/liberty/ - Liberty

What is stopping me from owning a nuke under ancapistan?

>>103578

Sure, what is stopping me from using it?

>>103577

If the excellent game theory piece is too long or big-brain for you, consider this: Nukes are just very large guns. The objections you would have to civilian proliferation of ukes are essentially the same to the objections gun control advocates have for firearms. Likewise, the arguments that show civilian gun ownership is no big deal and reduces crime are the same arguments which show nuke ownership is no big deal.

Just noticed there were a few questions in the old thread after it bump-locked, I'll answer them here:

>>103501

>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.

That's fine, best thing about the market is you get to choose what products you buy. There would undoubtedly be communities that would be defended entirely by volunteer militias in ancapistan, rather than PMCs. Your security insurance company would give you a discount if you owned a gun at home, because you are now a less costly client to insure. If you could certify that you know how to use said gun, and train regularly with it, you'd likely get a further discount. If you and a few dozen other armed individuals trained as a team regularly, and sent proof of this to McInsurance as having formed a local militia, all of you might get an additional discount. Or, McInsurance might decide that a volunteer militia is security enough for your locale, and pay you to provide security instead. I suppose this is technically still mercenary work, but I would guess you were imagining something like anonymous guys in black operator gear patrolling your neighborhood, not well-trained locals.

>>103503

>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?

You would only own that part of the river that goes through your property. So if you were to pollute your portion of the river somehow, and the pollutant was carried downstream into your neighbors property, you would be liable for damages.

>If the rest of the world balkanized would it still be possible to develop advanced technology?

Sure, just look at Europe throughout history. Easily the most technologically advanced continent in the world from the High Middle Ages onward, despite very severe balkanization. If anything, balkanization would promote even faster technological growth due to specialization and the division of labor. Smaller regions would specialize in whatever they have comparative advantage in, and trade with other regions for the rest of their goods. Specializing like this is cheaper and leads to more technological growth, and competition with other regions encourages everyone to maintain peak efficiency rather than slacking off and coasting on established success.

>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?

Here's the thing about space, and technology in general. In the market, technological gain at all costs isn't intrinsically good, because it's all about opportunity cost: if the things you give up for technological growth are too severe, it doesn't make sense to pursue technological growth. To use an extreme example, if there's a massive drought happening, it doesn't make sense to mandate that we put all our efforts towards making faster gizmos when more developed irrigation and fertilizer is clearly what the market demands. The same thing applies to space. Thanks to state sponsorship of the space program, we probably ended up going to space earlier than we would have. But that came at the detriment of the rest of the economy; if those taxes that went towards NASA's R&D were allowed to remain in the market, they could have been invested in more conventional tech, like consumer electronics or networking. Spaceflight might have been delayed by ~10 years or so, until telecom satellite technology became viable, but we might have gotten the Internet a decade earlier this is obvioulsy oversimplified, but I hope you take my meaning. And if you look at history, almost every major scientific advancement has come from private individuals fucking around with shit; despite the memes, the state has done comparatively little for tech advancement, and wasn't involved at all until the 20th century. And even then, how much of that could you say was true advancement? NASA's pyramid-building of rockets, while undoubtedly impressive, didn't do very much to establish new scientific principles. It was just a showcase of some very big, and very expensive, feats of engineering. People like to bring up how the Internet was "created" by DARPA as well, but if you look deeper into it, this doesn't really add up. What DARPA created had no resemblance to the Internet as it was used in the private sector, and didn't have the same kind of usability at all. The DARPAnet just sent packets of information unidirectionally from peer to peer. That's nothing what the Internet is like today, and those changes that the private sector made to the Internet was what made it viable.

>>103583

Because neoliberals are just blue neocons and neocons are Trotskyites. Polite sage for doublepost.

>>103665

Thank you for answering my questions. It's very enlightening. I wondered why the old thread wasn't responding much.

If anarchy/volunterism is predicated on an inherent sovereign agency, what requires it to be an ideology for it's communion? If everyone "should" be free to choose because it's a fundamental inviolable law, are they not already choosing? Would this not mean those who think they aren't, are doing so by an appeal to authority for their own delegation?

If capitalism and property ownership are determined through the ability to compete and/or cooperate for resources that have already been claimed by agents who've established their communal covenant prior to your existence as an agent, are you not already violating the nap by entering the community and taking it's resources while opposing it's covenant? If the world wants your submission and has clearly throughout time demanded it with the ultimate threat of death, or the inability to choose between what they offer anymore regardless of where you choose to go, is it not your responsibility to protect your life and ability to be an agent by aligning with the preestablished community that most closely represents your ideology and the most capable of stopping those who are most capable and intent on opposing it?

>inb4 fuck off /pol/

I'm with you guys on the lib kick. I just don't see any reason why you're not working together other than getting hung up on a false schism between ideology and pragmatics. We're all already governing ourselves whether we pretentiously delegate or pretend not to tbh.

>>103691

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, so pardon me if this isn't the answer you're looking for.

>what requires it to be an ideology for it's communion?

Technically speaking, nothing. There are lots of pragmatic arguments in favor of liberty and ancapistan as well as ideological ones. I wouldn't even call myself an ideologue, unless you consider all ethics to be a part of ideology. I believe in liberty because A) a free society is in my own interests, and in the interest of my friends and family, and B) I think the NAP and property rights are the basis of sound ethics. I'm not an ideologue, in the sense that I feel no urge to go fight and die in the name of an idea. I don't have much of an urge to lay my life on the line for a stranger's benefit, either, regardless if those strangers share a belief system with me. My in-group preference doesn't extend that far outwards.

>is it not your responsibility to protect your life and ability to be an agent by aligning with the preestablished community that most closely represents your ideology and the most capable of stopping those who are most capable and intent on opposing it?

It sounds like you're asking if it's okay to engage in political action and align yourself with people who share some of your goals, but not all, e.g. ancaps who vote republican. And the answer is yes. Given that we live in a coercive system, and given that this coercion isn't going anywhere anytime soon, it makes sense to try and minimize the coercion inflicted upon you, including through influencing the government. Some people say this is violating the NAP, and that voting is an act of aggression because you're asking a coercive entity to do violence on behalf. I think those people are virtue-signaling faggots, who just created a post hoc justification for why they're more enlightened than you are by doing absolutely nothing. There are people–Marxists and their various allies–that have loudly and repeatedly announced their intentions to use the state to inflict violence upon me, to use it to confiscate my property and make my life a living hell. This is clearly an act of aggression. Influencing the state in response to this is not aggression then, it's perfectly justified self-defense.

>>103693

>I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, so pardon me if this isn't the answer you're looking for.

>Technically speaking, nothing.

>And the answer is yes.

These we're the two answers you gave to my questions.

> I believe in liberty because A) a free society is in my own interests, and in the interest of my friends and family, and B) I think the NAP and property rights are the basis of sound ethics

>My in-group preference doesn't extend that far outwards.

Red Herrington me on the rest. Let me ask one more. If while in the US during the civil war, would you have joined and fought with the confederacy, or moved to the hills with friends and family in confederate states?

>>103694

I'd like to think I'd have fought with the Confederacy. The Union threat would have been an existential one to my way of life. Since I would very much like to keep my way of life as it is in the Confederacy, I would agree that the Yankees should be stopped. If I did nothing, they would impede on my way and my community's way of life. What I meant when I said I didn't want to fight and die for strangers is that I reject this notion of championing the cause of liberty for complete strangers, who share exactly zero characteristics with me besides some ideological convictions. For instance, take the situation in Yemen. The Yemenese are being treated quite horribly by the Saudis. But I'm not Yemenese, none of my friends or family is Yemenese, and I live thousands of miles away from Yemen. Because of these facts, I can't bring myself to get whipped up into a moral outrage because one group of kebabs is being mean to another group of kebab on the other side of the world. I'll wish best of luck to the Yemenese but I'm not going to virtue-signal about how horrible their plight is; I care more about my people than I do about them.

>>103695

Good to know. There will be a time when you or your decendents will find that the war never ended, and the boundaries were drawn in our minds before they were laid upon soil. Godspeed anon. Thank you for your time.

>>103577

The fact that you can't tax millions of people to pay for its maintenance indefinitely

>>103719

If there are ayys out there, I think simple distance is enough to explain why we haven't bumped into each other yet. Through a very, very, generous interpretation of the anthropic principle, we can start from the assumption that any ayys have been developing about as long as we have, and are at around the same level of development. This is a very generous interpretation and that's a very weak assumption, but I'm only using it to infer what physics tells us is true: you can't communicate faster than the speed of light. Given that any potential ayys are hundreds of light-years away, then, it would take hundreds of years for us to hear anything from the point they start communicating. And if they haven't been producing radio waves for much longer than we have (see above), then we shouldn't expect to hear anything for a good long while. And that's assuming we're listening on the right frequency. And that the ayys are screaming 'WE'RE HERE COME FIND US PLZ RESPOND' all day, every day, in all directions.

>>103720

If nuclear weapons are freely available, the price would be driven down due to a huge demand. Now I realise that it would be better if everyone had a nuke, rather than a minority, since if a minority had nukes, they would rape everyone else. E.g. if only a few people had guns. If everyone has nukes, there is the threat of retaliation.

>>103719

Statism is the attempt of certain pseudo-illuminated to transform the social meme into a more homogenous conglomerate so as to aid in the use of macro-scale psychic manipulation. Alienspecies have either transcended flesh-reliance or have sprouted out into sort of solidarity apex predators (or, apex grazers, energetically speaking).

>>103722

>huge demand for nukes

I don't think so anon. Sure the price would go down, but not enough to make it attractive for your average Joe. What would you even need them for if there are no states around? Maybe private security firms would have an incentive to mantain one or two, but beyond that I don't really see it.

>>103581

But guns occasionally do get used for the sole purpose of causing damage.

>>103727

Occasionally, yes. But that frequency goes down the more guns there are because the cost of using a gun for aggressive purposes (see: retaliation) increases at an increasing rate. The Lemennicier article up here >>103578 goes into more detail on this, it's essentially the MAD argument codified into game theory and formal logic.

>>103731

I agree, but nukes are different in a sense because they can be used remotely (so can guns, but rarely), and when used, create tremendous property damage, and casualties.

>>103731

A likely argument I see immediately regarding in support of privately owned nuclear weapons is the fact that their existence remains due to the state, non-private, forces that had placed them into commission to begin with. While a stateless market-driven society would be able to access these potentially through some shady dealings with a third-party, it is likely that some wealthier inhabitants of this society would also be focused on hiring third parties to dismantle nuclear weapons as well.

We can assume many in this stateless society would also most likely construct a nuclear weapon for purposes relating to defense against the powers that have them (like the article posted above).

If gun rights go in the U.S., is that it? Is it over? Is the U.S. the last bastion in the world?

>>103577

>What is stopping me from owning a nuke under ancapistan?

If you're smart enough to build a nuke by yourself, you deserve to own it

>>103577

The question you want to ask is: should I acquire a fissile nuke or thermonuclear nuke?

I just wanted to post this. It always gets me hyped.

Asking a question for a change:

How would you say vigilante justice on another's behalf would work in ancap? "Vigilantism" in defense of one's own property and community is simple enough to justify, but acting to defend the rights of another person who has not employed you could get a little complicated. Let's say you're a prospective vigilante, and you were very reasonably certain that Smith was keeping Jones chained up in his basement without Jones's consent for Smith's own amusement. You are acquainted with Jones, but he is neither a member of your family, nor a client you are paid to protect, nor has he called for your assistance that you know of.

In my view, it would work something like this: You couldn't simply break into Smith's house. But, if you have told Smith that he is violating Jones's rights and you will work as Jones's agent to defend his rights if he does not cease, you would be in the right to take whatever steps are necessary to free Jones. However, if for whatever reason upon being freed Jones refuses to acknowledge you as his agent, and does not recognize you as acting in defense of him, Smith is only then liable to sue you for property damage. Does this sound accurate?

>>104111

Was the U.S. engaging in the first Iraq War justified? They were fighting to free Kuwait.

>>104121

>They were fighting to free Kuwait.

They really weren't, though.

>>104130

So if you saved your neighbor but had a different ultimate ulterior motive in mind than actually saving him, it wouldn't be justified?

>>104202

I'm just not sure the Iraq war is comparable, since no one was really saved at all, ulterior motive or otherwise.

I guess the question boils down to whether there exists a legal framework for acting as someone's agent without them hiring you as such, provided they endorse your actions after the fact. In most scenarios, the question of whether it's legally permissible to assign yourself as someone's agent is obvious–it's essentially a form of fraud, making deals and signing contracts on someone else's behalf without their consent thereof. But, if you're reasonably confident that the person won't press charges for this fraud and will be grateful, it's not a readily enforceable crime. I think this might actually deserve its own thread, so I'll make one.

Regarding dams that used to be used for hydroelectric power, which then are used solely for flood control, why? Why not keep collecting the extra power? You already have a large amount of the capital cost sunk into the construction of the dam anyways, right?

>>104255

You're asking to have a bureaucrats thought process explained and clarified. I'm not sure anyone here can do this, because not even the bureaucrats truly know why they do these things.

>>104256

I was actually thinking that there was some engineering reason for it.

>>104260

>>104256

Silt accumulation leads to decreased water height over time and less efficiency as the turbines operate best at high pressure.

Dredging the silt may be too expensive to justify the potential energy gain of an aging power station.

Also changing weather patterns might mean there just isn't enough water throughout the whole year to make power and irrigate, and farmers like to lobby for the latter.

>>104262

Thanks.

>>104293

>what about a suicidal billionaire with an antimatter bomb that could literally blow up the entire planet?

When you create whataboutisms like this, you need to look at the alternative: what's more likely, that someone low time-preference enough to become a billionaire is also simultaneously high time-preference enough to kill himself and the whole world? Or that some high time-preference chucklefuck gets elected, and decides to blow up the world?

>>104317

less people are elected also and people have a chance to stop them.. for example the commanders have overridden launch conditions in the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

>>104319

>people have a chance to stop them

Same thing goes for muh billionaires, you can't build a nuke alone. The fact that a government leader very nearly did this only reinforces the point I was making: people elected into office will always be higher time-preference, more insane, and more retarded than a billionaire. Becoming a billionaire requires positive qualities. Getting into office requires negative ones. Ergo, a politician with access to nukes is more dangerous than a billionaire with access to nukes.

>>104321

>Same thing goes for muh billionaires, you can't build a nuke alone.

not necessarily true.. especially in the future and a billionaire can PURCHASE a nuke alone

sure.. billionaires are going to make better decisions on average than elected officials but there are MORE of them and potentially less barriers for them setting off one of these devices

>>104321

> Ergo, a politician with access to nukes is more dangerous than a billionaire with access to nukes

it's a numbers game though..

is the danger of one elected official setting off a nuke with the military barriers and all the safeguards more than potentially thousands of individuals who could acquire a device?

the state cant prevent them all as it is today but for whatever reason we have not had an event happen yet with the current balance of power.. could be luck, but we need something even more robust to protect our future either way.. my hope is interstellar colonization

What is /Liberty/'s thoughts on gambling microtransactions in video games?

>>104418

>and the same arguments which apply to gun control apply to nukes

people go crazy though all the time and shoot people on a suicidal spree

it's less than those people who rationally defend themselves but with a doomsday world killer 1000 teraton staged fusion device it only takes *one*

>>104418

>Yes. I'd trust a thousand, even a million completely random billionaires more than I would trust even a single bureaucrat.

this is objectively irrational.. the threat of an irrational actor increase with the number of actors even if they are less likely on an individual level to be irrational actors

think if you have 3 people in a room that have guns it's less likely one of them is suicidal than if you have a room full of thousands of people

even psychosis is a thing.. over a long enough period of time and with enough people you're going to get someone doing something absolutely batshit.. and at least teh state controlled systems take multiple people to collude in order to launch but that doesnt have to be the case with an individual that purchased a fusion device from pakistan and then staged it to make it a world killer

>>104453

>people go crazy though all the time and shoot people on a suicidal spree

And somehow, despite these sprees being suicidal, not a single one happens where retaliation is possible, and only happen in gun-free zones. The more nuclear-capable entities there are, the greater potential there is for retaliation. Of all the possible arguments for statism, "what if a Bond villain appears" is pretty weak as arguments go.

>>104456

>And somehow, despite these sprees being suicidal, not a single one happens where retaliation is possible

wtf are you talking about.. there aren't active shooters which are dropped dead by people packing?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/

>GUN CRIME GALLERY In 2007, former cop and volunteer security worker, Jeanne Assam, saved the day at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Thousands of people were exiting from Sunday mass that day as the shooter opened fire. However, Assam ran toward the line of fire, killing the shooter and saving countless lives.

>The more nuclear-capable entities there are, the greater potential there is for retaliation.

Are you actually trying to tell me you think every non-state actor that is going to be able to acquire nuclear technology in the future must act rationally for some reason? Being better than an elected official or even a military commander is setting the bar pretty low.

>The more nuclear-capable entities there are, the greater potential there is for retaliation.

I'm not arguing for statism.. I don't like it at all. I'd like to find a better solution yet when you present anarchism as an infallible concept that's actually doing us a disservice because it sounds dogmatic (it is) and it prevents us from finding the most practical solution which is what markets are supposed to be for.

>"what if a Bond villain appears"

nice try to make my point sound cartoonish, but bond villains always want something in return for not destroying the world and what im talking about is someone who has access to nuclear technology, like what is already being sold on the black market, but then acts *irrationally* as in, psychotic break or something which has a distinct non zero chance even in a high functioning group such as billionaires but in the future especially acquiring a nuclear primary probably wont even take a billion dollars

>>104456

>>104458

I’ve always thought that active nukes are an NAP violation, similar to how aiming a weapon at someone is an active threat and justifies retaliation. Especially since nukes can’t be used in self-defense, due to collateral damage.

>>104460

The scariest genre is reality.

>>104466

maybe but it almost doesnt matter what the justification is.. it's a problem that needs to be solved in the least violent/authoritarian way possible

>>104466

also you have guys like elon musk saying basically any artificial intelligence research would constitute a violation of the NAP, so there's not a good way to balance opinions vs what we practically need.. i cant think of a solution

elon didn't use ancap language but if ancapistan were a reality we know that's what guys like him would advocate for because he's already saying governments should be up people's ass if they are doing anything related to machine learning

it's a problem and i really see interstellar colonization as the only practical solution that wont get ruined by people's opinions and egos, and i personally want to keep my ego and identity intact

and haha i should add that when the nuclear entity is smaller than a super power there a greater incentive for creation of a doomsday device because it's like 10,000 times cheaper to make a single doomsday device than build a network of tactical nuclear weapons system capable of targeting individual military installations and limiting the collateral damage

So imagine 1000 different people, nations, superpowers, and crime syndicates all in a mexican stand off with their fingers on an "end the world button." Do you really think that's safe and you think someone wont crack and do something completely irrational let alone go into full on psychosis?? The fact it hasn't happened yet is probably the only hope. It's accepted israel has nukes along with probably the saudi royal family and we know that some devices had been advertised on the black market so there could be other underground organizations that have these devices for whatever reason.

if anyone cares i worked out the math and it would cost 10-20 billion dollars to make a nuke with the power of a dinosaur killer asteroid, so cobalt bombs are probably cheape, but it's still cheaper to do that then make a network of sophisticated MIRVed intercontinental ballistic missiles

>>104485

It'd be cheaper and more cost effective to hack into government infrastructure, shoot transformers, or leak government info… all hypothetical of course, stop looking at me like that FBI-kun

>>104495

that wouldnt work as well as a deterrent because the elites will still survive and only the public will suffer

iran has tried this by claiming they have sleeper agents

How do you ensure that private police and private courts respect the NAP?

>>104582

do state police follow the law 100 percent of the time?

What do you guys think of the argument that, "We need less income inequality because it serves as a way to guard against those with high concentrations of wealth gaming the political system."?

>>104596

Can't game the political system if there is no political system.

>>104582

Most people wouldn't pay for private police and private courts that act like dicks to everyone

>>104596

>hurr durr we need to make the government more powerful because it's being controlled by corporations and rich people

I have a question for the Christian anarchist on this board: if there’s a god why would he creat low IQ kangz or low IQ subhumans in general?

>>104644

This. Also, if the impaled Jew truly is the son of God, why did he make a religion about hippy socialist bullshit instead of making a religion all about libertarianism?

>>104651

>why did he make a religion about hippy socialist bullshit

>socialist

Not him but the only thing Jesus did was to talk about individual salvation and help people to be more godlike and good to each other, conflating Jesus with socialism is basically denying his atoning sacrifice and reducing him to a mere political figure.

If you want to know about actual gommies around Jesus time look up the Saducees.

>>104653

>you are an influential God-like figure

>you can make your religion about anything

>you can prevent communism and statism all over the world

<lol, jus b nice to everyone, bro

<owning property is bad, bro

<you can't enter heaven if you own things, bro

Not being a political figure doesn't excuse the destructiveness of his ideas. Marx is also a god of poverty and his worshippers are religious fanatics.

>>104653

his kingdom of heaven on earth said the poor would be rich and vice versa and a bunch of socialist bullshit

watch the youtube videos of the guy who wrote "zealot," Rezla Azlan

>>104654

<lol, jus b nice to everyone, bro

>A worthless person, a wicked man, Is the one who walks with a perverse mouth, Who winks with his eyes, who signals with his feet, Who points with his fingers; Who with perversity in his heart continually devises evil, Who spreads strife. Therefore his calamity will come suddenly; Instantly he will be broken and there will be no healing.

>And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Yeah so nice bro. Like, totally chillin bro.

<owning property is bad, bro

>Praise ye the LORD. Blessed is the man that feareth the LORD, that delighteth greatly in his commandments.

>His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed.

>Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endureth for ever.

Yeah God like totally hated rich people bro. He was totes a socialist.

>>104657

>Rezla Azlan

>literal e-celeb who

Yeah no.

>>104651

>>104654

>>104657

Imagine being so thoroughly psy-opped by the Marxists that even when you oppose them you argue for their viewpoints. You ignore what's actually in the Bible (see >>104676 ) in favor of the vague platitudes that leftists give as soundbites for the media on how Jesus wants you to pay for the housing of 6 million Somalis. Ever notice how, despite the claim that Christianity supports their views, these people seem eager to wipe it from the face of the earth? Why would that be if it's actually spreading their message?

Dispensationalism was a mistake.

>>104676

>>104681

im not a socialist im just saying that jesus said things which sound very socialist especially constructing a kingdom on earth where rich people will be punished and poor people rewarded

and all the shit about rich people not being able to get into heaven vs murderers and all that

sorry you belieb in your sky daddy zombie dude so much.. maybe take up buddhism, shinto, or hinduhism??? It's obvious there are more than one god if you have ever done DMT or high dose LSD and the bible even admits there are angels and shit.

>>104683

>>104689

>>104687

>>104684

Based schizo poster.

Man, the 60s must have been wild. Imagine a whole generation of "intellectuals" frying their brains on psychoactive substances like this guy.

>>104676

A classic case of Christians cherry picking the verses they like but ignoring the ones they don't. Who was it that said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?

>>104681

>Imagine being so thoroughly psy-opped by the Marxists that even when you oppose them you argue for their viewpoints.

Do you also eat your own feces just because that's something a Marxist wouldn't do?

>Ever notice how, despite the claim that Christianity supports their views, these people seem eager to wipe it from the face of the earth? Why would that be if it's actually spreading their message?

Democracy also leads to socialism but they are eager to wipe it from the face of the Earth. What's your point?

>>104644

Why would He create anything at all? We can't even begin to understand the things that God does sometimes, but we have to trust that the benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of everything would know more about it than we do and have some purpose for it.

>>104695

>Democracy also leads to socialism but they are eager to wipe it from the face of the Earth.\

>being this retarded

Marxists have always pushed for greater democratization and greater suffrage.

>>104654

Then if God was so commie and his son even more then why he created a world where only free markets are the only functioning system possible? :^)

>>104695

>A classic case of Christians cherry picking the verses they like but ignoring the ones they don't.

First of all, I am not a Christian or even religious at all.

Secondly: are you actually autistic? Or has constant exposure to Richard Dawkins PWNS CREATIONISTS videos rotted your brain?

The Bible contains more nuance than

<durrrr rich man bad

or

<hurr rich man good

On the one hand Jesus says: beware the corrupting power of wealth, and do not mistake it for virtue.

And on the other God says: to those who are virtuous, wealth will come.

These are not contradictory statements. They are parts of a balanced perspective of wealth

>Democracy also leads to socialism but they are eager to wipe it from the face of the Earth. What's your point?

Socialism is the democratization of the means of production you colossal moron.

>>104693

>hurr durr you posted pictures on an imageboard that proves youre mentally ill

if you actually weren't a faggot little pussy NEET bitch you would recognize the pictures i posted

>The Bible contains more nuance than

The bible is written in a purposefully obfuscated way so that different people can ascribe whatever meaning they want and so you can retroactively do mental gymnastics to avoid criticism like you are doing right now.

Marx did the same thing with das kapital and in fact most economists do that. It's part of how they get away with excusing their false prophesies as people just not understanding the "super esoteric" complicated totally academic not plebian nobel prize winning ideas.

kinda like how the torah is 132000 pages long

>>104693

Aso there is nothing irrational about considering the POSSIBILITY that interdimensional DMT entities might be real. It's irrational to believe with certainty they are not real or only a part of your subconscious. The rational viewpoint is to accept both possibilities, and not to discount mountains of circumstantial evidence of shared hallucinatory experiences or extremely similar experiences with "entities," which share common themes, symbols, and imagery between different individuals. And even they are just part of your subconscious that doesn't make them less impressive and it still supports my argument that polytheism is more rational than invisible sky daddy monotheism.

Even those professional debunkers admit they might be "real" or that our whole world might be a simulation and even physicists accept that some things are unfalsifiable like the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics but they still have to be considered and it's more practical in many situations to act under the presumption they are real for the purposes of the experiment or the general vibe in my example. Imagining different worlds and entities is especially useful when it comes to artwork and creativity.

>>104722

>>104723

Bud, just because it says "double-digit IQ" in the thread subject doesn't mean you have to follow it to the letter.

How would you deal with corporate espionage in ancapistan and would it be prevalent in ancapistan?

>>104723

>>104721

>>104722

>posting several times in a row in response to the same guy

>using popsci understanding of quantum mechanics to justify wacky shit like

<Aso there is nothing irrational about considering the POSSIBILITY that interdimensional DMT entities might be real.

Not helping your case bud

>polytheism is more rational than invisible sky daddy monotheism

Again, I'm not a Christian. I have taken psilocybin mushrooms.

And nothing I felt or percieved during a trip has led me to believe any of it came from outside my noggin.

>>104767

was a good post until I saw

>anime

>>104769

How do I get into Madoka? I watched about 3 episodes in and couldn't keep myself entertained.

>>104773

you dropped it right when it gets interesting

just wait for the payoff

also have you tried watching it while stoned?

anime is like 10x better when you eat percocet before watching it

also maybe try watching a different anime when you get bored then switching back when you are bored of that one?

>>104774

>also have you tried watching it while stoned?

Nah, I have a bad relationship with weed, I'd like to try it on shrooms though.

>>104776

paranoia?

if you get paranoia you just need to do it over and over until you have a tolerance and you learn to let go and surrender to feelings like that

also pills are great for anime but you might get addicted although being a drug addicts isnt bad if you know how to maintain it and also might even be worht it if you have really bad anxiety or sometihng becuase you can get sustained effects even with a tolerance

>>104778

Nah, I just don't enjoy it, and I also feel like shit the whole time.

>>104780

try opiates?

(dont do illegal drugs fbi)

>>104769

I like Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou, Mushihsi, and Natsume's Book of Friends myself. Basically, anything even remotely close to anything breathing an air of Iyashikei.

The world as it is is enough of dystopian Psycho Pass bullshit as it is. I don't understand watching something that attempts to doubledown on my depression.

Is nigger behavior due to inherent genetic defects, or because as a race they've grown with so much welfare that they no longer know how to function independent and in a civilized manner?

>>104784

lol, very true.

>>104810

I was referring to:

>Watch Legend of the Galactic Heroes instead. I know it's in your list but you never got around to watching it

>>104809

genetically low iq and what you already said

>>104809

Also minimum wage (being too high).

help me out here, what was the name of that american oil baron who decided to invest some capital into the ussr and had all his shit nationalized a couple years later. He ended up writing a book about it later, but I can't remember the name of it.

>>105007

he's the most respectable lolbert I know of

>>104974

I don't know, but I would like to know the name as well, it sounds like an interesting story.

>>105007

He's an oil driller, thinks the LP is too white and too male, and fucks humpback whales. He'd be a worthy specimen in a zoo exhibit of truly bizarre men, but not someone whose advice you should follow.

>>105007

I've always liked him. Almost had a chance to talk with him, but I turned it down because I didn't have the funds to go on a trip.

>>105027

I'm not a fan of his race shit, but he's still a better candidate than Gary "Bake the Cake" Johnson, and has just as much publicity if not more.

>>105032

>he's still a better candidate than Gary "Bake the Cake" Johnson

If you're forced to resort to "At least he's not as bad as ____" when describing someone, then why bother with the fringe and third parties at all? The whole point of parties like the LP is to provide a platform for principled purists. If you have to make compromises between the lesser of two degenerate evils, you may as well root for someone with political clout within the GOP, such as Rand Paul.

>>105078

>The whole point of the LP is to be a newfag's guide to why political parties suck.

I'd agree that's what the LP should be, but with the fervor that they've been chasing muh 5% of the vote I'm not sure they've represented that for a good long while.

>>104834

How did Botswana do it? Even with one of the highest incidence rates of HIV/AIDs in the entire world and black demographics, they have some bretty gud amounts of economic freedom.

Meanwhile even in the U.S., we have Baltimore, Detroit, etc.. What do the Botswanan blacks have that American blacks don't? How can American blacks be better?

>>105179

>What do the Botswanan blacks have that American blacks don't?

Botswanan blacks aren't a minority in their country. Therefore, politicians can't capitalize on blaming poverty or other socioeconomic problems on the majority demographic, who control, as a commie might put it, "the means of production."

I would not be surprised if there's a socialist party in Botswana that blames blacks for the relatively small amount of poverty in Botswana and is disproportionately white.

>>105179

Botswana blacks aren't under a welfare system that rewards dysgenic behavior. And while I'm not privy to the finer points of Botswanan culture, I would hazard that it does not glorify drug use and gang violence to the degree American nigger culture does. And as much as I hate the asinine capitulation that is DR3, there is a shadow of truth in it. Critical race theory has harmed blacks as well as whites, because teaching them from birth that they are victims entitled to reparations for FO' HUNRIT YEEAHS O' SLAVERY gets them stuck in a permanent gibs mentality. Believing fervently that one is owed something precludes one from being productive or entrepreneurial.

>>105180

I doubt any whites that live in Botswana are below the poverty line. Such a socialist party would have no base to cater to.

>>105184

I periodically use the confederate flag. I also use no flag like this when I don't want anon to know who I am or when using images that may be tied to my identity on other boards.

>>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?