/liberty/ - Liberty

Is there any book, tesis, article computational analysis, whatever aside from marxian theory that understands capitalism not from a moral point of view, but from a deterministic pov, as in the current state of things isn't the result of some ideological or social manipulation scheme but rather that, capitalism is the only way to actually organize a society? Below I share a video I watched the other that got me thinking about the possibility of perhaps capitalism, or rather markets, being the common rule of law today due to the fact that a more elaborated system like communism wouldn't be able to compete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOFws_hhZs8

>In artificial intelligence, an evolutionary algorithm (EA) is a subset of evolutionary computation, a generic population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm. An EA uses mechanisms inspired by biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation, recombination, and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the quality of the solutions (see also loss function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators.

>Step One: Generate the initial population of individuals randomly. (First generation)

>Step Two: Evaluate the fitness of each individual in that population (time limit, sufficient fitness achieved, etc.)

>Step Three: Repeat the following regenerational steps until termination:

>Select the best-fit individuals for reproduction. (Parents)

>Breed new individuals through crossover and mutation operations to give birth to offspring.

>Evaluate the individual fitness of new individuals.

>Replace least-fit population with new individuals.

also don't post boomer shit like USSR propaganda because it was doome due to geolpolitics and so on. I am taPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

http://newslanc.com/where-descendants-of-former-soviet-rulers-went-to-live/

Does /liberty/ have more great examples of rich commie kids, living the good life, enjoying their parents hard-stolen wealth, or otherwise moving as far away as possible from the socialist utopia their parents created for everyone else?

is the west really going to fall? what will it mean?

In case you haven't heard yet, some /pol/ack in New Zealand decided to go full Siege and shoot up a mosque, making a post to 8chan shortly before the event, and making a few references to the site in his livestream. There's a non-zero chance that 8chan wil get Zucced as a result of this. On the off-chance that happens, it may be in our interest to designate some other imageboard as a "bunker" in which we may congregate should this place go down. Any initial candidates? Livebunker.rocks is the only one of which I know, but it's more chatroom than true imageboard.

This movie (In time, 2011) supposedly should be anti-capitalism, but it ends up being a pro-capitalism movie when read using economics as a framework.

The premises are that people are engineered to never get old, but they have a timer and when the timer expires they die. So, they use time as money since they can exchange it with other people. From the movie it's implied that there is an unlimited amount of time available, in theory, and the scarcity is artificial and probably created by the government. Yet, this is an anti-capitalism movie. You see where this is going?

But even if time was a scarce resource, why the hell would someone use time as currency? It doesn't make sense because when you have to pay your last two hours for a bus fare, the price is automatically too high and not worth it. We know that the currency isn't necessarely valuable because of its possible applications, but it's mostly a system to represent value and exchange it with other people. So, stability in currency is something seeked and time is certainly not stable as currency since its value change greatly base on how much you have of it. Nobody would really use time as currency, certainly not to the point of risking their life. Other things would be used as money, unless of course it wasn't the government to force people to use time as a currency, which is something that is happening in the society depicted. Forcing people to use a certain thing as currency is not capitalism.

Then we have the prices for goods that soar and the rich girl telling the protagonist something along the lines of "we do up the price so that people die". It seems that we have a central planning board choosing prices, which is absolutely not capitalism and not free market. I won't even discuss it firther here since this is literally chapter fucking one of basic economics of Sowell.

Then there is the problem of "if everyone had infinite time we would die of overpopulation". No, we wouldn't. If property rights were used, people would just not create new humans because it would be too expensive to mantain them. Also, there would be privatized incentives to get sterilized or at least have your fertility put on hold. Truth is, we already live in a situation where nothing is stoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Over time, after becoming anarcho-capitalist, I've began to realize that Max Stirner is right. I started out as a deontological anarcho-capitalist, but over time, I realized that morals are spooks. I realized many truths along the way.

1) Being deontological is an oxymoron. One of the most famous deontologists is Kant and Kantian Ethics defines rules as what would be most beneficial if everybody followed them. What's that? Rules are only good if people benefit from the consequences? Wow, it looks like you are actually a RULE CONSEQUENTIALIST. Anyone who is truly deontological for truly "moral" reasons is entirely devoid of logic and instead creates morals purely out of "feels." It's a petty disagreement, but an important note to make.

2) Deontology leads to ridiculous conclusions. According to deontology, morality is objective. What if I were to trespass on another's property in order to save someone's life? Would I be wrong to save someone's life? Would the owner be wrong to defend their property? Are we both right? Are we both wrong? Us being both right implies this is a moral grey-zone, meaning morals are not objective.

3) Traditional consequentialism is retarded. No-one can know the true consequences of their own actions for certain. Consequentialism is just gambling with ethics thrown in. Consequentialism sounds good on paper, but the consequences of this philosophy is collectivism. That one can be sacrificed for the good of the many. It fails by its own principles.

4) Morals are spooks. Moral rules are implemented in the form of laws with the purpose of stability and because they are most beneficial to each individual. Personal morals are simply pleasing your own "ego;" your desire to feel good about yourself. For example, to an anarcho-communist, no-one can own property and they do nothing wrong by robbing others of their property. From their perspective, property rights is the aggression. The problem with communists is that a communist society is not beneficial to the individual, as force is used to steal and because communist societies inevitably collapse under authoritarianism and mass-starvation.

5) Being an egoist does not mean you don't believe in human rights. It's just that human rights are derived practically instead of "morally." Any intelligent egoist can recognize, thatPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Another forced trannypol meme that is owed a measured response is the Universal Basic Income. It needs to be put down wherever it rears its hyperinflating head so here's some information I was able to put together.

Estimated current US Population over 18:

254,046,000

Cost of $1,000/mo ($12,000/yr) per 18+ individual per year:

$3,048,552,000,000

Current Total Federal Budget:

$3,422,000,000,000

Estimate total gross revenue of 10% VAT (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-would-rate-be-under-vat):

$712,000,000,000

>but people already receive benefits

True, but this proposal still involves much more spending; let's look at some of the bigger ones and maybe exclude the lesser ones:

62 million people currently receive Social Security benefits receiving an average of $1,200 monthly, so that group of people would add a substantially lower number versus what is already collected, 148,000,000,000 instead of 892,000,000,000 were they not already receiving benefits of some sort.

42 million SNAP beneficiaries receive an average of $253 a monthly so they would cost an additional 376,488,000,000 on top of the 127,512,000,000 they already receive (504,000,000,000)

All told that is a decrease of about 367.5 billion, but still leaves a 2.7 trillion dollar deficit unaccounted for

At best a 10% VAT (i.e. increasing the cost of all goods and services produced or offered throughout the entire country) will only help fund the UBI by around 25%. You would need a VAT of almoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

what's the cause of this house debt and student loan debt crisis? why is student loan debt and household debt skyrocketing? why are people buying less houses? is it the government or a side effect of the free market?

What is the best ethical justification for libertarianism? Mises used a utilitarian defence and argued that libertarianism ought to be adopted because it produces the most happiness and prosperity in the long run. This justification isn't particularly strong however, because many people have endgoals which they prioritize over liberty or prosperity. There is Hoppe's argumentation ethics, which essentially says that any action which infringes on the rights of others cannot be argued for without a contradiction, and thus that action is irrational. He also has the position that libertarianism is the best means of avoiding conflicts between people. Then there's Rothbard's view on the matter, which he explained in The Ethics of Liberty. The basic jist of this view is that it is natural for humans to exercise control over themselves and their justly-acquired property, and thus wrong for someone else to infringe on someone else's person or property and inflict their own will. There are probably other justifications which I am forgetting or unaware of as of yet, but which is the most concrete.

is pic related a good way to destroy competition in a free market?

cuban libertarians

https://www.facebook.com/PartidoLibertarioCubano/videos/1891016841154930/

How French “Intellectuals” Ruined the West: Pozzmodernism and Its Impact, Explained

Pozzmodernism presents a threat not only to liberal democracy but to modernity itself. That may sound like a bold or even hyperbolic claim, but the reality is that the cluster of ideas and values at the root of Pozzmodernism have broken the bounds of academia and gained great cultural power in western society. The irrational and identitarian “symptoms” of Pozzmodernism are easily recognizable and much criticized, but the ethos underlying them is not well understood. This is partly because Pozzmodernists rarely explain themselves clearly and partly because of the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies of a way of thought which denies a stable reality or reliable knowledge to exist. However, there are consistent ideas at the root of Pozzmodernism and understanding them is essential if we intend to counter them. They underlie the problems we see today in Social Justice Activism, undermine the credibility of the Left and threaten to return us to an irrational and tribal “pre-modern” culture.

Pozzmodernism, most simply, is an artistic and philosophical movement which began in France in the 1960s and produced bewildering art and even more bewildering “theory.” It drew on avant-garde and surrealist art and earlier philosophical ideas, particularly those of Nietzsche and Heidegger, for its anti-realism and rejection of the concept of the unified and coherent individual. It reacted against the liberal humanism of the modernist artistic and intellectual movements, which its proponents saw as naïvely universalizing a western, middle-class and male experience.

It rejected philosophy which valued ethics, reason and clarity with the same accusation. Structuralism, a movement which (often over-confidently) attempted to analyze human culture and psychology according to consistent structures of relationships, came under attack. Marxism, with its understanding of society through class and economic structures was regarded as equally rigid and simplistic. Above all, Pozzmodernists attacked science and its goal of attaining objective knowledge about a reality which exists independently of human perceptions which they saw as merely another form of construPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

What sectors do you think the next recession will be in? How bad do you think it will be?

My predictions:

- The city of NYC, the city of Chicago, or the State of Illinois will declare bankruptcy.

- Money will flow out of the municipal and state bond markets, causing interest rates to rise in these markets.

- Loads of municipal and State bankruptcies.