>>103541
>I meant that things that the State creates can have value.
>For example a park that can be enjoyed by everyone has value and can be well-manteined. Of course it's created with seized resources, but it's not such as big a tragedy as we make it out to be.
You're forgetting the opportunity cost. Obviously the output of the state will have some sort of value to most people. But it will always be higher in price and smaller in quantity than what the unrestricted market would have done with those resources. That is what is meant when people say that the state destroys value. It is not that the state destroys value because it incompetently allocates resources; yes, it does allocate them incompetently, but that is not how it destroys value. Even if you ignore the Misesian Calculation Problem, and assume the state is somehow capable of allocating resources just as effectively as the market, it still destroys value, because value is created by voluntary transactions. In a voluntary transaction both parties are better off after the transaction than they were before. Even if its output was of the utmost quality, it must still be said that the state destroys value because it destroys voluntary transactions, not just through coercion, but by the opportunity cost of the voluntary transactions that would have taken place had the state not intervened.
You are correct in that the state's outputs are not completely worthless, and some forms of output are obviously less worthless than others, particularly if they move in the direction of undoing previous coercion. But I believe you're underestimating just how damaging state intervention truly is.
>but in the real world we know, and we should stop being such little shit always closed in our world that goes nowhere.
Does anyone actually do this? The very fact that we're discussing our frustrations on a Canadian cave painting website instead of quietly fuming is already in itself a political interaction. Places like the Mises Institute do a fair bit to get more people interested in liberty, and issue-oriented lobby groups like the GOA or the various pro-life groups are working to make those ideas a policy reality. The most influential voices in libertarian circles aren't against political action by any means. Yes, you do have that autistic "ROOO! Voting is COERCION!!1!" crowd, but thanks to their own detachment they don't have a lot of influence. It's just a bunch of apathetic losers who found a way to turn their apathy into virtue-signaling.
Libertarians have political machinery in place. Not a lot, granted, and it's not all that sophisticated compared to what the Bolshevik scum have, but it is there. And even though our political advocacy is on the primitive side, the fact that it exists tells me you're not completely correct in saying libertarians are stuck arguing with themselves and going nowhere.
So let's look at that primitive political machinery with some perspective. Yes, compared to the Marxists our game is weak. But the Marxists have been doing this for a good 150 years. As a political animal, libertarianism hasn't been around nearly as long, despite our very long intellectual history (which has arguably been around as long as Cicero). The ideas of many disparate thinkers weren't unified into a single mode of thought until Mises published Human Action in 1949. Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto, which translated theory into more coherent policy goals, was only published in 1973. Marx did largely the same thing, translating leftist gobbledygook into a lie just barely coherent enough to seem plausible to some people, almost exactly a century earlier. He wrote his own manifesto in 1849 and Das Kapital in 1867. Considering our late start in the political game, I would say we've made incredible headway. Almost all the youth-oriented right wing activist groups, such as Turning Point USA, YAL, FEE, Mises U, and to a certain extent the Heritage Foundation, base themselves around the pursuit of liberty. Only 50 years ago Rothbard said he believed there to be 25 anarcho-capitalists in all the world. Look at where we are now. Still very clearly a minority, but not nearly such an obscure one. Almost everyone Internet-savvy has at least heard of anarcho-capitalism, most likely through memes such as everyone's favorite smiling sphere. We've had a Presidential candidate get the plurality vote in a major primary, and only lose the nomination due to Jewry with the rules. Considering that the commies have had a hundred year head-start, I'd say we're doing pretty well all things considered. We have a long, long, ways to go, but the way you're speaking, you're ignoring how far we've come already.