/liberty/ - Liberty

>>104974

Was it Rockefeller? I've heard the story but forget the name.

>>105186

That makes sense. I assumed you were the only confederate on this whole board. That and I assumed you occasionally switched to the Christian Anarchism Flag

>>105182

>victims entitled to reparations for FO' HUNRIT YEEAHS O' SLAVERY

Wait, weren't we just all in the Luxembourg thread a couple days ago talking about how feudalism is not libertarian because some ancestors engaged in land theft, so it should be given back to the rightful owners; but now in this thread reparations are not legitimate?

>>105189

There are at least two Confederate posters, although the other guy uses his flag much less often.

>>105194

Those are not equivalent concerns. Reparations are nonsensical because the restitution is not being paid to any specific person over any specific property violation. If you can prove that Jaequonius Jackson, born 1813 to Jaequonda Jackson, was enslaved by the Jackson plantation for a period of fifty-three years, and if you can prove that you, Kequez Jackson, are both descendent to Jaequonius and inheritor to his estate, then you might be entitled to demand restitution payments from the prime inheritor of the Jackson plantation, and only from him. This is a far cry from, "SHEEEEEIT, GIBSMEDAT WHITEBOI."

Since most blacks can't prove who their fathers are, let alone their great-great-great-grandfathers, they have no hope of making any sort of legitimate claim. If we ignore individual ownership of property, and declare instead that whites as a whole owe blacks as a whole something for slavery, then once you factor in 60 years of welfare payments and all the bike thefts, the blacks will probably end up owing the whites money.

Regarding Luxembourg, the argument in question was whether Luxembourg was ancap. Feudal land acquisition might not have been ancap, but the feudal system as a whole was undoubtedly one much more libertarian than the current democratic shitshow. The initial acquisition was not legitimate, but afterwards property rights tended to be honored. The kings and lords were relatively handsome-off in their rule, especially compared to now, and taxes were much lower than they are today.

DR3 is Democrats Are the Real Racists.

>>105184

The only reason I use the mutualist flag is because there's no voluntaryist flag.

>>105244

I always thought of voluntarism as just a better name for ancapism because it doesn't have the bad "anarchism" and the evil "capitalism" in it, I've only seen people use them as synonyms so idk what he's on about.

>>105244

Voluntaryism isn't explicitly market-based; voluntaryists subscribe to the NAP but don't necessarily subscribe to Austrian economics to explain what following the NAP would look like. Ancaps are voluntaryists that are also free marketeers, who think of the natural order in terms of the market economy.

>>105267

but the voluntaryist flag is yellow/black as well which stands for capitalistic anarchism, so it can't be a market-neutral ideology

>>105271

the gold/yellow literally stands for capitalism you mongoloid

>>105272

That's what the colors have come to imply connotatively. That does not mean this is the only possible context those two colors may have. The original Gadsden flag represented small government, not the market system. Voluntaryists presumably chose their colors based on that. There's also no such thing as an "official" voluntaryist flag, which makes your entire point moot. Most voluntaryists are also ancaps, which is why most voluntaryist OC is styled after ancap symbols. That does not make voluntaryism necessarily capitalistic.

>>105275

Anthropogenic climate change is a meme. It only exists to gaslight you into giving more money and power to the state, as they alone possess the power to control the weather if you give them enough money. Pollution is answered by the Kuznets curve; the freer a market is the more rapidly it will progress to the right side of the Kuznets curve, and the more rapidly pollution will decrease.

>>105256

>>105267

this

>>105275

If you can prove harm, you can sue.

I know the border has been talked about on other threads but there's a take I've heard about it that I never considered before. Will builiding the wall and keeping the Mexicans and Guatemalans out force them to go back to their home countries and reform them so they are not shit?

>>105275

If you own property, you also own the atmosphere circulating within that parcel of property. Changing the CO2 % of someone else's owned atmosphere without their consent is a violation of the NAP.

Thus if you want generate carbon, you would have to capture it and store it on your own property or be in violation of the NAP. This will require advancement in carbon capture technology but most carbon capture technologies will only add 1-5 cents in cost per kilowatt hour.

The reason for climate change is that air is not considered within current property rights frameworks..

Or use wind/solar/nuclear instead of fossil fuels.

>>105334

go back to reddit please

>>105335

Not an argument.

>>105336

not this guy again

AnCaps want to replace State power with the power of Merchants, so why should people voluntarily replace one Plutocracy for another?

You can't abolish coercion because power is inherently coercive. Therefore, if I HAVE to deal with cooercive power I would rather have a leader who forces the merchant class to behave in the interest of Racial Hygiene rather than AnCap mini-fuedalists who don't mind selling the countries resources to whomever they please to do with whatever they please, health of the Race be damned.

And don't give me the "No ones forcing you to buy from them" line, if a merchant has the resources of a community in his total control and people in that community don't like it, theres nothing stopping an AnCap merchant from taking off with the resources and setting up shop somewhere else. If the people try to stop them by force, thats violating muh NAP and unnacceptable to AnCaps.

That is why imo, AnCapistan is not ever going to happen. It demands that people hand power over to naked mercantile interests, something that almost nobody wants to do and can never work as a pure ideology. I've seen Liechtenstein named as a psuedo-example of AnCapistan, but the situation in that country is only possible because it's surrounded by bigger, stronger neighbors who never could have existed without violating the NAP throughout their history.

>>105341

Oh look, another "hurrr merchants" post. This is a completely original contention and has absolutely not been rebutted to death six million times over.

>>105342

1.Not an argument, Ive seen no such rebuttals in this thread.

2. The term Merchant is an accurate synonym for people who engage in trade & commerce. Own your shit fam. Make (((Rothbard))) and (((Mises))) proud

3. The QTDDTOT thread would be the best place to ask, no?

>>105341

>AnCaps want to replace State power with the power of Merchant

Wrong. The plutocracy you kvetch about only has power because of regulatory capture and the state destroying their competition. Suggesting that they would have power without the state is stupid.

>You can't abolish coercion because power is inherently coercive.

Commie bullshit. This is no different from whining that reality doesn't hand you exactly what you want.

>who forces the merchant class to behave in the interest of Racial Hygiene

Ancap is the most expedient and effective method for achieving an ethnostate. Any meme government you can create will serve its interests rather than your own, and will fall apart after the first fuhrer kicks the bucket.

>if a merchant has the resources of a community in his total control

That only happens when the government gives the merchant in question subsidies and regulates his competitors out of existence. Attaining "total control" (whatever that means, you haven't bothered to specify) is not just inordinately difficult without state assistance, it is impossible.

>If the people try to stop them by force, thats violating muh NAP

First, the NAP isn't pacifism. It doesn't preclude retaliating in self-defense. Second, there are multiple ways to punish in the market without violating the NAP. Your scenario would only happen IN some Jewish Hollywood movie no one considers market response since they're too busy being eeeeeviiiil capitalists. If you believe this is how the market actually works, you've allowed the Marxist, anti-market Jews in the public education system to psyop you.

>fuedalists who don't mind selling the countries resources to whomever they please to do with whatever they please,

What does this even mean? You don't actually think "resources" are just plundered and exploited, right? This is just stupid.

>but the situation in that country is only possible because it's surrounded by bigger, stronger neighbors

That begs the question of why those neighbors never conquered Liechtenstein. Same for Switzerland.

>>105346

We have multiple threads about regulatory capture up and already, and both this QTDDTOT and the last have replies about how the market restricts immigration and promotes homogeneous communities. You just didn't look hard enough.

>>105348

I also want to add that the "plutocracy" isn't one united collective of people. Far from it, they are competing with each other to make the most money, which requires best benefiting the consumer. The State, on the hand, devolves into the people clamoring for gibs as this is the issue with "public property." With public property, you can always promise someone else will pay for it. Even in a non-democracy (e.g. fascism), the people will still demand those things (on threat of revolution) in times of hardship because they see the government and they think it can fix it.

What determines whether or not a life has the right to non-aggression under anarcho-capitalism? Would an unborn child possess this right? Would an infant? What about an animal that has the intelligence of an infant, like a dog? Hypothetically, if a race of non-human animals came to possess human-level intelligence would they have the right to non-aggression? What about individuals in alien countries?

Libertarians say that capitalism isnt the problem, cronyism is. But isn't cronyism the end goal of capitalists? Doesnt every man wish to be rich and powerful enough that he can get favors from other rich and powerful people?

>>105650

In a free market, businesses must be run effectively if they are to succeed. If a business owner decides to appoint a bunch of cronies to positions of power in the business rather than people with merit, it will most likely cause problems in the business and thus decrease the business's power.

This is not the case with the state. If a state begins operating inefficiently because of crony politicians, it isn't going to let its "customers" opt out of purchasing its services. Cronyism is only sustainable if the organization in question is the state or controls the state (ie through lobbyists or garnering political favours).

Do you "own" personally identifiable information? If someone posts a doxx of you with stuff like your full name, address, or even stuff like credit card number or username and password of online accounts, is that a violation of the NAP? Assuming they don't call for people to enact violence on you.

>>105685

I don't know if it could be said that one 'possesses' such information. Mainly because such information would be along the same lines as intellectual property which isn't really property in the full sense. However, doxxing implies a threat, it is intimidation and because of that it has transgressed the NAP. Similarly, with credit card and password info to financial accounts, the hacking of of this information implies the potential of actual theft and so I would say it transgresses the NAP as well.

If someone damages your property and cannot afford to pay restitution, would it be morally justified to force them into indentured servitude until they can pay off their debt?

>>105697

Only if the damage was unintentional. However, I don't rightfully know and so it would be better to either let the private McJudge decide, or the King.

>>105698

*intentional

>>105697

No, and in rothbard land an expanded insurance system will account for these issues

How NAP and other fancy rules are going to be enforced in ancap? By some kind of ancap-committee?

>>105709

Private courts can handle disputes. Private security can enforce the courts decision. As long as an ancap community doesn't prevent freedom of movement, there shouldn't be any worry of some sort of ancap-committee turning into an HOA on steroids.

What would've happened to Epstein in an AnCap world?

Is ownership of unimproved land ever legitimate? What moral principal grants land ownership if not homesteading rights?

>>105739

A bunch of angry fathers would have had him drawn and quartered.

>>105711

Okay, let's suppose someone burns someone else's house and kills his family. What is supposed to happen next?

>>105751

Well if it is within a covenant community then it would be taken before a court to establish intent and the punishment to result. Covenants would have their own rules of order. Now if this was outside of such a community, then the owner of the burnt house could seek vengeance on his own terms for the trespass of the NAP. Ideally this would be in the persona of John Wick.

>>105790

The monopolies of big tech companies are protected by government regulations and patent laws.

>>105793

Their Monopolies have more to do with them being pioneers.

No matter how shitty Youtube's moderation gets, removing regulations wont destroy it because it already has almost two decades worth of content and loyal users.

>>105795

Not the same guy but just had to say that if aforementioned regulations were repealed along with the annual subsidies removed, youtube would probably cease to exist as a platform.

With the way that youtube as a business model works currently it's actually rather unfeasible as a service, in fact it's not even remotely profitable as many have already pointed out. Google actually LOSES money operating youtube.

If subsidies were pulled out from under Google, they would either have to change how they do business so that profits can actually be made (ie: Stop screwing over content creators, political channels that are disliked by management staff, etc) or they'd have to radically rethink how something like Youtube would actually even work (think of Bitchute for example). The latter is more of a realistic option seeing as how even when the issues mentioned in the former didn't exist it still wasn't all that profitable regardless.

Does there exist anywhere a list of times when the US government violated the constitution?

What difference would be noticed if government price floors on agriculture were removed? If a price floor is somehow desirable, would some private organization take over that role?