/liberty/ - Liberty

>>62753

I remember Rothbard pointing out that Mises' idea of unlimited rights of secession are just one step removed from fullblown anarchocapitalism. I respect such ideas.

Personally, I barely argue with the NAP anymore. In a way, that speaks for the NAP: The idea that you shouldn't initiate aggression is so intuitive and common that almost everyone can get behind it in general. There's only a real controversy on whether there can be exceptions to that rule. Often, you don't have to show categorically that these exceptions don't exist, it's enough to show that the ones your opponent holds dear are both impermissible and undesirable.

That said, it frustrates me that ethical debates are constantly about particularities and not abstract principles. It's even worse than in economics. What the hell happened to abstract thinking?

>>62754

I'm sympathetic to anarchocapitalism, but only to the "hey, the state sucks, what if we had a stateless society with private institutions instead? Let's figure this out!" kind, and not the "WOOO LITERALLY NO COPS NO LAWS" kind. One kind is workable and interesting, but the other kind is utter fantasy land, and I think far too many of the second kind have colonized the liberty movement and pushed out the serious thinkers.

Rules don't matter, what people do does.

>>62757

And sometimes people do shit things and you have to smack them with a stick. If you own a street and somebody takes a shit on it, shouldn't they get a fine?

>>62758

It's not my street. If it were I would not attribute what I would do to any rule.

>>62755

I got you fam. I'm also annoyed by the second kind. Hoppe probably helped turn the movement around, but too many people know him and too many don't actually read him, or they mistake him for Voluntary Hitler.

>>62755

The latter kind are mostly hardcore lefties that pick fights with trash cans.

>>62755

> "WOOO LITERALLY NO COPS NO LAWS"

That's not Anarcho Capitalism and it never has been.

>>62761

You just violated my right not to have to look at garbage. I am suing you for ten gorillion dollars in the nearest GoyCourt (TM).

>>62781

Sure, but that's what some newbs make of it. Not many, thankfully. We probably got fewer people from the WEED LMAO crowd than plain libertarians do.

>>62755

>not the "WOOO LITERALLY NO COPS NO LAWS" kind

My experience suggests that proponents of such a view, though loud, are an extreme minority among self-described AnCaps. Such a view indicates a failure to comprehend AnCap philosophy. I'm sure you can sympathize with the realization that not everyone who claims a given label is representative of the principles to which that label refers.

I think we should separate the concepts of state and government. To steal from the article in the thread I posted yesterday:

>A government is an organization that provides its customers with “governance services,” which includes the enaction of common rules (legislation), their enforcement (justice), and general protection (defense), among others. Whereas a state is a self-proclaimed government that claims a de jure territorial monopoly wherein all inhabitants must be customers, and typically enforces this monopoly through the systematic use of force, disregarding property rights. The difference between a government and a state is the difference between leadership and tyranny.

>This shift of focus allows us to become attractive as a movement to regular people of almost all sides of the political and personality spectrum. The evils of monopoly are after all considered common sense to even the least economically enlightened members of society – the evils of government, not so much. In other words, we should stop being anti-government, and stick to being anti-state. We would no longer come across as antagonists, and instead we might influence members of other political movements to also demand a competitive government, whatever the origin of their motivations to do so.

>>62755 ✓

>>62781

And to steal again from that article:

>Third, I said before that half of political progress was about semantics; the other half of political progress is about aesthetics. To be blunt, our movement cannot be known for degeneracy and cultural destruction, for the success of our ideas fundamentally will depend on our low time preference derived from traditional values. This cannot be overlooked as a fundamental pillar of liberty, for high time preference always does lead back to statism. We must present ourselves to the world as brave, sophisticated and yet modest gentlemen and gentlewomen who present rational ideas with a calm disposition. In other words, the word libertarian must become a contrast to the word libertine, and no longer can the two be seen as compatible in the eyes of the average political spectator.

Aesthetics are VERY important. What do normalfags associate with anarcho-capitalism or extreme libertarianism?

>commonly debunked arguments (who will build the roads? won't the warlords take over?)

>libertines, pedophiles, drug addicts

>comical "violations" of the NAP

>Ayn Rand/objectivism/anti-altruism

While I'm always game for a good joke, we have to figure out how to turn this perception around. I don't mean policing memes or posting shit-tier image macros, but rather to find an idea that can self-replicate among people outside our community, where humor comes first. Nazism became popular on the Internet because it was fun to offend people with "Hitler did nothing wrong" and "Jews did 9/11," the stigma got broken, and eventually they started agreeing with the ideas.