/liberty/ - Liberty

Christian anon being a bro. Dear lord, now I finally unload all of this.

Some topics:

- Rothbard wrote that Fabianism is not an appropriate strategy for liberty. Is his analysis only applicable in democratic political regimes? In autocratic or monarchist regimes, is a Fabian approach more feasible given a "more natural resentment" to the autocrats power base?

- What do you guys think should be taken as an appropriate response to liberty in your personal life? E.g., do you have qualms working in the military, jury duty, that kind of thing?

- It seems like there is a connection between Hayek's notions of cultural evolution and Burke's defense of traditionalism, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

- Traditional Austrians are against positivism, but…it seems to me like Austrian economics could be justified in a positivistic sense anyways. Is the anti-positivism really necessary?

- What is up with the forgetfulness of a lot of political theorists w.r.t. the necessity of certain government goods? E.g., Crassus started the first fire department, and it was private. The first roads were private. The first lighthouses were private. The NCY and Chicago subways were private. But now it's considered "impossible" for these to be private. Why?

>>43791

>What do you guys think should be taken as an appropriate response to liberty in your personal life? E.g., do you have qualms working in the military, jury duty, that kind of thing?

I like this question. It ties back to that classic work within vs. work outside question that keeps liberty-minded people bickering. In my view, one can still act morally even as an agent of the state. The problem is that typically you are restricted by rules, regulations, or laws when your views differ. You can use nullification as a juror but you cannot refuse an order from a superior without legal consequence if you are a soldier. Having to follow orders does not grant you absolution from your actions, so try to make wise decisions when dealing with the state.

>Traditional Austrians are against positivism, but…it seems to me like Austrian economics could be justified in a positivistic sense anyways. Is the anti-positivism really necessary?

It's fun to beat them at their own game but remember that positivists can bend their "evidence" to fit their conclusions with relative ease. If you play their game, be prepared to play by their rules. You shouldn't play motte-and-bailey with praxeology and logical positivism.

>tfw anyone with ANY tor traffic is arrested in my country

reee

>>43810

You live in China or Iran? Otherwise, what VPN are you using and how have you not been arrested for simply visiting 8chan? You don't have to be afraid of "hate-speech laws" or "Dreyfus laws" or Fusion center targeting (e.g., the state of Missouri targeting Ron Paul supporters) or being targeted by tax officials (e.g., the IRS targetting scandal)?

>>43795

>In my view, one can still act morally even as an agent of the state.

The moral question is important, but I wonder about a much more simple…I guess you could call it quality of life question?

I've been in State jobs before (well, university lab jobs, but those are pretty much the same now, right?), and…the atmosphere was just generally really fucking shitty for a libertarian IMO. I think there's something to be said about taking a very pragmatic stance on this. E.g., you're going to be generally better off taking a "better" job.

>You shouldn't play motte-and-bailey with praxeology and logical positivism.

Ah, true. But still, you've got people like Caplan who deny being an Austrian, but…basically agrees with 99% of their conclusions. I'm just surprised there aren't more people like that.

Other thoughts:

- Any opinions on this whole "Fake News" shit?

- What is the ontological status of non-measurable functions?

>>43791

>Fabianism

It's probably easier to implement from a political standpoint in an autocratic/monarchist regime than it is in a democratic one, but ultimately whoever is power is loathe to give it up. You might be able to get closer to a minarchist society, but Voluntarist societies are ultimately impossible using a Fabian approach unless you're willing to work under-the-table to force reforms through.

>E.g., do you have qualms working in the military, jury duty, that kind of thing?

Well I try to give any contract I do a heads up that I'll work for less money if they pay me in cash and don't report it. I'm not directly opposed to working on military hardware in my electrical work (since literally every electronics company builds military hardware for extra cash), but I am opposed to building anything that is used for offensive technologies, and I give my employers a heads-up on the fact that I'll drop a project if it involves missiles and such. I practice jury nullification when it comes to jury duty. I don't go out of my way to oppose the state in ways that would get me imprisoned or shot since I've got mouths to feed, but I'm certainly practicing Agorism in my day-to-day life.

She doesn't look smug.

>using tor when you could use a vpn

Jesus fucking chirst. You do realize that say… torrenting or downloading something from the main web makes your tor connection insecure right? I really don't understand why you goddamn fools want to be more limited in what you can do, it's stupid.

>>43827

>fake news

I find it suspicious that it arose now of all times. There's been fake news since the Bush era I think. You have both mainstream news and alternative news pushing stories that are false. Honestly the whole thing reeks of a psyop or something.

>>43894

>Honestly the whole thing reeks of a psyop or something.

Dingdingding.

It really surprised/surprises me how after Operation Mockingbird there was no real structural reform or change that happened. In fact, government interference in MSM just seemed to intensify. But then again, this just goes hand-in-hand with Chomsky's theory of media interference. Probably one of the few theories that Chomsky's made that's spot-fucking-on.

>>43851

> but I am opposed to building anything that is used for offensive technologies, and I give my employers a heads-up on the fact that I'll drop a project if it involves missiles and such

I remember turning down a job that was essentially building military tech, and I think that was one of the few times in my life my family was with me on that one. I feel like pointing this out because…sometimes being a libertarian just feels so goddam lonely, you know?

can i post pics on tor? last time i tried i could not

>>43948

No, and it's required to make a post. Thus this thread.

Was Fred Rogers a libertarian?

>>44206

I think his values were universal moral values. The only thing that would make them "libertarian" would be to apply them to the state.

>>44402

So on top of apparently being the nicest human being to ever live and saving VHS-recording from angry legislators, the man also didn't show the nasty habit of modern stars to get political as fuck? God bless him! I didn't even know him as a kid, and he still made my childhood more colorful. Gotta love those He-Man reruns!

>>44419

>reruns

I meant tapes. Accidentally the wrong word. Don't ask about my thought process.

And now, a list of couple libertarian videogames:

- Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries

- Uncharted Waters (NES)

- New Horizons (SNES)

>>43894

Confidence in the media was greater then. The Clinton campaign and the European Union hire PR goons to create fake news sites in order to muddy the waters of public debate. When you're so dirty the mainstream media can't lie enough to protect you, discredit those who are exposing the truth.

Hence the new pressure on social networks and search engines to censor "fake news" and new cries for public-private sector regulation. Facebook's position is that they will flag links to "fake news" sites and boost "true news" but this doesn't go as far as the thought police would like.

https://archive.is/b6lZn

https://archive.is/GSGuX

https://archive.is/6h1Wn

>>44484

Well shit. I turned down buying transistor on sale in a steam bundle because it looked stupid.

>>44488

It's amazing.

It's about how government control trashes a futuristic city because they decided to murder anyone who opposed change. The main character (red) is taking revenge on them for killing his lover.

Amazing soundtrack, too.

>>44402

>>44419

I remember talking to my uncle about Catholicism, and he went into a huge rant about how there'd be utopia if we didn't have money. I wanted to go into the Misesian Calculation argument, but figured religion was a big enough topic.

I bring this up because I get the sense that Fred was a similar kind of Christian, because in interviews he talks about how terrible marketing is, and of course is all for NPR and other public funding of propaganda. I feel like it's defend Mister Rogers because it's essentially virtue signaling, making it impossible to critique.

>>44497

*easy to defend

>>44456

Copyright came about after the freedom of information from the printing press. Cartelize the industry through regulations and then control the 1-5 megacorps that come up.

FCC came about after the freedom of information from the radio. Cartelize the industry through regulations and then control the 1-5 megacorps that come up.

"Fake News" regulation will be the modern form of copyright after the freedom of information from the internet. Cartelize the industry through regulations and then control the 1-5 megacorps that come up.

It's the old boss, same as the new boss.

>>44484

Nice list.

Dear ancaps,

If you had to choose a type of government, which would you choose?

>>44657

Good question. Most likely a highly decentralized aristocracy, modeled after the Icelandic Commonwealth.

>>44657

Probably a constitutional technocracy where you have to own a business, research facility, or own property of a specific size in order to have the right to vote on shit.

>>44662

…I've heard the Icelandic commonwealth described as an example of anarchocapitalism. So, if that's a government to you, what's ancap to you?

>>44670

E.g., a democracy with a heavy poll tax? Or more like the Florentine Republic?

>>43791

>- It seems like there is a connection between Hayek's notions of cultural evolution and Burke's defense of traditionalism, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Bampity burmp

>>44691

It was similar to ancap. They still had one law code and a set number of arbitrators enforcing it.

>>45161

Ranked in my personal ordinal preference ranking or most irritating to least:

>You're 'unscientific'/'mathphobes'

>Literally no empathy ( http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/28/its-hard-to-gross-out-a-libertarian )/literally autistic

>Cucks

>Muh public schools/"education"

>Rights of children

>IP law

>Accusations of utopianism

>Warlords would take over

>>44933

So medieval Iceland would be ancap if it's legal system were more polycentric?

>>45163

Also, do you view ancap as a thing of degree or kind?

Should Limited Liability Corporations be legal?

>>45161

Just tossing some stuff resources out there, if it helps you. I think that particular graphic is a little too redundant and that covering something like "But Who would build the roads?" would go over the same points as "without governemtn we wouldn't have x" and "Market Failure!"

Somalia:

Tom Woods Ep. 30

http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/Somalia

Do you Vote?:

https://www.cato.org/events/debate-should-libertarians-vote (Debate video)

The Rich should pay their fair share!:

http://www.pbs.org/video/2160792049/ (Richard Epstein. Framed as "what's good about inequality?")

>>45282

That voluntaryist wiki is perfect, thank you.

>>45267

Not in their current form, no. If you make a mistake, you have to pay. You cannot avoid that by pooling your money into an imaginary third party and claiming that he's got to pay instead. If that's too risky for you, then you should take insurance or limit your liability within the contract itself.

>>45293

Then a joint-stock or private general partnership is the only kind of 'corporation' that's actually legal. This kind of makes me think ancaps and libertarians should really point out "Partnerships, not corporations," to avoid misunderstandings like "libertarianism would take the current U.S. and just replace the name 'President' with 'CEO!'"

Two theories I've heard regarding how shitty the millennial generation is:

- Not their fault, they did all the 'right steps.' High levels of education, longer work hours than previous generations, etc.. They just got dealt a shitty hand.

- That "they did all the 'right steps'" part is the reason for the millennial generation's failings. Other generations fucking rebelled. They did not do all of what they were told. They did not believe all of which they were spoonfed. If any blame is to be placed on the millennial generation's feet, it's their complacency.

>>45303

Honestly, the rebels from the 60's can suck massive balls. They swallowed every lie Moskau told them, ruined the economy, academics and the culture, and now they want credit for trying to improve things? Fuck. You!

>>45303

>the older generations rebelled

And they got older and became the very thing they swore to destroy.

>>45300

Many people balk at the idea that businesses would not have legal regulations but don't seem to comprehend that they would in return suffer greater moral liability if they behave recklessly. In Ancapistan they also don't have the flipside of regulations - if they do something that isn't illegal but is harmful to the land or people around them, they aren't liable. Voluntaryism is an improvement to state capitalism, not a beast unchained.

I mean, we already have special pleading for corporations. If they invent something that fucks up and kills a dozen people and cover it up, their only punishment is some profit loss. People wag their finger at ancaps for proposing fiscal punishment instead of prison but fail to realize the state uses a two-tier system that does not favor the small guy.

>>45341

So would tort reform help with this?

>>45341

…this should be pointed out more, because it's probably a point of agreement that could be reached between /liberty/ and /leftypol/.

> In Ancapistan they also don't have the flipside of regulations - if they do something that isn't illegal but is harmful to the land or people around them, they aren't liable.

I like this sentence. The appositive does make it a bit confusing, though.

>>45388

I don't know, I feel like going specific on this one issue and saying, "Actually, I'm against limited-liability corporations" would be a great starter. I feel like it would completely throw their conceptions of libertarianism haywire, since I think a lot of /leftypol/ sees libertarianism==pro-corporations. Well, maybe it would do their head in at least for a little while.

>>45415

>the customer can only go after my business assets not my personal assets

That's precisely the point. And because of that legal protection, you're allowing part of your risk to be subsidized by the public, no?

>>45427

Using an LLC the way he does is akin to limiting your personal liability in a contract. It's valid, reasonable and completely harmless to the public. The only beef I have with corporations is that they can also limit liability when you harm others that didn't agree to you not being fully liable.

>>45442

>The only beef I have with corporations is that they can also limit liability when you harm others that didn't agree to you not being fully liable.

Wait, but:

> the customer can only go after my business assets not my personal assets

Isn't that exactly how he's using the LLC?

>>45480

The customer, in that case, is the business he's working for with his LLC. They knowingly worked with him, so you could say that they agreed to his terms of limited liability.

>>45484

Isn't that an 'implicit contract' argument? You have to be careful with those, since that's how some non-ancap libertarians justify the State. Given your flag, you're an ancap. So, what's the difference between the implicit contract that Spooner argued against and the implicit contract when you work with an LLC?

Also, just to make sure I at least understand this much, you'd still wouldn't find it just if he incidentally harmed a third party (e.g., BP oil spill), and used the LLC to cover his assets?

>>45489

>Isn't that an 'implicit contract' argument? You have to be careful with those, since that's how some non-ancap libertarians justify the State. Given your flag, you're an ancap. So, what's the difference between the implicit contract that Spooner argued against and the implicit contract when you work with an LLC?

It is an implicit contract, yes, but I also think it really is one. You're right that this idea is constantly abused. As I see it, implicit contracts are a consequence of the fact that context plays a role in communication. My favorite example is when you sit in a restaurant and order a steak. You may not say that you want to pay for it, but every observer would think that you would want to, due to the context.

It's similar with what Orthobro said. The other business knows he's only taking a job that involves such a risk because he doesn't want to take full liability, and as he's acting under his LLC, they also both know exactly how he wants to limit it. If the other business doesn't want that, it can tell Orthobro so, and then Orthobro wouldn't be justified if he took recourse to his limited liability.

That's one of the reasons why implied contracts are not actually the friend of statists. Explicit terms obviously override any implied terms, so if you walk into a restaurant, order a steak and tell the waitress you have no intention of paying for it, then she's a dumb bitch if she demands you do so. Also, implied terms still have to be somewhat defined; you cannot implicitly agree to do "whatever you want", as then there's no actual mutual understanding of what you owe the other guy. Then there's the fact that you cannot agree to a contract when you're not mature, yet the state clearly acts as if you agreed to a social contract even when you're a child.

Those were three cases in which an implied contract could not be assumed, and all of them are present with the state. And I had to stop myself from witing at least three others. In short, statists simply don't know what the hell they're talking about. The argument from an implied social contract is intellectual swiss cheese.

>Also, just to make sure I at least understand this much, you'd still wouldn't find it just if he incidentally harmed a third party (e.g., BP oil spill), and used the LLC to cover his assets?

Exactly, that would not be justified by any means.

>>45427

>And because of that legal protection, you're allowing part of your risk to be subsidized by the public, no?

Considering I don't do government contracts, not particularly.

>>45480

If every business contract had an explicit 100 page report of what I am and am not liable for, we'd be like most of Africa right about now. My LLC is just a quick and easy way to make it clear to a business that we are playing by a specific set of rules.

>>45489

>Isn't that an 'implicit contract' argument?

I think >>45595 did a good enough job on this one.

>Also, just to make sure I at least understand this much, you'd still wouldn't find it just if he incidentally harmed a third party (e.g., BP oil spill), and used the LLC to cover his assets?

1) This wasn't what you were implying earlier. What you implied earlier was that a client could take away everything someone owns if they fuck up. Mistakes happen- if your model was followed, then there would be no repair/reuse of product because 1 fuckup and I'm saddled with debts for life. Now obviously CYOA exists. If I'm working as a BMET and I use a non-spec part to fix a heart monitor, I'm not gonna fucking use said heart monitor unless it's necessary over at the ICU, and then I'm gonna document the shit out of it and make sure the part is replaced with the proper one as soon as possible.

As for third party incidents, there's no easy answer and it depends entirely on the situation. If an action is criminal in nature, your argument may have some ground. If the action is simply a result of an accident or lapse in judgement, then it holds that while business assets may be seized, personal assets may not be seized.

>word: a sound or combination of sounds that has a meaning and is spoken or written — word in a sentence.

Is 'racism' even a word anymore? I feel like it has completely lost all of its meaning.

Also,

>>45595

Got it.

>>45625

What if it was an accident that could have easily been prevented? Say that a company is using really old, outdated equipment and not taking care of it at all, causing injury and property damage. Would personal assets be fair game in such a scenario?

>>46998

I'm not a lawyer, it wouldn't be my place to decide in every circumstance if it was actually an accident or intentional. That is what courts/arbitration are allegedly for in the first place. From a technician standpoint however, lets extrapolate your case/example to wastewater facilities.

Our local wastewater facility uses old/outdated equipment in a lot of their applications. Even though the PLCs/Wastewater pumps are older than the hills, they still run alright because of technicians maintaining them. In comparison, the wastewater facilities down south of us aren't taken care of but use the same infrastructure- they're working in quite literal shit conditions. So obviously the age of the equipment isn't a concern here, but the act of not taking care of it at all. If they're not taking care of it at all, then they risk criminal negligence which is a lot worse. To quote myself…

>As for third party incidents, there's no easy answer and it depends entirely on the situation. If an action is criminal in nature, your argument may have some ground. If the action is simply a result of an accident or lapse in judgement, then it holds that while business assets may be seized, personal assets may not be seized.

I don't decide what the results of criminal investigations should be either as, like I stated above, I'm a technician not a lawyer/legal expert. Personally, I still wouldn't seize personal assets since those have nothing to do with what happened, but I'd likely pursue legal action instead of private dispute arbitration.

>>46954

Words can have multiple definitions. The issue is when the definition suits the occasion. The issue is never the word, only the idiot misdefining it.

Example: For the left, violence is violence when the victim is toward the top of the progressive stack. It's even violence when it's not, like mean words or denial of government funding. However if the victim person-who-had-it-coming is an evil Nazi right-wing fascist, it's not violence to assault or murder them.

Racism has a fixed definition. The connotation allows people to bend it how they wish because it makes them feel good.

>>47098

Every leftist I've seen in favor of violence against perceived nazis or fascists has claimed that it is violence, it's just that they don't really care, because they think of nazis as "inherently" violent and personally worthless to the degree that violence against them is somehow preventative of more of it, or else simply the right thing to do. I've seen many leftists say something along the lines of "We're not punching people, we're punching nazis." To be a nazi or a fascist or associated with them is to the leftist imagination to be nonhuman, a non-person. Actually most of them care far more about animals than they would about a nazi, so it would be more accurate to say an un-person or a sort of monster.

>>47156

…this sounds REALLY similar to people arguing that "Helicopters are o.k., because THEY'RE the violent people."

In any case, if you couldn't choose anarchist/ancap/voluntaryist/etc., how would you set up your government? Demarchy? Hereditary monarchy?

>>48061

>…this sounds REALLY similar to people arguing that "Helicopters are o.k., because THEY'RE the violent people."

When they mean this with regards to leftist terrorists, I agree with them. Look at how Shining Path started out, and probably tons of other leftist terrorist organizations. Of course, there's a difference between a university professor organizing an armed rebellion and a Richard Wolff calling capitalism crapitalism lmao.

That said, most people that use this meme, and who are serious, are not so much cautiously warning us of impending terrorism as they are looking for cheap validation and activism. Leftist-style, basically. Talk about irony.

>In any case, if you couldn't choose anarchist/ancap/voluntaryist/etc., how would you set up your government? Demarchy? Hereditary monarchy?

12th century style Europe, minus the serf system.

I just took a swim through the catalog to get here. I want to point something out: as of the current moment 1/5 of the top 50 threads on the board are some variation of "Ancraps btfo/how do ancraps respond to." When are we gonna get that ancrap copypasta?

In other questions, why do you guys think that SJWs congregate on social media, and anti-SJWs congregate on psuedonymous forums or chans?

>>48862

>In other questions, why do you guys think that SJWs congregate on social media, and anti-SJWs congregate on psuedonymous forums or chans?

That one's easy. SJWism is fueled by attention whoring and virtue signaling. Both of those are blunted by anonymity.

I just took a swim through the catalog to get here. I want to point something out: as of the current moment 1/5 of the top 50 threads on the board are some variation of "Ancraps btfo/how do ancraps respond to." When are we gonna get that ancrap copypasta?

>>48926

You forgot to make that greentext. Also, you forgot to type a response. What the hell was the point of this post? You must not be a native English speaker.

How can I write code faster?

How would your answer differ if I said, "How can I be a better programmer?"

>>49451

not the anon you were talking to but would practicing code on github help? Would it be ok to type in some code for someone's opensource program?

>>49459

>Would it be ok to type in some code for someone's opensource program?

As long as it's libre, then fork it, it's all yours my friend. :)

Honestly, 90% of my time isn't spent actually typing. It isn't spent figuring out math problems to make my programs more efficient. It isn't spent thinking about the most optimal class structures to minimize future maintenance.

It's trying to figure out some stupid fucking syntax error, an array dereferencing I forgot, or OS-dependent/language-dependent bullshit. And it's always three hours of putting in breakpoints until I find it, and then another three hours of putting in random configurations of keywords into Google to get Stack Overflow pages from five years ago that no one to this day has fucking answered–before I give up and put in some bullshit hack that "good programmers" would consider "the wrong way." Hell, even bad programmers recognize that it's bullshit.

For example, some time ago I remember trying to use LAPACK's banded-matrix format. The only documentation that exists is a million people asking for someone to explain the documentation. So I got segfaults for a week before I said "Fuck it" and wrote it as dense-matrix code even though that's horribly inefficient. Or as another example, I was trying to make an app on a Windows environment, and because of the lack of documentation for a lot of that, for that particularly project I had to hamfist a VB-call in a fucking php function that was called by secretly opening an instance of Chrome. And I understand that's an absolutely terrible solution and really, really bad programming; but hopefully if you're reading this, you understand what my issue is here.

Thoughts on the temperance movement? Would it have been a good thing if they didn't go for prohibition legislation?

Also, opining thoughts on "community centres."

>>44497

Thanks, now you ruined Mister Rogers for me. Asshole. You're damn right it's a form of virtue signaling to praise someone who's impossible to critcize. It's fun to do it anyway.

>>49650

>Thoughts on the temperance movement? Would it have been a good thing if they didn't go for prohibition legislation?

Pure cancer. These fuckers have always pushed for alcohol bans through legislation, for example with the Maine Law in 1851. A quick research has also confirmed my suspicion that evangelicals were behind it, because of course evangelicals oppose everything that's fun. Compulsory schooling? Evangelicals. Strict obedience to authority? Evangelicals. Barren churches? Take a guess.

That's important because I'm pretty damn sure that the successors of the temperance movement will pretend to be beacons of conservativism. They're not. The first evangelicals broke with the Church because it wasn't strict and authoritarian enough for them, and the temperance movement stands squarely in this tradition of trying to out-virtue everyone else, including other Christians. I don't know a single instance where this holier-than-thou-attitude has created something of value, and I'd be surprised if the temperance movement was an exception.

Also, don't quote me on that, but I think this attitude is also one of the reasons why Jesus pwned the pharisees at every opportunity. They too reduced morality to autistically observing very specific rules, while otherwise not fostering any kind of virtue in themselves.

>Also, opining thoughts on "community centres."

As in, meeting points for members of a community? Sounds like a nice idea, as long as the community in question is nice. I wouldn't share a park bench with most people from my extended neighborhood. In case you want to know whether it's un-libertarian, somehow: It isn't. Not as long as the community members don't legislate or otherwise agree to aggress against others.

Not sure if you wanted a response specifically from Christfag. In that case, see this as a polite bump.

>>49816

I don't have anything to add. It was interesting to hear your response. Thanks for the polite bump.

>>44484

I have spent so many many hours playing Rimworld…

The combat realism mod is fucking amazing, can't play without it.

>>51271

Ancap reviews?

In 10 words or less, what is libertarian?

>>51395

"Get your boot off my neck, otherwise I'll shoot you."

I was listening to an Econtalk episode about evolution, and this speaker drew a parallel between folks arguing for a Designer and rebelling against the notion of Darwinian evolution in nature, and likewise in economics of folks arguing for a Designer and rebelling against the notion of free market capitalism in economics.

Is the idea of spontaneous order so innately disgusting to the human psyche that this is why capitalism is so fundamentally unpopular?

>>51657

People find an uncertain future to be deeply unsettling. They need to believe that there's a "man with a plan" who is monitoring everything, and who is pulling the strings. Without it, they suffer from a kind of existential agoraphobia. Suggesting that there is no man and no plan is the same as snatching away a child's security blanket.

Does /liberty/ have a discord server? I'm bored and lonely

Has there been a dramatic centralization of political views in the past five years? Is social media part and parcel of this process of the centralization of political ideologies?

Here's my thought process:

- A group of people hold political positions A with 30%, B with 20%, and C with 50%.

- People holding political position C on social media are more likely (by a simple numbers game) to get emotional boosts from signaling on social media. Likewise A and B are more likely to get band-wagoned again.

- The previous point hits a positive feedback loop for political position C and negative feedback loops for A and B.

- Political positions centralize towards C.

- Political position C dominates.

>>52848

If that's the case, will even alt-right survive? Most corporations are all aligning with the apolitical or SJW side of things, and a majority of the population seems to be swinging that way (at least going by popular vote totals). So, by this feedback theory, everyone will morph into this political monoculture within a few years.

As for libertarianism, let alone Alt-Right, I feel like libertarians will always be a small percentage of people because they do not have the same "I want to fit in" emotional impulse of the vast majority of the population. Like it's some sort of rare birth defect that allows that personality trait to happen and therefore makes it even possible to be a libertarian.

>>52872

> Most corporations are all aligning with the apolitical or SJW side of things, and a majority of the population seems to be swinging that way (at least going by popular vote totals).

So they won't interact politically then. But it doesn't mean politics will change.

>So, by this feedback theory, everyone will morph into this political monoculture within a few years.

It just means there are lots of incentives toward centralisation. But there are forces in the opposite direction as well. Ideas like libertarianism will exist regardless of this so there will be some people making actual libertarian content.

Likewise there will certainly still be a left and right, because there are differences in opinion

>>52872

The alt right was always a decentralized, leaderless movement of people with some common goals. Now that their main unifying cause is gone, they're fracturing into different pieces. They all get their marching orders from e-celebs who apply a secondary brand to their followers. The cracks were always there but now they're turning into borders. Lots of people under the spell of podcast/Youtube/ebook merchants and other such charlatans.

Social media companies are happy to re-arrange things this way, as most of them are happy to control opposition when they can. Just look at the alt-right crowd with check marks on Twitter; they're the most shameless sellouts and braindead idiots of them all. They are immune from mass report abuse, but the best of the rising voices in that crowd are not. Put a "Deplorable" in front of your name and retweet charlatans? Fine. Discuss esoteric literature and make comical ebooks-bot accounts? Ban.

See: https://archive.fo/GXPvf

On the other hand, they can re-emerge when need be - Trump's next election. There will be schisms, of course. I don't know how anyone could stand to engage in discourse with "Kekistanis" or "Proud Boys" for even five minutes. The system will reach roughly the same amount of effectiveness, though. Even now, information that these opposed groups find mutually interesting still travels through these borders. The signal is never stopped if it's important.

How "The Lorax" should have ended:

>The Onceler gets stormed by a bunch of lawyers.

>Lorax settles into the Onceler's chair.

>"Wtf is going on?"

>Lorax explains how he created a futures market in thneeds, and how easily he cornered it given how the Onceler hadn't changed their valuations ever.

>At the same time, he shorted the crap out of Onceler's corporation.

>Once the real valuation of Onceler corp.'s land were realized, the corporation's stock plummeted.

>Lorax became hella rich.

>Just bought out the Onceler.

>Gtfo.

Alternatively:

>Above scenario begins to play out with the Lorax creating a futures market for thneed.

>Onceler pays off a government agency to make truffula lands owned by the government.

>Onceler pays off the government to deforest until extinction.

>>53643

What bothered me about that book was that the onceler didn't farm the thneeds nor did their value didn't reflect their scarcity.

>>53643

>>53649

It should have gone like this:

>oncelor comes in and chops down a truffula tree

>intelligent animals are already living there and using the land, he's just trespassed and destroyed their property

>private court rules that he has to pay damages

>>53649

Fucking this. It's like Dr. Suess didn't know about accountancy.

Isn't the hedonic treadmill the ultimate argument against making happiness or joy any sort of goal?

>>53655

Not quite, it is a circular argument. A hardcore utilitarian will probably respond with "so what?".

>>53656

Because if people just return to the same level of happiness, then trying to increase it on the average for large groups of people is scientifically impossible.

>>53659

Okay, then I misunderstood what you meant with the hedonic treadmill. Then you were right about what you said before.

What are some things you guys think are "Red Flags" (not necessarily for a relationship)? E.g.:

- A country not having a stock market.

- People with colored hair.

- Youtube videos with the presenter's face centered in the video.

- Videos that start obnoxiously loud.

I remember when I was younger and my father told me a story about how an acquaintance of my grandfather tried to start a garbage company. The competition bribed the police and then burned his garage and his trucks. For me, this was a really formative moment to me becoming an ancap. Until then I was thinking, "What about the police?" That story really helped me put into perspective about how government isn't a magical panacea that solves social problems.

So, what gets me about the VICE documentary to Liberia, is how they repeatedly ask, "Where's the government?" Meanwhile, I'm thinking, "How can you guys have this much cognitive dissonance? The government is already there."

How are there still communists?

I mean, I'm not talking about full-boar fucking ancapistan, but at least just not being a communist/socialist.

From the shit going down in Venezuela right now to Yeltsin visiting that grocery store in downtown Houston, how can you still support communism? I just don't understand how it still persists.

So, how are you all planning to survive in the future? Any plans for when the next healthcare bill increases rates even more? Any plans for when the next anti-terrorist bill makes the TSA even more burdensome? Any plans for when carrying anything more than $100USD is a felony? Any plans for when new regulations force the Internet to consist of four, maybe five websites top? Any plans for when soda bans go national?

Does anyone honestly expect anything to get better? I keep hearing people saying that revolution and government downfall is going to happen, but like Luddites they've been saying that for centuries. So how about instead we plan for survival in a future of an even shittier government. It's bleak and pessimistic, but I don't care. That seems to be the trend.

>>55073

Counterpoint: With the rate that crypto-based technology is advancing at, do you foresee this shit being possible at all? How do you expect them to enforce these laws on an unwilling populace?

>55073

Fucking easy. Here's how it could play out:

October 2017

The IRS commissions a study about how much money is going through cryptocurrency. It's a lot. Actually, it's not, but the IRS is convinced it is.

November 2017

A 90-year old congressman who doesn't understand the Internet hears about this report. He thinks that if the U.S. currency "was electronic" (even though it essentially already is) that it would win out over Bitcoin (even though that makes no sense). People try to tell him he's making no sense and being completely senile.

He doesn't give a shit.

He's a 90 year old Congressman.

However, he doesn't read his own press releases. In particular, he doesn't notice that nobody even put up his requested press release. He changes his adult diaper.

December 2017

Agents in the FBI don't like people using drugs. How are they paying for drugs? Could it be that the FBI agents are completely incompetent and drug dealers are actually using the same methods as of nearly a century and only a minor, minor fraction are paying for the useless overhead (given from a law of averages view that they are already doing stuff that can easily put them in jail much more easily) of using a cryptocurrency? Fuck no. The FBI writes a report that 908347% of drugs are financed by cryptocurrencies. Also pedophilia. The connection between pedophilia and cryptocurrency doesn't make any sense, but it doesn't matter, because this report is only going to be read by–

January 2018

80+ year old bureaucrats in the CIA. CIA bureaucrats and FBI agents talk about the report over full-day long meetings that go on way longer than they need to, and end with bullshit sections to fit diversity inclusion requirements. The bureaucrats use their paid off sources and–

February 15th, 2018

NYT, Wapo, the Late Night Show, SNL, the Other Late Night Show, the Tribune, CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, and the Globe all release articles shows/etc. on the same damn week (because they know jack shit about how suspicious that seems) attacking bitcoin. They keep going week after week until–

March 2018

Opinions polls are now on their side.

The aforementioned now 91-year old congressman pushes a bill to make a U.S. dollar cryptocurrency. It still makes about as little sense as before. However, financial lobbyists see the bill and are interested in the requirements for citizens to have digital U.S. assets. Before it goes to the floor, it gets its first polish as, "The Strength in Currency Act." It fines U.S. citizens who do not have a checking account. Liberal media says it's wonderful and helps solve the problem of poor, unbanked Americans.

April 2018

FBI and CIA bureaucrats see the bill. They manage to convince another Congressman that it will make him seem "Tough on Crime" (translation: if he doesn't change and support the changed bill, they're going to release all the nude kiddy porn they made up about him). He introduces language that, "Anyone caught transferring 'illegitimate money'" is a felony offense. Conservative media says it's wonderful and will help stop kiddy porn.

May 2018

EFF gets a hold of this bill. They note how it doesn't even make sense. How would you be able to even prove that–

May 2019

Someone is arrested under the "Strength in Currency Act." He paid for Bitcoin using a checking account. Bitcoin enthusiasts denounce him as stupid, you should only buy Bitcoins in cash and–

June 2019

The FBI starts operating stings and basically doing good old entrapment.

I fucking hate this world.

>>55118

Someone screencap this, please.

>>55118

I should note that it is the same pattern for any legislation. Idiot congressman writes up something stupid. Deep state morphs it to increase the scope of the state. Corporate lobbyists put in regulatory capture and kickbacks. Enough kickbacks go to "poor people" to drum up popular support. Deep state has its propaganda arsenal go at it until it is passed.

The state grows.

RINSE WASH AND REPEAT.

>>55199

Thanks fam, the fire will rise!

Stupid question time.

I have this picture in my mind that trading worked like this in the 10th century:

- A merchant citizen of Venice would buy a lot of olives from a warehouse near Venice.

- He'd go out with wagons and load up his ship full of olives.

- He'd set sail and go to Constantinople.

- He'd pay a harbor tax upon landing.

- He'd go into the city to find some warehouse willing to buy a shitton of olives.

- He'd go to some warehouse of rugs to buy a bunch of carpet.

- He'd load up his ship with carpet and go back to Italy.

- He hopes that the difference in carpet prices between Constantinople and Italy is large enough to get him the big bucks.

I have this picture in my mind that trading today works like this:

- A bunch of industries in the U.S. order various different parts from different Chinese companies.

- These Chinese companies pay shipping fees to some logistics company.

- The Chinese logistics company groups all of the goods from these orders together in one warehouse near a dockyard.

- The Chinese logistics company pays another company that has huge freight ships to haul all the stuff in their warehouse to the U.S.

- The Chinese logistics company pays money to a U.S. logistics company to deal with everything when the boat gets there, they give the U.S. company all the routing orders

- When the boat is full, it sets off, when it reaches the U.S., the freighter pays a border tax/dockyard fee/etc..

- The U.S. logistics company takes everything off the boat to their respective customers.

Is this how it actually works? Does any trading of the previous kind still happen? How does trading actually physically work?

Hey everyone, the charges on Julian Assange got dropped! =D

>>55793

Hooray! Hopefully the government doesn't try to kill him.

>>55793

He'll still be locked in the embassy for a while. Lots of legal red tape to deal with.

>>55793

This only means the deep state has given up on giving him an official execution. Wouldn't be rare if he got out and died a few months or years later.

>>55807

Putin got his back.

the man's a valuable asset.

What can Millenial generation do to not end up as shit as the Boomer generation and fuck up our next generation?

>>55973

Go full ancap and choke out the state.

http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/

GEE I WONDER WHY MANCHESTER HAPPENED.

You know that picture with the concentric circles that show what is done by the government and what isn't by ideology, and the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is…well, was…healthcare?

Why isn't that a more powerful argument than it is? Everything except the most trivial kinds of production are left to the market.

>>56205

>Continuous military strikes in Syria for more than 90 days.

If the Dems are really serious about impeaching Trump, why the hell aren't they impeaching him for breeching the War Powers Act?

Hint: they aren't serious.

>"But if we had a big enough computer…"

>"What if the child consents…"

>"Capitalism killed 2 billion…"

>"Communism never killed 2 billion…"

>"You're all a bunch of degenerates…"

>"LTV…"

>"Go to fucking Somalia…"

Can we get together, start working out the common threads that shitposters keep throwing up, identify common answers, compile it into a FAQ, and throw it on the sticky? I'm getting really sick of this.

>>56706

I would like to see http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies in the sticky. If you'd like, you could repackage these into images.

Which Onion site can I use to meet up with fellow Libertarians and hug them in real life?

>>56849

http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/liberty/res/43785.html

Is Doug Casey's strategy of multiple citizenships and freedom of movement inherently at odds with the increasingly anti-globalist libertarian movement?

Are gun violence and Muslim violence arguments immediately transferable?

E.g., "Violent Muslims are a small percentage of all Muslims"/"Violent gunowners are a small percentage of all gunowners" or on the flip side "Muslims should be banned from the country"/"Gunowners should be banned from the country" ?

>>56706

this

>2050 A.D.

>Clinton IV has just won the presidency, in xer victory speech, xe proclaims how great and progressive it is that a member-country of the North American Union has a non-binary gendered President.

>The EU has finally done away with any pretenses, and officially call itself a country.

>The few remaining native Europeans are banned from attending the public celebrations in mosques throughout Europe in order to pay for white privilege.

>Some African countries are actually more prosperous than European ones now.

>The President's speech also talks about the pain of rising food prices. The blame is squarely placed on the four corporations that own all the farmland in the U.S..

>Even more regulation is needed to control these four mega-corporations. It passes with remarkable ease. The regulation does not address the four mega-corporations. It merely makes it even more of an impossibility of a newcomer entering the scene.

>It will probably only be a few more election cycles until the government completely nationalizes food production.

>Just recently, the BEA stopped calculating the private component of GDP, because it's too small to be economically useful to measure.

>The only private businesses left are ostensibly corporations, but given how large the government's budget has become, the line between the two is completely invisible.

>You can't speak out against this, because all the new regulatory apparatus placed on the internet "In order to ensure that it remains a free and open public forum" means that only five or six websites can pay off the large, encompassing, regulatory overhead.

>All currency is digital. Gold and physical notes are completely banned, or in some areas liable for jailtime as that is considered "incriminating" enough by itself.

>Current legal theory about privacy law is now entirely historical, and is comprised of scholars writing about why people even cared.

>Over time, the FED's inflation metrics has become even more and more out of sync with actual price inflation.

>60% of the federal government's spending is social security. 35% is healthcare. The other 5% is the military.

>Oh, the military has been doing fine too. John McCain won and got that war with Syria he always wanted.

>And Iran.

>And North Korea.

>Also the Congo. Why the Congo? Who knows. Not even the military pretends to understand why it's fighting half the wars its fighting anymore.

>Education is now compulsory and extends until you're 30.

>Most people still get indebted because of schooling, however, they now do so in "Hypercolleges," which are meant to come after graduate school.

>At least people don't waste their money in houses anymore. Mainly because nobody lives outside the city anymore.

I hate how I can't laugh at what I've written.

>>57607

Sounds like a /leftypol/ wet dream.

July 23, 1914

In a powderkeg region replete with a complex web of alliances, the much larger kingdom of Austria-Hungary issues a multi-itemed ultimatum list, which includes the cessation of its media/demands that seem completely impossible to comply/and the relegation of law to foreign powers to the much smaller kingdom of Serbia because of their supposed support of terrorists.

June 23, 2017

In a powderkeg region replete with a complex web of alliances, the much larger kingdom of Saudi Arabia issues a multi-itemed ultimatum list, which includes the cessation of its media/demands that seem completely impossible to comply/and the relegation of law to foreign powers to the much smaller kingdom of Qatar because of their supposed support of terrorists.

War. War never changes.

>>58755

Qatar doesn't stand a chance though; it will be literally forced to comply. All the strength in the world is behind Saudi Arabia. Which is sad for Qatar, but means no WW3

what does this have to do with politics?

>>58800

cryptoanarchism

>>58800

It's more of a politics general thread, only for those who wish to post on Tor. Mainly because Tor users can not make their own threads because they need to be able to post an image to make a new thread.

Also, many governments, including the U.S. federal government, targets and profiles libertarians (in the U.S.: IRS targeting, Missouri Fusion Center DHS report, the FBI placing agent provocateurs in militia groups, etc..). This thread is for those who wish to keep separate their political identity from the real identity so that the government can not target or profile them. It is also a backlash against the cultural ignorance of privacy, even amount libertarians. I'm looking at you, all you libertarian Facebook groups. You claim you protect privacy, and yet you don't even take the smallest step for it in your own lives…

>>58779

tfw i was in qatar

Do you think there will ever be a year where the U.S. will get more free year over year? Or will it just continue to spiral ever further downwards until collapse?

>>58813

on pol you can make threads with embedded yt vids

does this not work here?

>>58997

click

>show post options & limits and paste into

>embed

>>58997

Go ahead and try it–with Tor on.

Anyways, does anyone have any suggestions for other /liberty/ forums? Preferably Tor or other deepnet-friendly ones, but any in general, really?

>>55118

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1241/text

IT BEGINS.

Let me tell you all a tale. It's probably complete horseshit, and it's definitely all completely hypothetical. Who knows?

I received a PhD in X and starting working at a lab. Unlike some other people who got a PhD in X, the only publication I had was my dissertation. I sent in one publication before my contract expired, and despite this work found no other positions. After hundreds of applications, I was very, very lucky if I got a reply, much less an interview. I maybe received two interviews total before another contract opened at the lab I had previously worked at and I returned. I continued the work where I left off before and found out the true story of why I was hired. There was a man named John who had been an employee of my boss. Apparently, my personality was very much like John's, and my boss felt some sort of kinship. However, on the waning days of my contract, I found an old newspaper article. John had committed suicide. He worked in the exact same work at the exact same position with the exact same age that I then had at that job with the exact same publication record and job prospects. Apparently, John killed himself after an unsuccessful job search. That was the story. I felt I knew that John had committed suicide because–given the bridge he had thrown himself off of being midway between his last job and his parent's home, John was going back to live with his parents. Rather than find himself a parasite of society for the remainder of his life, he decided to leave at the height, when he had made at least one contribution, and kill himself then. At least, that's my theory because I felt very similar and made a very similar process of thought in my mind.

I was oddly motivated by this. You often hear people against suicide make the argument that, "The problem with people who commit suicide is that they don't realize that it gets better." Well, it was almost like I was presented with some weird pseudo-double-blind experiment. John committed suicide, and I would be the one who would indeed see if life gets better, and if I didn't end up as some parasite.

For about a year, I found no other positions. Eventually, I settled to doing work making tiny apps and websites after figuratively throwing away my PhD before nepotism knocked at the door. My father started having an increasingly hard time avoiding talking about me in social circles as I had no steady employment much less any interviews at all despite continuing to file my trifling two to three applications a week despite the waning motivation to do so. Thus, he got me a part-time position writing a small application for where he worked. I found myself the only code-monkey in the organization. Eventually, I got a full-time position, usually accompanied with people telling me that I reminded them of a fellow who used to work there named Curtis.

To be continued…

>>62206

Continued…

Curtis, it turns out, was another John. He was another remnant ghost of some effervescent past. Curtis worked as the code-monkey in the same position I had just filled with a very similar disposition and personality. At first, I was kept as part-time because he had left some time ago, but mentioned that he was having a tough time, and they offered to "keep his spot." I believe he found out about me, and although I can not prove it, I feel like he thought that if he took back his position, that I would be thrown back into unemployment yet again, only now from a job that I had gotten nearly solely due to my father's influence. Curtis committed suicide. Once again, I found myself in a position opened up by someone else's death, to which apparently my personality was a perfect match of.

Although I took good advantage of the small opportunity being employed offered me, after some short order, as it happens in our world, the non-permanence of the institution that was my place of my employment began to fall apart by the dog-eat-dog forces of capitalism. The company I had worked for was no more. Only now, I didn't have nepotism to fall on to find some other place of employ. My problems were also the same as before. I was somewhat helped that when I claimed to desire a salary half of what my education would expect, that more employers were likely to believe me given my immediately previous work, but that didn't help too much. At least I started to actually get interviews now, unlike before.

But, I had a plan, and I instead searched obituaries as much as job openings. I wanted to know if indeed my only skill was at filling some sort of emotional vacuum left by other souls so similar to mine, or whether I could actually, truly make it on my own. Apparently, I did not, as I found another suicide or some nascent programmer nearby, and upon applying at his old job was told, yet again, that I reminded the people there that I reminded them, "So much of him."

Ever since, that has been my life. I would like to say that I make an honest day's work, but apparently, I do not have the skill to convince people of that honestly. Instead, I take advantage of the emotional holes left by a coworker's suicide as the butter to help slide through the usual hoops of employment. It is odd that I am still too emotionally unaware to realize what it is about me that makes me as skillless as the counterparts who spots I have filled like some sort of simulacra, or what it is about me that makes me unable to render my skills as utile without the help of finding such a point of emotional weakness for which I may act as some sort of fulcrum, but that has been my life.

Really, I am a con man. Only instead of running out of town before the check comes due like with the Music Man, I find myself running into town to fill the holes from his disappearance. Because of this, I can't help but find myself thinking back to that gambit I recognized with John and asking myself, "Did he really make the wrong decision? By killing himself, did he spare himself and the world from becoming as much of a parasite as I have?" Moreover, after these years, I feel like life has not gotten better, but rather steadily worse. So it is that with each passing day I find myself thinking, "John was right."

>>62206

>>62207

>John was right

No shit, but you're better than John.

Bitcoin v. Gold

Thoughts?

>>63648

Why not both?

Bitcoin is harder for the feds to steal, but gold will retain its value throughout history and for future generations.

>>63665

For one, it's hard to look at Bitcoin prices and think, "That sure doesn't look like a speculative bubble."

Secondly, that >>55118 dream scenario just sounds too realistic to me.

Thirdly, and this might just be personal, I can't think of a situation where I would rather own BTC than AU.

>>63960

>For one, it's hard to look at Bitcoin prices and think, "That sure doesn't look like a speculative bubble."

why?

Daily reminder that:

- Operation PBSUCCESS/PBFORTUNE/etc. overthrew the Guatemalan government repeatedly.

- Operations Mongoose/Torchwood/The Bay of Pigs were CIA attempts of the same w.r.t. Cuba.

- Operation Charly was the CIA manipulation of the Argentine government, possibly culminating in the Dirty War.

- Given Operation FUBELT, it's likely the CIA supported the coup against Allende and the Pinochet regime.

- Given reports by a Missouri Fusion Center, the DHS classifies libertarians as potential domestic terrorists.

- The U.S. Army has detailed FEMA camp plans to relocate U.S. citizens en masse.

- The CIA has in the past supported terrorist groups under the Kurds, Contras, and…Osama Bin Laden himself.

- Operations Resistance/Merrimac/CHAOS placed antiwar activists under intense surveillance. There is no evidence that these programs have stopped.

- The Maine was a false flag.

- The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was probably a false flag.

- Under the PRISM program, the NSA collects and spies on nearly all of U.S. telecommunications.

- STATEROOM is the NSA equivalent for VIPs and diplomatic cables.

- Ted Kaczynski was made from the MK Ultra program.

- Operation Mockingbird was never officially stopped, and Wapo/NYT were proven to have CIA operatives in them. Probably most of the MSM and now major Silicon Valley social media companies are completely controlled CIA rags.

- According to U.S. Centcom Press Releases, the U.S. has been at war in Syria since Obama claimed he would go to the Congress to ask for their approval in war. Trump has continued this war.

- Trump is in violation of the War Powers Act, which means that every congressman who says that they want him impeached is full of shit.

- The FED is a private bank in control of the U.S. money supply, and was founded in secret by a cartel of U.S. banking interests.

All the CIA operations mentioned are declassified by now. The Centcom press releases are open to the public. Thanks to Wikileaks/Snowden, information of PRISM/STATEROOM are public. The FEMA camp is detailed in a public U.S. Army publication. The FED stuff is detailed in the book The Creature from Jekyll Island. The stuff about the Maine is due to a rather recent analysis of the wreckage.

All of this is public.

Nobody gives a shit.

The government doesn't hide anything because apathy is the greatest coverup of them all.

Say I want to buy a large amount of gold to protect myself from the U.S. government, and I am a U.S. citizen.

Option 1: write a check to buy the gold.

Problem: now if the U.S. government confiscates gold, they have a money trail to prove that I own some.

Option 2: take out cash to buy the gold.

Problem: SAR and CTR

Option 3: take out multiple amounts of cash to buy gold.

Problem: "Structuring"

Option 4: take out multiple amounts of cash very slowly to buy gold.

Problem: It is slow enough that I am accumulating less of a ratio of my wealth in gold compared to other assets stuck in the trackable government's nexus.

What should I do? I'm currently on option 4 at the moment, but holy jesus is it slow.

>>68333

If you buy in small quantities the government will likely never realize it even if you do so on debit or check.

You can always pull a "lost shotgun in a boating accident" claim.

>>45161

>Everyone has the right for free ___ !

Freedom? Does that makes me a statist?

>Just work to change the system

Isn't that you guys talking points? Don't you guys hate revolution?

>>68348

No such thing as a free lunch, positive rights do not exist

>>68352

>Those polemics

Nothing to refute there, because it doesn't actually say anything substantial.

Why did /liberty/ loose so many users recently? The front page says 57 "active ISPs" but it used to be around a hundred a few days ago.

>>68398

Maybe it was some posters from other boards shitposting here?

>>68398

I'm hanging out on /monarchy/ now. For now, it seems like all the /pol/ and /leftypol/ shitposters and shills haven't found out about it yet or think it's too 'obscure.'

I'll probably come back here once things die down and people forget about libertarians again.

>>68444

Yeah, that board has potential. Slow, though. It would benefit from more users.

>>68349

negative rights do not exist as well then

it is just an abstract concept

>>68398

8chan is dying

>>43785

I know that I will most likely be decried as a newfag, but I must ask: how might I use tor or access the deep web in general without screwing myself over?

>>69192

block js and that is all

I think I've gotten to the state where it's probably more pragmatic to accept that things will only get worse for humanity here on out. It appears to be inevitable that guns will be seized (the propaganda war against them has been nonstop for the past century), the war on cash will be won by the State, the Four Eyes will not go away, but only expand in scope, taxes will increase, I will find it increasingly harder to find a job, likely healthcare (as it has pretty much already become) and nearly all essential services will be taken over by the government, and the world will suffer an ever increasing invasion on our rights by the State.

Given this feeling of political hopelessness, I am unsure what to do. I just feel incredibly depressed. I am half considering just making a bunker, living in isolation until I am either WACO/Ruby'd or get cancer, and then just kill myself.

How long do you think the U.S. has until the general public can't own guns?

>tor thread

I have it but barely use it. Any liberty not illegal or crazy militia tier sites I should be visiting?

>>70619

>not illegal or crazy militia tier

Why are you here then

>>70619

THE FUCKING SITE YOU'RE ON RIGHT NOW NIGGA.

Fucking hell, does anyone appreciate the value and importance of just basic privacy anymore?

>>70608

Actual question

>>70614

Distraction

COINTELPRO at its finest.

fuck anime

>>70661

das

https://www.bankofthewest.com/personal-banking/online-banking/service-agreement-iframe.html#5

>We and our Service Providers have the right but not the obligation to monitor and remove communications content that we find in our sole discretion to be objectionable in any way. In addition, you are prohibited from using the Service for communications or activities that: …(d) include any language or images that are bigoted, hateful, racially offensive, vulgar, obscene, indecent or discourteous

>The following types of payments are prohibited through the Services (“Prohibited Payments”), and we have the right but not the obligation to monitor for, block, cancel and/or reverse such payments:…d. Payments related to: (1) tobacco products, (2) prescription drugs and devices;…(5) ammunition, firearms, or firearm parts or related accessories;…(11) goods or services that include any language or images that are bigoted, hateful, racially offensive, vulgar, obscene, indecent or discourteous

They go so far as to regulate 'discourteousness'.

I'm working on a Tor-based eBay clone. It's going to use monero multisig, to help boost the agorist effort to fuck the taxman. HTML/PHP, perhaps optional JS (unlikely). Going to place an emphasis on selling anything from anal beads to zorro DVDs, not just drugs. Please suggest me features.

>>70805

let ppl rate sellers

>>70739

Discourteousness is abominable but the others should not be regulated

https://mises.org/wire/why-are-people-buying-bonds-negative-yields

>Runaway inflation hits.

>It hits the entire world, not just one country.

>Fiat currencies debasing left and right.

>No escape.

>Hyperinflation destroys the value of almost goddam near anything.

>Soros, Koch, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerburg, Musk, Buffet, etc. falls like cards, losing trillions.

>The only thing left…

>The only people left standing…

>Are the Austrians.

>Ron Paul/Peter Schiff are fucking trillionaires.

>All the kooky goldbugs buy up property for what is to them pennies.

>Dust settles.

>Austrians rule the world.