/liberty/ - Liberty

Oh I think I remember this one. It was pretty fun tbh.

>>101881

Yes you are a shill. Fuck off.

bump

>>101870

The same people are making a Mises vs marx one.

>>105460

Saw that but they didn't even contact the mises institute, literal brainlets

>>105047

who is a lolbert? libertarian or liberal?

>>105153

a lolbert is an egalitarian, basically leftist "libertarian", just look at the lolbertarian party in america for a few examples.

>>105157

we have such pussies in poland too

>>105317

nice buzzword tard

>>105297

>strawman: the thread

>why must this particular function/policy be handled via a monopoly of force instead of voluntary transactions: the board

FTFY

>>105297

I don't even get what's wrong with this, he's completely correct except for the last one.

>gubbirnmint bad because gobenrment do thing

exactly, sole existance of government is a threat to liberty

>>105204

you didn't present an argument either, kill yourself molymeme

>>104973

>The brave souls in HK seem to care more about basic freedoms than we do.

Yeah, the "bugmen" are outdoing us and showing far more spirit.

What's the freest, developed Asian country? Taiwan or Singapore? If shit really hits the fan here in the West, civilization will go on over there.

>>105232

I hope you are right. I haven’t encountered it in person.

>>105392

Also, do not feed glow niggers.

>>105416

Most socially conservative types are quieter about their political views, and don't see a need to shout them from the rooftops. As a result they tend to be underrepresented through casual observation.

>>105056

>scapegoating other people for your poor choices/inadequacy/mental issues

Wow. Didn't realize it was the libertaians who were the capitalist victim blamers. Fuck libertarians!

>>105422

This guy just killed libertarianism with his stupidity.

>>105424

I mean the guy he's quoting who is a victim blamer.

>>105373

Normalfags are cancer. Ignoring first principles and dumbing down arguments to petty empiricism only attracts human garbage to liberty. The inevitable result is Gary Johnson, the libertarian party, and libertine shitholes like Porcfest becoming the public face of the libertarianism. Because property rights are fundamentally undemocratic, anti-egalitarian ideals, it is self-defeating to advocate for them using tactics of mass appealing. Normalfags who can't appreciate first principles will never be libertarians; the only way to get them to call themselves such is to dilute the meaning of the phrase such that it no longer has anything to do with property rights. Trying to get human trash that can't appreciate first principles into libertarianism is a waste of energy-efficient that is better spent elsewhere. On the off-chance you succeed, all you have managed to do is subvert the ideology from within, strengthening the left-libertarian 5th columns. And a traitor from within is a hundred times as dangerous as the enemy at the gates.

>>105394

You don't. The natural order is fundamentally undemocratic, trying to achieve it through some leftist democratic revolution is not possible. The natural order, should it be restored at all, will be achieved through enclaves seceding from their respective states. Memetic propagandists will serve to make people aware of these ideas; those with the intelligence to appreciate the natural order whose interest is piqued will seek it out on their own.

>>105375

>Normalfags are cancer

I would personally avoid making statements like that. It belies an attitude of disdain that libertarians need to get over.

It's not most people's fault that they were born into an unjust world where they're shoved through two decades of indoctrination camp as soon as they can understand language.

And on top of that, the kind of people who are inclined towards liberty also tend to be too busy having careers and families to faff about with politics in the first place.

Bump

>>105339

sounds good to me but I just really hope that you won't suddenly disappear like the last BO

>>105339

Shill somewhere else faggot, the current board is fine.

>>105383

Thanks for the bump retard

>>104065

>>104063

Like the other guy said, without the Civil Rights Act and other nonsense getting in the way of justice McDonald's would be culpable for every action taken by their pet niggers. Which brings us into the question as to why McDonald's would even want to Airbus in Somalians anyways. There's no Section 8 housing to stick them in, no one in respectable neighborhoods would voluntarily rent to a nigger, and even if they did the niggers couldn't afford the rent. Since whatever slum apartments you build for your niggers have to be far away from the civilized neighborhoods, and the roadowners won't allow someone who can't read the roadsigns to drive on their road, you're going to have to arrange transportation for them as well. To make sure they don't escape from the slum and start terrorizing the countryside, McDonald's is going to have to hire security as well. "Cheap" labor is only cheap when the taxpayer is subsidizing all of the implicit costs of dealing with cheap labor. Without that subsidy, there's nothing profitable in it.

>>103965

> We've already established that there's no such thing as public access

If no such public access exists, then no one would be able to homestead the encircled land except Owner A.

> Excuse me sir, but we have decreed that this is a public thoroughfare and you must allow this individual to pass.

Ignoring your reduction ad absurdum about shooting dogs, where is the NAP violation? Where is the initiation of force?

> Owner A owns the route

He never legitimately owned it since he never claimed the encircled property. If he homesteaded the route after the encircled land becomes owned, then yes he would own it. But as it is in continuous and in current use by Owner B, Owner A cannot claim it until Owner A abandons it.

> This is the same principle under which a landlord may evict his tenants at any time, for any reason, from any motivation.

This is not even a relevant analogy. Tenants are bound to a contract with their landlord for use of a landlords property. No such contract exists (physical or implied) for someone seeking to claim that unowned encircled land.

>>105019

>then no one would be able to homestead the encircled land except Owner A.

Then fine, let's say no one would be able to homestead it except owner A. I was never that attached to Block's argument anyways, if anything the idea that you can encircle something without homesteading it contradicts Hoppe's emborderment principle. So, we'll throw Block's exception out, and rule that Owner A has homesteaded the encircled land by virtue of encircling it, as that's what emborderment theory implies.

>not knowing about dogshooting

Lurkmoar.

>Where is the initiation of force?

PROPERTY BEING USED WITHOUT CONSENT YOU DOUBLENIGGER, THAT'S WHERE

>>105021

>Then fine, let's say no one would be able to homestead it except owner A.

Now apply this to a cabal of property owners encircling a large tract of unowned land.

>Lurkmoar.

Not an argument.

>PROPERTY BEING USED WITHOUT CONSENT

Right-of-way and freedom-to-roam are long-established common law rights and you consented to them by contractually engaging in commerce with these societies (anarchic and polycentric societies I might add). You could ignore common law but may have to pay compensation or be ostracized by these societies.

>>104850

Jeez, you and your sick fetishes, leftypol…

>>104872

Heh, that's nice. I like her freckles.

I love all of these designs. Let's be honest though. She should be wielding some kind of homemade rifle that breaks all the rules. I'm thinking printed or milled M4 with an unregistered short barrel, full auto fun mode, drum mag, ITAR restricted night vision setup, bayonet, silencer, etc. If it breaks a gun law, put it on that bitch. Alternatively, a simple, classic Barret works too.

>>105331

>M4

>short barrel

Why would the efficiency of the free market replicate the stupid design decisions of the US Army?

>>105292

>>105320

First of all, stop samefagging, it's really obvious and it's pathetic.

Second,

>the definition of derailing is being reminded about something

Nice logic you got there, but if that's derailing then almost everything is derailing. "Derailing" is when you steer the conversation away from the original topic into something completely unrelated:

>obstruct (a process) by diverting it from its intended course

I never did that. Now get off my back, you're obsessed, and you're annoying.

>>105328

>First of all, stop samefagging, it's really obvious and it's pathetic.

I was phonefagging you nigger. Phonefagging is usually low-quality, but that's why I don't enable the flag on my phone. And it's not quite as bad as namefagging is.

>Nice logic you got there, but if that's derailing then almost everything is derailing. "Derailing" is when you steer the conversation away from the original topic into something completely unrelated:

Namefagging is derailing. Anybody who thinks it's not is a complete newfag and hasn't seen how boards become derailed when namefagging is a thing. It's very nature is derailing. There's a reason namefagging and derailment on all of 8chan are considered closely related. It's literally no different than ending everypost with "-H," except this time it's in big green letters. Namefagging is what redditors do. It's about reminding people that you are still present.

<you're obsessed

>>105332

<This is the second thread you're derailing with your weird obsession with me and my board

>you namefag

>i point out you’re a namefag

<apparently I derailed the thread for pointing it out, but you didn’t even though you namefagged even when it’s clearly off-topic

>i mention you being a namefag as advice for the new /mises/ BO

>you throw a hissy fit

<apparently I derailed the thread by bringing it up when it’s on-topic, not you for throwing a hissy fit over it

Nice.

>wants a horde of communists to come and shit all over /liberty/

What?

>I'm not going to entertain this creepy redditor, it's the exact kind of bullshit you can expect from that toxic "community".

You talk like a complete redditor.

>>105333

>i mention you being a namefag as advice for the new /mises/ BO

You didn't just "mention", you accused me of derailing threads: >>105292 , so you baited me into helping you derail this thread with your slander.

>wants a horde of communists to come and shit all over /liberty/

<I'm comfortable with the /liberty/ board and I'm not worried about leftists "invading" the board.

<What? What? What?

Don't feign ignorance, hypocrite: >>105253 , if you're okay with leftists invading the board, you have no right to complain about anyone derailing anything.

>>104927

good riddance

>>104912

Ok, I get what you mean, what I planned when making the board was for Holo to be the board's mascot and a symbol of anarcho-capitalism. I couldn't believe we didn't meme such a based and iconic character earlier, so I decided to do it myself. Maybe it was wrong of me to start off so strong with Holo everywhere as it gives off the wrong impression that the board is only about anime, but it's really about ancap and off-topic things like anime so that people can also have a fun time and not be serious all the time. I could replace the images in the stickies with more informative images, but Holo being the mascot of the board is the one thing I won't compromise on, and having said that, you could totally ignore her and all the anime, I don't require anyone to care about that.

>>104914

Well my standards obviously can't get any lower then, because I don't care as long as you don't shill for open-borders or other SJW-tier fake libertarianism, that's really what I'm concerned about.

I just checked out your board OP. I have no idea who holo is or your obsession with this anime wolf girl. But I might give it a shot. I'm not entirely sure what tone you want for the board if it's serious or joking but there are a few threads that seem interesting. So yeah, I'll see how this goes.

People like to believe that there's a lever they can pull to make things better, to "fix" the problem. Most of them, even moderately pro-market types, don't truly understand how the market functions, so trusting "the market" to fix it, an abstract entity which they don't quite understand, gives them anxiety. Regardless of logical arguments (which are usually irrelevant when it comes to Normans), the idea of a benevolent agency making sure that only the good things happen and the bad things don't happen provides a certain kind of security. This becomes doubly true when one considers that nearly all Normans went to public school, where it was drilled into their heads that bureaucrats are selfless civil servants with your best interests in mind.

If we're talking about regulatory capture would having competing regulating agencies in a market be better? It seems like a lot of these types of problems stem from a lack of competition.

>>104375

In certain cases, competing regulatory agencies would be desirable, if consumers derived some value from it. An agency which certifies a firm to put certain labels on its product (e.g., "certified organic") would be mutually beneficial to the seller and buyer, so we can expect certification forms to compete with on the market. Current experience, however, suggests that quality-controlling regulatory agencies would not be competitive, and fall out of the market. Nearly all food providers in the market right now, even fast food joints, have a set of of internal regulations that they follow which are stricter than the FDA's. This implies that firms can compete on quality directly, ergo they would be no market for quality-based regulation.

Learning about regulatory capture did push me more into libertarianism tbh.

>>103997

Why should I give a shit that some stormfag and "kekistani classical liberalist" had a bitch slap contest on google hangout? And wasn't this like a year ago? Why are we bringing this shit up now?

>>104098

>>104250

A """crypto"""fascist pan-europeanist who wants to empower a new racial aristocracy to… stop degeneracy and stuff.

His politics, as is the case with most of the detritus that's come out of 4chan /pol/, isn't very coherent.

>>103998

It’s sad because Dickie had some mildly pro /liberty/ views and even gave a good talk at the PFS. But this was before he got his twaty haircut and became a Worf for the MSM - a puppet to be brought out whenever the right needs spanking.

Soygon might be worse because he hangs in circles that are very familiar with fringe thinkers like Hoppe, but never acknowledges libertarianism. At least not that I know of.

>>104276

The fact that you think having a healthy sex life is something wrong is a testament to just what an autist he is and the sort of people he appeals to.

>>105009

It's weird since didn't he meet up with that one libertarian Polish politician?

>>104166

Ah, but you see, Canadian waiting lines are fake news developed by evil capitalists, designed to brainwash the unwashed proletariat into supporting private healthcare! We should nationalize medicine!

>>104166

same in poland

I am a Canadian Ameriboo who wishes to move to the states because the compensation in my field is so shit, taxes are too high and cost of living is too much.

Also, I have waited a week in agonizing pain in a hospital bed for emergency surgery before.

>>105050

werent you given painkillers?

>>104166

Same in all of the UK actually.

Yes. It is based on a "basket" of fiat currencies which makes it worse than the dollar because most fiat currencies are worse than the dollar.

From what I've heard it has the backing of paypal and some credit card companies. That and it operates like company script rather than true crypto. It's basically an abortion of a currency.

It is fiat money but now digitalized for maximum kikery.

I don't mind it though, it will help to get normies into crypto money. Once they get used to having their Libras it will be easy to have them use other cryptos. The moment the find out they can buy their porn or some other degenerate shit with that money but they can use other cryptos they will learn how to change and there we go.

It's not really a cryptocurrency, the validators are all centrally controlled. Which makes it a frankenstein halfway between paypal and digitized fiat like other users mentioned.

Andreas Antonopoulos predicted this a few years ago how big entrenched institutions would try co-opt Bitcoin tech while disassociating itself from the interesting parts:

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

>>104781

It's not based on only currencies, it's going to be based on a basket of assets: currencies, stocks, bonds, etc

if it was just based on fiat currencies they would make it another stablecoin which is pointless because we have like 10 of those now and some of them are wildcat banks (like tether)