/liberty/ - Liberty

Even though I find anarcho-capitalism interesting I have a few hang ups. I don't necessarily want to rely on mercenaries for my defense. If others want to then fine. I just prefer to have my own guns to defend myself.

How would property rights work for rivers and lakes? Say if a river goes through your property do you own that part of the river or the whole thing?

If the rest of the world balkanized would it still be possible to develop advanced technology? Like space travel for example. Could developing space travel still be possible in a world that has been balkanized and consists of tiny countries since space travel was normally state sponsored? I know there could be companies doing it I just wonder if it'll be enough.

Bump

>>102923

I used to listen to the Vin Armani podcast. He was more of an agorist but I found it interesting because of the guests he would bring on. They would show their alternatives to the state and I do like seeing solutions to this kind of stuff. I think he changed up the podcast and doesn't post as much but it's still up on his youtube channel.

That's democracy, OP, not capitalism.

>>103167

OP is a rentier, not a welfare queen not a NEET leech.

>>103156

Fagbook libertarian niggers who start threads with "thoughts?" Instead of stating their opinions or admitting they support the thing they posted deserve the rope. That's my thoughts.

>>103177

Why would you say that? I am genuinely curious. :^)

Fuck the phrase "I am genuinely curious"/"I am curious." If you really were curious, you wouldn't need to declare it.

>run by gangs

>ancap

what

>>103124

That was in the 70s and early 80s, after then the gangs hung out there, but it wasn't really 'run by gangs.'

>>103124

Do you know what private contractors and private defense agencies are fag?

>>103148

>1) Fires are natural disasters. Getting sick is not.

Stopped reading there.

Nice blattant contradiction. How are diseases any less natural that fires?

95% of fires are man-caused and almost 100% of the casualties are caused indirectly by human beings.

You are a Christian, so I don't really have any hope in your intelligence to start with.

>>103107

GTFO utilitarianist.

>>103148

>Fires are natural disasters. Getting sick is not.

BTW, what the fuck has to do nature with freedom to start with?

Aggresion, murder, rape and theft are natural, but we still oppose those concepts.

Nice Naturalistic Falacy deranged Christcuck.

>>103152

>>103150

Nice lack of reading comprehension. Diseases are natural but not "natural disasters" (unless they are pandemics).

>The Best Hebrew Songs Ever

Anon, what have you been watching?

>>103123

RENT FREE

OBSESSED

>>102018

>organisms do well when given giant piles of resources.

>>103032

I'm not even going to say anything.

>>101992

Brainlet doesn't understand demographic transition.

>>103032

Only if that were true then africans would be kangs

>>103131

Fuck her, fuck her good.

>>103004

This. In a sense, it's even worse than communism. In communism you know who the enemy is and it has a form, but in democracy society is divided against itself and evil hides in ambiguity.

"democracy isnt perfect but we never had to build a wall to keep our people from leaving"

>>103045

Cattle doesn't try to flee when it's already tamed

>>103045

People don't leave because the relatively free markets have made them wealthy and comfortable, not because of any ideological benefit from democracy. Why do you think migrants from third world shitholes are so eager to come to Western countries, so they can vote? Of course not, they just want the gibs.

>>103068

>>102812

Huh, didn't know that.

>>102939

>Conceived by the founder of Instituto Mises Brasil, Hélio Beltrão, in collaboration with members of the Ministry of Economy, the Executive Provisional Act is a set of rules designed to boost free enterprise and impose limits to government intervention over small businesses.

https://fee.org/articles/brazil-pivots-toward-economic-freedom/

>>102948

Thanks anon.

>>103073

i learned it from kelthuz but the vlog he speaks about it is in polish sadly

>>102715

>democratic socialists are socialists

>national socialists are socialists

Are you brain damaged OP?

>>102231

You really think all 1 million of those NPCs are being simulated every tick?

>>102231

Most of those complex mathematics go into simulating tesselated polygons–an intensive but repetitive task. Normies are simplistic, but they're just a big more complicated than triangles, so it would require a lot of processing power to stimulate the decision-making process of just one normie. I think Hayek called this the knowledge problem. No, it's not the calculation problem, that's different.

The first thing to realize is that a planned city is not necessarily unfree. The point of planning a free city isn't so much to account for the most likely actions of it's residents in advance. The point of planning a free city is to set up various systems that will exist for that city which will ensure the freedom of that city. Of course, there are some things which can be planned, such as trash disposal/recycling, fire-extinction, medicine,, but there would be some difference in how they would be planned in a libertarian city as compared to a governmental city.

I think one of the things I dislike about this board is that there is too much focus on ideology without concrete, specific action (beyond outcry against something that happened in our statist dystopia). Yes, I'm accusing you of circlejerking. Get your act together! I think what this board needs is some constructive project. I propose that we try to plan a specific city to be a good libertarian city. For the sake of starting things off, why don't we go with Detroit, as it seems like the governments and just about everyone else are more-or-less neglecting Detroit.

I'm not saying we should actually go to detroit and implement the plan, but that we should, as a collective thought experiment, figure out the details in terms of a real place. What say you?

-Not from Detroit.

Is there a term for 'resident of Detroit'? If not, I propose "Detroitoise" or "Detroitante" or something else in keeping with the Frenchiness of "Detroit"

>>102231

>so if you imagine the complex mathematics that goes on in rendering the graphics of a game like that, why can't we just apply the same processing power to simulating human behaviour?

Dwarf Fortress basically does this on a micro-scale. A fortress will usually crap out with a couple hundred of individuals.

You'll probably have to have Aurora 4x tier graphics to have a thousand individuals simulated.

>>103099

>is there a term for 'resident of Detroit?'

Nigger.

>>101945

>arguing in good faith

Spooky

>>102398

>In places like New Zealand, Ecuador and Colorado rivers have rights of personhood. There have been cases of "rivers" suing companies for polluting them, for instance.

Your conception of justice is drenched in authoritarianism. There is no such thing as a crime without a victim. When you say "a river sued someone" what you really mean to say is the government arbitrarily decided they had an arbitrary right over a plot of land they had neither homesteaded nor traded for. It's the government that is the actor here, not the river.

> If you pollute a river or burn down a forest, you're going to prison.

<if the government enforces the law, it must be good!

What are you? Are you a libertarian? You sound like a democratic socialist whinger.

>LOL. Being this boastful of one's unaware ignorance…

>LOL. It's like talking with a cartoon.

Oh fucking sod off mate. Honestly, fuck right off with that reddit shit

>>102401

>Your argument makes a bit more sense. Less edgy, more pragmatic. Of course everybody knows rights are "spooks" like the other retard said. Your explanation of how they came to be is very effective.

Oh I'm honored you like my arguments you smarmy, suburbanite american millenial twat.

>However, I have to say that "being an actor" is not a precondition to enjoy rights.

Why?

>You mentioned the potential to be an actor in children or having been an actor, in the case of the dying, for instance. You are saying that only humans can and should be able to enjoy rights. I think humanity as a whole is moving away from that notion and expanding it even beyond sentient beings:

>Animals have rights too: You can't abandon dogs and cats, it's against the law. Most people are not okay with eating dogs and cats. A growing Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>animals can't consent

Oh? I think you need to not make such false generalizations. What is important is that, in any given case, to examine whether all involved parties consented. If the animal that you fucked consented to you fucking that animal, then anyone else forcing you to stop would be the aggressor.

There is, of course, the other question of proof. If someone violates you, and claims that they were justified because they were protecting the animal which you fucked (or tried to fuck, as the case may be), which they claim did not consent to you fucking them, and you claim that they were not justified in violating you, because the animal did consent, how is the question of who is reponsible for what restitution settled? I'm inclined to go for 'innocent until proven guilty', which would mean that the person violated you would have to prove that you were violating the animal, but then, what if the proof of guilt is too great? Of course, being a careful person, whatever I do, be it fucking an animal or otherwise, I ensure that I have proof that all effected parties consented, but that's me being a careful person.

(Not that I fuck animals or anything. It's all hypothetical here.)

>racial equality

SO. (Ahem.) What is important isn't racial equality per se, but that all discrimination is legitimate. There may be cases where discrimination based on race is legitimate. Of course, >>99186 a government that promotes racial equality is the antithesis of libertarianism, but it's not because that government promotes racial equality, but because it's a government.

[Age of consent]

>Are 14 year olds that different from 15 year olds? Are 13 year olds that different from 14 year olds? Where does it stop?

The point is that you don't look at the arbitrarily chosen property of 'how long has this person existed' to determine whether they are capable of consent, and you don't even look look at whether they are capable oc consent, but whether they did consent (!!), because that's what we care about here. SurPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>103086

Yes.

>>103071

I'm not op, faggot

>>103007

By liberty for aristocrats do you mean that natural aristocracy idea that Jefferson was talking about? Also, how are we living in ancapistan already? Do you mean Ancapistan is the base level of a society and then it moves on from there?

>>103008

we need grassroot propaganda and education

in poland mises institute wrote a textbook for high schoolers but i think the textbook was no approved

>>102918

>everyone seems to follow class/wealth envy?

I don't think most people do. It's just that the ones who do tend to be awfully loud about it.

>>102950

Education isn't nearly as influential as incentives.

>>103007

>we are already living in anarcho-capitalist land

"Anarcho-Capitalist Land" is essentially defined by the absence of certain types of institutions, which are very much present. Thus, we are not in "Anarcho-Capitalist Land". Nearly all of the positive elements necessary to produce order in Anarcho-Capitalism are present, but that is not its definition.

>the natural response to anarcho-capitalism is the formation of states

You're going to have to do a lot of work to back that up.

>Essentially, liberty is to high-energy a state, and groups of people will naturally move towards lower-energy states, in order to dissipate the energy and create structure.

What does that even mean? In what sense is liberty "high-energy"? How do you justify conflating liberty with a lack of structure?

>>103020

>we need grassroot propaganda and education

It's nice for recruiting True Believers(TM), but mass adoption doesn't work that way. You have to make your way of doing things materially more appealing than the alternatives. That's not education or propaganda: that's marketing.

>>103054

>What does that even mean? In what sense is liberty "high-energy"?

I think he's trying to make some big-brained chemistry analogy, in which high-energy reactants have a tendency to become low-energy products. The problem with this torturous metaphor is that anarchy is the natural state of affairs to which we always return, and government must constantly interfere with this tendency to maintain its existence. Which is to say, the analogy works in the opposite way from what he tried to imply.

>>103066

I was trying to be somewhat more Socratic with my inquiry so that he could walk himself into that realization.

>>102440

>the false assumption that a consumer is a rational being making rational choices.

whether or not we are rational has no bearing on whether or not the market is rational.

It could very well be the case that we are irrational, but it wouldn't matter.

The laws of supply and demand are not dictated by rationality. They are dictated by simple arithmetic and opportunity cost.

The only reason why we assume rational behavior is because there is no such working model of irrational behavior.

Currently, modern econ is working on how rational or irrational are we.

In business, you can hire an economist specialized in this topic to see if you are behaving rationally, and if not what you could possibly do to correct that behavior.

For the consumer, you have apps on your phone to track your spending habits, etc.

Overall, though, whether you are rational or irrational has no bearing on how the market behaves.

https://m.cdn.blog.hu/el/eltecon/file/JPE-Becker-1962.pdf

rationality of the consumer is just that. rationality. if he s stupid enough to pay 1000$ for a pair of shoes he s an idiot but good job to the company because it determined this idiot to give them 1000$. free market is about making money. as long as you dont hold a gun in front of someone s face to make em buy a product i see no problem. we dont need government intervention into market if that s what your suggesting we do.

the beauty of the free market is that you dont get to decide the value of your labour. it has to be traded for another person s labour so the prices will balance themselves.

>>102604

It's almost as if they don't actually read the books.

>>103050

If you're being ruled your rationality is already compromised in the first place