No.59609
Made this just now. Thought it'd be interesting, since I haven't seen anybody try to cover all the modern libertarian schools of thought as they are relevant now.
No.59610
If the mods see it fit to use in the sticky, feel free. I also made the "guide to shills" image in the /pol/ sticky, so that'd make 2, I guess.
No.59613
>>59609
>Hoppeanism
>linking it to Pinochet meming again
Don't. He's a conservative and that's as far as he goes.
No.59614
>>59613
Yeah, the monarchist sympathizer who talks about physically removing democrats from society is "just a conservative".
No.59628
>>59609
>>59616
AnCap, but one who would be willing to compromise and settle for a Night Watchman State which can in theory exist without the need for taxation.
>>59614
>the monarchist sympathizer
Him saying that monarchies are better than democracies isn't him saying monarchies are good, its him demonstrating how shit democracies are.
No.59631
>>59614
He never mentioned death squads, and "physical removal" clearly refers to boycots and discrimination and not violence. There is no reason to link him to Pinochet besides the shitty memes. Also, there are more solutions than counter-economics and violence for bringing about a state.
No.59635
>>59631
How, besides the peaceful dissolution of the state through its own processes, which isn't worth inculding on the chart because no modern governing body has a process for it and it says "violence if necessary" anyways?
The chart is about finding your ideology. If you're a hoppeanist you're much more likely to agree more with a violent or overt anti-communist rhetoric than any of the other options, and it's obvious it's not supposed to be taken seriously, because even the ironic (Emphasis on that) pinochet worshippers like Cantwell wouldn't probably actually support dropping them out of helicopters, considering that's an incredibly ineffective way of killing your political opponents. Why does your autism force you to take everything literally all the time?
>>59628
Hasn't he had talks about how a democratically elected bearocrat is akin to a child, while a hereditary king is like an adult?
No.59636
>>59635
>>59631
Tbh it just seems like you have some thing against the Pinochet memes and have to throw temper tantrums about them at every turn.
No.59637
How the fuck is libertarian socialism not libertarian when (((libertarian fascism))) (what the fuck is that even supposed to be) and (((national capitalism))) are?
Also neoliberals don't care about redistributing wealth, they believe in horse and sparrow economics
No.59638
>>59636
Easy solution: Don't post this shitty meme at every turn. It's been over a year since it was invented and spergs like you still feel the need to post it.
No.59640
>>59635
>How, besides the peaceful dissolution of the state through its own processes, which isn't worth inculding on the chart because no modern governing body has a process for it and it says "violence if necessary" anyways?
Fucking Hoppe supports the political process, you retard. He talked about electing local governors that give a shit about the state and don't enforce its law. What he said was unrealistic was the prospect of overturning the state violently. I think he puts it on the same level as an intellectual revolution where the state leaders and the public at large simply realize that freedom is good.
>If you're a hoppeanist you're much more likely to agree more with a violent or overt anti-communist rhetoric than any of the other options, and it's obvious it's not supposed to be taken seriously, because even the ironic (Emphasis on that) pinochet worshippers like Cantwell wouldn't probably actually support dropping them out of helicopters, considering that's an incredibly ineffective way of killing your political opponents.
Yeah, let's just post shitty rhetoric and excuse that with us being "ironic". In case you missed it: When someone visits a libertarian board for the first time and is bombarded with ironic violence fantasies, he will catch on to that. At worst, he will join us just to kill commies. At best, he will get that it's ironic, but he will spread the meme for all eternity. Chances are he will conclude we're "just as bad as the commies" or otherwise juvenile as fuck. It simply makes a bad impression.
>Why does your autism force you to take everything literally all the time?
I swear, you're a fucking idiot.
No.59641
>>59637
I thought national capitalism was just some shitty twitter meme.
No.59642
>>59641
It's probably some alt-shit ideology, in other words a shitty twitter meme. I wish we had more patriots and fewer nationalists.
No.59643
>>59609
>>59616
>Agorism is left-wing
No.59663
>>59638
>>59640
It's obvious that, no matter what I say, you'll always have some weird autistic thing against a harmless if not slightly funny meme and would rather sperg out over literal ms paint memes like a crying child than attempt to calm down from your fit. I can't really help you in the domain of not having childish mental breakdowns over political macros, but I hope you get the help you need, anon.
>>59643
Anon…
No.59664
>>59637
>>59641
>>59642
>(((libertarian fascism))) (what the fuck is that even supposed to be)
Read >>59616, I've also heard it described as "market fascism" or "Propertarianism". Here's a website on it: https://propertarianism.com/
And from what I can gather national capitalism is similar to ultracapitalism or corporatism. It probably is also preached mainly by "alt right" people if I had to guess.
No.59665
>>59664
And here is it's founder (? I think?) talking about how Rothbard sucks.
No.59666
>>59663
>>59640
>At best, he will get that it's ironic, but he will spread the meme for all eternity.
And then no one gets hurt other than you and your super-specific hatred of an obscure meme.
>Chances are he will conclude we're "just as bad as the commies" or otherwise juvenile as fuck. It simply makes a bad impression.
So what? If someone's making conclusions regarding their politics based on memes they're pretty retarded, and I'm fine with them not being libertarian. News flash: literally no one cares about memes this much except you. The ideas and philosophy of the ideology comes first, then a community forms from that, and then memes come out of that. No shit memes aren't gonna represent the ideology 1:1 all the time, because they're coming out of the community, not the ideology itself. And yet, if you respond well to the memes or ideas coming out of the community, you're more likely to fit there, and therefor be an adherent of the ideology. So there's nothing wrong w/ putting it in a loose, informal flowchart made in 30 minutes, and if you think there is you're supremely autistic.
No.59669
>>59663
>>59666
Actually, there's at least one other person that agreed with me in the beginning: >>59613
To which you said this:
>>59614
Then you got called out on your ignorance by two separate persons:
>>59628
>>59631
And then it went downhill with you claiming that I'm prosecuting your shitmemes. Yet it wasn't primarily about the shitmeme, it was about you not understanding Hoppes philosophy. You took that opportunity to get defensive about us not liking your maymay. So please, fuck off.
>>59664
>>59665
>And here is it's founder (? I think?) talking about how Rothbard sucks.
I looked over it, and I concluded that he's a fucking idiot. He's damn near incomprehensible sometimes.
No.59670
How the fuck is libertarian fascism not linked to the "Not a libertarian" box. Fascism requires an autocratic government, and forceful suppression of the opposition, both of which are not libertarian.
No.59671
>>59669
>Yet it wasn't primarily about the shitmeme, it was about you not understanding Hoppes philosophy
No, retard, the root of the argument is about whether the query "we'll physically remove them" fits the result "hoppeanism". And, instead of throwing a spergy fit about scary memes that make me feel bad :((, or arguing about what hoppe specifically actually supports, that's what I'm talking about in >>59666. Whether it's appropriate to use pinochet referencing in reference to Hoppe, more specifically in terms of finding out "What type of libertarian are you?", is what >>59610 is talking about, and what I'm talking about in >>59666. That is the only actual argument that's going on. Everything else is your 3rd-grader schoolyard temper tantrum over memes.
No.59672
>>59671
My bad, meant to link >>59613 instead of >>59610.
No.59674
>>59609
Seems inconsistent. Why does a "strong national defense" get to still count as libertarian whereas redistributing some wealth is automatically not a libertarian? They both require taxes. Why does the hoppeanism one get to still count as libertarian for violently removing communes from society and not respecting their property rights (which is NOT what Hoppe called for btw)?
Seems right biased, and in a way where right wing things which violate property rights are being accepted where left wing things aren't.
No.59675
>>59663
>a harmless if not slightly funny meme
Thanks to this shitty meme, people's first introduction to Hoppe will be to associate physical removal with murdering democrats and socialists. It may be a joke to you but not to the people who have no idea who he is in the first place. It was already a hard sell to convince egalitarians to embrace discrimination and freedom of association. Now they think it's a philosophy that prescribes murder for unbelievers. Keep memeing it and it will end up in the "this is what libertarians actually believe" hall of fame alongside Ayn Rand worship and pedophilia.
This must be how left anarchists feel when they hear tankies talk. Pinochet worship is the same "transition state" excuse that commies use when their ideology never makes it past thought police and mass starvation into the promised land of true socialism. It's universalist garbage that always causes more harm than good.
>Anon…
A free market is a free market. How you choose to use it has no bearing on the society that uses it. The left-right paradigm is useless if it categorizes Konkin as a leftist when he believes in the same exact economic structure as people considered far right.
>>59665
>Rothbard
>libertine
Is this another case of them exclusively reading early Rothbard or are they radically redefining the word to include all behavior that is not Godly?
No.59677
>>59674
Because neoliberalism isn't libertarian and never was, while neolibertarianism is in general regarded as libertarian. I'm not making anything up.
>>59675
If they take memes at face value they're retarded and will most likely never get past the "Lol who will build le roadz???? xD" face anyway. See >>59666:
>The ideas and philosophy of the ideology comes first, then a community forms from that, and then memes come out of that. No shit memes aren't gonna represent the ideology 1:1 all the time, because they're coming out of the community, not the ideology itself. And yet, if you respond well to the memes or ideas coming out of the community, you're more likely to fit there, and therefor be an adherent of the ideology
If you, for example, think that socialists really want space colonies where everyone is gay because of the meme, you're pretty dumb in the first place. It isn't hard to realize that the absurdist throwaway line jokes people make online isn't the best metric for what deducing they actually believe, and it's not hard to distinguish between serious discussion and something that is obviously an overly-played-up hammy meme.
People aren't fucking idiots, if they go into /leftypol/ and hear "kulaks deserved it xDDD" they aren't going to walk away thinking anybody but a small fringe of tankies actually think Stalin is their daddy because they're not tone deaf infants. Same for helicopter memes.
>>59675
>>59669
Yeah, I'm not sure what Propertarianism even is, it seems as much as a clusterfuck to me as it does to you. People on 4/pol/ apparently really like it, though.
No.59678
>>59677
*phase. Or you can interpret it as face, like the ancap memeball face, if you want, though, I guess.
No.59681
>Violently using the state apparatus to murder people is fine
>Abolition of hierarchy through horizontalism is not
Read Prodhon, you filthy statist.
No.59682
>>59677
I've only heard the word Propertarianism ever used by left libertarians to describe right libertarians. I just assumed it meant you believed in private propety or use that to solve problems.
No.59688
>>59681
actually lolberts would be okay with socialists abolishing property rights and hierarchy peacefully through horizontal co-operation (even tho that would never happen)
they would probably think it was unethical to take people's stuff like that but they would say nothing because they both do and don't think NAP solves morality
No.59697
>libertarian socialists aren't really libertarians
>"libertarian fascists" are
wew wee
No.59700
>>59697
because 1 pic speaks for all libertarians.
No.59704
>>59688
Is that ugly motherfucker supposed to look like Trotsky?
No.59705
>>59609
It just seems like a convoluted mess.
> Libertarian facism
> National Capitalism
U wot now.
No.59730
>>59705
But they're actual ideologies. why would anyone just make them up?
No.59731
>>59730
Why is anarcho-fascism not included then?
No.59735
>>59731
Because it's not a libertarian leaning ideology.
No.59742
>>59735
The only libertarian leaning ideology on that picture is Libertarian Socialism.
No.59745
>>59730
>But they're actual ideologies. why would anyone just make them up?
I'm hoping to god that's sarcasm. Next you'll tell me that capitalist communism is a thing.
No.59748
>>59742
>Free stuff means Freedom
No.59751
>>59748
Someone who's smarter than me really ought to shop Mises' face on the Nostalgia Critic.
No.59769
>>59745
Sure, why not? Aren't there a million different little ways a state/economy can be run, and can't you contort and stretch the definition of "capitalism" and "communism" so that they, however unrealistically, intersect somehow while not betraying in any techincal sense the dictionary's words?
No.59771
>>59745
>capitalist communism
Well kinda yeah, its called a mixed economy
No.59783
>>59771
How is that a mixed economy? Communism usually tends to have the state completely control the economy while capitalism doesn't. At best Mixed Economy would be more like social democracy, neo-liberalism or corporatism or something.
No.59786
>>59783
>corporatism or something
Like the U.S. economy?
No.59805
>>59640
This tbh. I've always been really leery of the le ironic massacre memes shit, it seems like an attempt to stealthily drag libertarians into the facsists' and communists' can't-win social loserpit sorority which normalfags rightfully ridicule.
No.59806
>>59700
Yeah he's not free to criticize one picture because he's criticizing libertarian picture which means he's criticizing libertarians but that picture does not represent all libertarians so he's not allowed to criticize all libertarians by criticizing it.
No.59810
>>59806
Learn to speak, for fucks sake.
No.59812
>>59769
>Sure, why not?
Because those two are inherent contradictions. One is a system in which individuals are not allowed to own property whereas the other one revolves around ownership of resources (private property).
>Aren't there a million different little ways a state/economy can be run, and can't you contort and stretch the definition of "capitalism" and "communism" so that they, however unrealistically, intersect somehow while not betraying in any techincal sense the dictionary's words?
No, as explained above; Capitalism= Private Property, Communism = No private property.
>>59771
>Well kinda yeah, its called a mixed economy
A mixed economy is not the same as communism. It's not as good as free market capitalism, but by no means is it Communism.
No.59813
>>59635
>If you're a hoppeanist you're much more likely to agree more with a violent or overt anti-communist rhetoric than any of the other options
Hoppe is what kept me in the liberty movement after dealing with the shit storm of left libertarians and feminists infiltrating the movement, and Hoppe is the reason I'm able to stay friends with a variety of left libertarians. Physical removal is about parallel societies, not violence.
This violent aspect of Hoppe is almost entirely inspired by pinochet memes. Also, see >>59640
No.59848
>>59813
Too many "Hoppeanists" who haven't actually read Hoppe. If "physical removal" was interpreted oustide the bounds of private property, then it wouldn't be consistent with anarcho-capitalism at all.
No.59850
>>59848
As I always say: Hoppe is 90% rothbardian. You cannot interpret him properly if you don't keep that in mind.
No.59855
>>59813
See >>59666 for my justification on why I put it in the chart
No.59857
>>59855
>HOLY SHIT GUYS MEEMEMES
Literally what you wrote.
No.59860
>>59857
So what, berserk funny.jpg?
No.59862
>>59860
>Sees Jojo
>Calls it Berserk
>Mfw
No.59864
>>59862
I would ask "how retarded are you" but you have a demsoc flag, so…
No.59876
>>59742
>The collective has more authority over oneself rather than the individual.
Yeah, "real" Libertarian.
No.59878
>>59876
>I'm politically illiterate and proud of it
Okay
No.59879
>>59810
Do you realize the post is confusing on purpose?
Anyways if anything >>59700 should explain himself.
No.59893
>>59878
[insert argument here]
No.59985
>>59609
voluntaryist reports in
No.60028
>>59697
Is that Sir Reginald's brother?
No.60080
Everything says I'm Classical Liberal…Not surprised
No.60081
No.60144
I can identify as a Classical Liberal and a NeoLibertarian equally. I believe both roles are important. Also Rand is my nigga.
No.61656
>>59609
Hoppeanism IS paleolibertarianism; and it tolerates communes.
No.61667
>>59609
>National capitalist
Pretty accurate
No.61726
>>59664
Isn't propertarianism against more government? I haven't done much reading on it, but it seems to be a branch of neoreaction, and neoreactionaries basically come in two flavors. One wants for-profit joint stock company city states. The other wants Victorian-type monarchy. Both are convinced that their preferred political system would result in the smallest workable government.
No.61737
No.61773
>>61737
It's not very surprising since I'm not considering myself libertarian. I'm just browsing this board because it's pretty interesting (especially the book recommendations).
No.61821
>>61773
why are you nationalistic?
No.61831
>>61821
I think the state is important to maintain some traditional values. Countries also have to defend themselves in the trade field through protectionism. And, some projects need a long-term vision like aerospace ones. Companies can't think more than 50 years ahead like nation-states.
No.61834
>>61831
>maintain some traditional values
That's what parents. communities and/or religion is for. How many of your values did you get from the State? Besides the conviction that you need it.
>defend themselves in the trade field through protectionism
Countries do not trade. People do. The only way your logic applies would be if everything was completely nationalized and private property abolished.
>And, some projects need a long-term vision like aerospace ones
You don't need a State for that either. "Vision" is not something that manifests as soon as you have formally assembled a State. Anything that is sure to be profitable will attract funding. Anything that is not and can not sustain itself does not change under State control. It continues to exist only to drain taxpayer income down the toilet.
No.62002
>>61831
> Companies can't think more than 50 years ahead like nation-states.
[citation needed]
No.62043
>>61831
You're wrong on companies not thinking ahead and even more wrong on the state doing it. That may have been true back when we had dynasties of rulers, or at least rulers that lasted a lifetime. In a democracy, a leader has a time of eight years to make a change and will spend a lot of that time trying to impress the voters by showing quick, but often fading results. Just look at Trump, or at his adversary Hillary. Were they, as politicians, ever looking more than two months into the future? That's democracy for you.
No.62063
Autism ahead.
I want a small dictator-led government that groups all towns and villages in small communes/city-states like the greek had them (smaller towns and villages form a commune together), the national governments only responsibility is to coordinate defense if a foreign country poses a threat or to intervene if a commune theatens its neighbours unprovoked. The communes are allowed to completely manage themselves, basically being able to become anything between (and including) /anarchy/ and /pol/ as long as they have a representative and follow the 2 state-wide rules (provide soldiers during wars and don't attack other communes).
If the dictator dies, the commune leaders assemble in the capital and decide who becomes his successor, once elected, the commune of the new leader becomes the new national capital city. The commune leaders are responsible for ensuring that neither other commune leaders nor the dictator try to topple the goverment system.
Any group of (for example) 1.000+ people can claim unused land to start a new commune if it isn't property of another commune yet. If a commune fails (famine, epidemic, …) then the neighbouring communes can but are not bound to send help or take in refugees.
Is there a name for this most likely not even working government type?
No.62087
>>62063
>Is there a name for this most likely not even working government type?
Yes, it's called shit. It reminds me of of protosocialists like Fourier, who - like you - have no respect for heritage, tradition, and home, and seem to think that forcibly moving millions of people is somehow not fucking tyranny.
No.62088
>>62087
Are you retarded or pretending?
No.62093
>>62088
Reading it again, I think he meant that the villages etc. should be grouped together organizationally, not physically. That is fairly reasonable and in that case, I'll apologize to him.
No.63010
>>62063
quasi-government will come into existence naturally in a case of external threat
No.63062
>>59616
There's also right-wing georgism. Corporations own all the land in cities and charge rent for public goods.
National Capitalism and libertarian fascism are meme ideologies. So is galambiosianism, which is a potentially hilarious may-may:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galambosianism
No.63069
I still like my enerchy flowchart.
No.63377
>>63069
it's pretty shit. "freed markets or spooks"? If someone needs to figure out if he's an egoist or not, he probably hasn't read stirner, which means he doesn't know what a spook is! you present a lack of understanding of pretty much the majority of anarchy-related ideologies.
Meanwhile the only thing people said >>59616 got wrong was hoppeanism.
No.63382
>>63377
>If someone needs to figure out if he's an egoist or not, he probably hasn't read stirner, which means he doesn't know what a spook is!
Still telling yourself Stirner was some brilliant and complex philosopher, I see?
No.63383
>>63382
This. If not for Nietzsche, Marx and /leftypol/ noone would even care for such unimportant thinker.
No.63402
>>63383
Marx cared about Stirner because they were part of the same scene and Stirner absolutely BTFO'd his senpai. Marx probably never heard of Nietzsche, he died too soon.
As for /leftypol/, they are originally mostly from /lit/ and Stirner used to be a meme there before /pol/ ruined yet another board. I don't think anyone there cares about Nietzsche and his elitist self-help sophism, though.
No.63507
>>59616
Should include Bleeding Heart Libertarianism in the "state for a specific purpose"
No.63508
Should include Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism in the "state for a specific purpose". Other than that, great flowchart
No.63987
>>63402
>Stirner absolutely BTFO'd his senpai.
where?
No.63993
>>63987
Throughout the whole book.
No.64026
>>63402
>and Stirner absolutely BTFO'd his senpai
Wait, who is that?
No.64032
No.64097
I kind of want to be a libertarian fascist if only because the flag is the best thing ever.
No.64497
No.64551
No.65298
>>59616
That's an incorrect protrayal of Objectivism. Communes are allowed, but they cater to the government's rules and can have their own subset of services which follow the government's laws.
And it also doesn't mean everyone will be productive, it just means that the laws will cater to objectivism. Will leeches exist? sure. They just aren't going to get any free or forced help.
Not everyone will be super-productive, and the only reason that was true in the Gulch was because John Galt handpicked all of the ~2000 people living there.
Also,
>National Capitalism
>=ULTRACAPITALISM
please don't.
No.65326
>>65298
i remember when i was a teenager too
No.65328
>>65326
>>65298
btw in case you didn't get it I'm making fun of you for being an objectivist
No.65338
>>65328
Thanks, we've all been enriched by that insight.
No.65388
>>65326
>>65328
>ur a teenager xD
It's been some time since I've heard that insult.
No.65706
>>60144
Fucking saved.>>59609
I'm a classical liberal that believes in a strong national defense. I mean isn't that one of the main duties of a government to protect the people's life as well as their liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
No.65740
>>59609
Libertarian socialism is libertarianism.
Just in a different way,
And, what the fuck is libertarian fascism?
And, how can physical removal be libertarian?
No.65741
>>59664
Market fascism can never exist.
Fascism is bulit around the state having control on who does what.