels?
You have no clue what you're talking about, and it's abundantly clear.

Anarcho capitalism can only work with church like structures like the mormon one. For ancap to work,the population has to gain a different set of ethics and a higher sense of responsability

>not a single word on how to push your agenda
enjoy never being free faggots s

Expect this.

I know, I'm not ancap, just listing it because you guys here on pol are more familiar with it so you get the closer idea,
same thing with libertarianism - although it's different, it has a lot in common with archaic ideologies such as this

>And communism is an outdated ideology,as capitalism has evolved on the opposite direction than Marx's predictions

True, it diverged from Marx predictions in the turn of the 20th century, thanks to the welfare state and the rise of the service industry.

But nowadays it's coming close. Only UBI will save capitalism for another couple of decades.

>That place is empty and full of morons.
You've been there?

Not necessarily. There's precedents of private law societies that weren't specially deeply religious.

Anarcho-capitalism is not about no law enforcement.

Not everyone here is an an-cap you know.

Ancaps are only a vocal minority amongst libertarians.

That being said, in an ancap society enough people would want your child liberated from you that they'd likely rally to kill you despite the NAP.

All private police forces would likely find you abhorrent and not defend you either. And even if you had your own, good luck being able to find enough people willing to put up with you morally. And good luck holding down a job with your reputation to be able to afford that.

Friendly reminder to refer to libertarian and classical liberal ideas as liberal and the scum that stole the name of our ideology as modern "liberals", quotation marks included.

Time to make people see why the world liberal used to be esteemed in the old days.

Thank you based Pole.

We really need to start doing this. At least the Liberal party here has a classical liberal faction.

Doesn't liberal still mean what it used to in Europe? Whenever I talk about "liberals" I say American liberal.

Aye

it used to be esteemed only with the radical youth and antisocietal edgelords while the profeudal rural population did all the work while they were trying to destroy the society (and eventually succeeded)

>There's no reason to starve a kid you could simply give away

People don't need reason to do stuff. Are you autistic? So you are saying that there is no mechanism to stop that from hapenning?

>>There's no reason to fend off people trying to take care of your baby just to let him starve

Yes there is. They are violating your property rights.

>>Most importantly, it's perfectly permissible under the NAP to defend the kid if you're barring him from leaving and forcing him to starve

The kid is allowed to defend himslef. But the other people can initiate force to rescue someone on private property? So what is the limit to this NAP thing? I can trespass somebody private property if i see someone scraping his knee?


Libertarianism and ancap is all just ideology. You can never reconcile your ideology with people that don't want to participate in your ideology

I could see how you can be a liberal in 1900 but now that it has all been achieved how can you still want to be a liberal seeing all of it? And I'm talking about emancipation and voting rights. You have achieved your goals, you can stop being a liberal now.

Probably should do some course related literature, only problem is my entire curriculum is Jewish

> Egalitarian and relativistic sentiments find steady support among ever new generations of adolescents. Owing to their still incomplete mental development, juveniles, especially of the male variety, are always susceptible to both ideas.

>Not everyone here is an an-cap you know.
I know, but i never quite understood the difference. Too me it only seems that lolbertarianism is the middle ground fallacy of ancap. I'm not sure if lolbertarians belive in NAP

>Libertarianism

You stupid fucks couldn't even come up with your own name. So you stole it from left wing anarchists

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So you're claiming that people will voluntarily act against their own interests?

...

>ITS DA JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS

Nevermind, you will do just fine with lolbertarians and ancaps

>True, it diverged from Marx predictions in the turn of the 20th century, thanks to the welfare state
The countries with fewer welfare state are the most pro caputalistic in the world.
> You've been there?
Like 3 times. /his/ is a better place to discuss things like this than leftypol

...

None of those were anarchies. The colonization of the west of the US would be the closest things to ancap in some cases and relied heavily on family unit and local churches.

>enter thread to dump anti-lolbergtard memes
>based Portubro has already done

Maybe in the balkan region it was so, but in the more civilized parts of the world it was the ideology of a free and industrious, ambitious man.

Europe is much more diverse in this regard, in some places it's just like in the US, in some others it's still sane. For example here in Poland the word liberal is barely used in politics, while still perserving it's original meaning outside of that field. When donouncing the useful idiots I usually say modern "liberals" or western "liberals", so the target is quite defined.

In Britain they're called liberals. Jeffersonian progressives co-opted the term so American liberals have to call themselves libertarian to avoid being lumped in with socialists and neoliberal identarians.

Gas the swedes

...

refer to
And on all parts of the spectrum you have deontologists (NAP) and consequentialists. David Friedman, for example, is a consequentialist anarcho-capitalist.

...

nope
in balkan region they didn't even exist
I am talking about those parts of the world

Liberalism is a slippery slope
It started back in the 1800's and look were we're now

...

...

You yourself are violating the NAP by starving the kid, and any violation of the NAP makes whoever committed it unaffected by it's protection - basically torturing your kid makes you an outlaw, free for anyone to end.

Classic liberalism: small dtate with few responsabilities based on John Locke's philosophy
Ancap: Stateless capitalist society.