/liberty/ - Liberty

Expansion of any State is something I oppose, while reduction or dissolution of any State is something I support.

Colonialism expands the State, therefore I oppose it.

>>68220

but it leads to less violence and nap breaking

sometimes

>>68226

No it doesn't. The American colonies existed under tyranny for a long period of time before a violent revolution finally removed the shackles of the previous State and substituted them for new shackles to a new State. The colonies were formed with monopoly charters over land claims and a quasi-feudal structure. The initial governments of those colonies were communist in nature, with a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" modus operandi.

These communities existed under heavy strife and thousands of people died to get them under way using the system that the State wanted them to use. As individuals fled overly strict colonies (Such as Massachusetts), new colonies formed under more libertarian charters, however this effect would have happened regardless without the need of colonization by a foreign power.

Also in the implementation of colonies, the rights of those who previously owned the land is constantly and violently infringed upon. What happened to the Native Americans happened because of State and monopolistic interests. If you want a clear cut understanding of this situation, then read Murray Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" American History volumes. They are presented from the perspective of markets and rights, as Rothbard is known for doing.

>>68231

i have never heard that britons were communistic regarding their colonies…

but what about colonizing africa and asia? is not SA better off as ex british colony? or singapore or hong kong

>>68232

While the development of Africa was a good thing, the forced colonization and settlement of it was not. Once again the same story was told. Quasi-feudalistic land monopolies were sold to whomever had the coin to buy them, and they then established settlements and began distributing their land as they saw fit with whatever laws they wanted.

The reason for the success of these places is not colonization, but rather the eventual spread of concepts of liberty and markets. The current success of these places is because of forces outside the control of the State that brought these establishments into existence. Hong Kong is successful because it is a haven for free exchange, same with Singapore. Colonization's only boon perhaps is bringing in people with fresh ideas that eventually can change the nature of the colony.

>>68241

what do you mean by forced colonization?

>>68245

Forced as in unnatural. Planned by the central authority/State. A "natural" colonization would just be settlement and homesteading by interested parties. Look at how Providence was formed in the American Colonies for an example of natural colonization without the force of a State

>>68248

ancaps are not agaisnt authority

>>68249

Neither am I, nor did I ever say I was.

>>68250

ok but is not spreading of more libertarian states by destroying native, less libertarian states better?

>>68252

Depends on who is doing the spreading. Is it people voluntarily moving to a new location in order to start a new life, or is it a coercive entity orchestrating this movement by using resources expropriated from the public? If it's the former, then no Libertarian could possibly object. If it's the latter, then all Libertarians must object.

>>68253

with such an attitude we are not going to achieve ancap any time soon

>>68220

If the state 'expands' only in a geographic sense, it doesn't make any difference to the number of people that are actually governed.

If the state 'expands' in terms of the number of people governed, that's not obviously a bad thing. It depends on how the new citizens were being governed before.

Colonialism that brings liberal government can increase liberty. So it's not axiomatically bad.

Colonisation is fine as long as the land is sold willingly. If the consequences of land sales are clearly understood (I.e. the right to exclude people), any contract should be binding.

Native American population pre contact has been estimated at between only 1.8 - 18 million people.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/302445/

That would mean a much lower ratio of people per sq. km of land area than today. See the legal concept of terra nullis.

So, if no one is using the land or claiming sovereignty over it, then I suppose it's whoever stakes their rights to it first, by evidence of using the land.

>>68254

>>68255

Here's a better solution: Instead of extorting people to fund a government to make other governments libertarian by putting them under its control, why don't we just raise money to fund an army, go topple a shit country's regime and let the free market bring prosperity to the people? We wouldn't need to be a gang of thugs and thieves. As long as the free market provides the people's needs, warlords won't even try to take over.

>>68255

This nigger knows.

>>68279

Somalia lmao. Just because you topple a government doesn't mean the people suddenly start to respect property rights.

>>68282

So the free market doesn't fix everything?

>>68286

There's no need for fixing, everything the free market does is already perfect and just.

>>68286

Somalia is literally what one could expect from a country full of Somalis.

Now it might be less of a shithole if the US/the Saudis/the Norks/Ethiopia wouldn't shower them with arms and the UN wasn't dangling gibs in the form of developmental aid in their faces but we'll never know.

>>68286

There is no free market without the proper superstructure in place first. Respect for property rights preceeds the free market. And no, that doesn't mean we need a state in place to protect the free market. That would be a non sequitur and I'd rather leave it at that.

>>68315

>Respect for property rights preceeds the free market.

So how can the market provide property rights?

Seems like you're playing into the hands of minarchists

>>68219

It caused a lot of harm, but by and large, the effects in the colonized countries were beneficial. Anticolonialism was a socialist, democratic and socialist scheme by which dumb niggers were told that they could stop being exploited. Which exploitation, though? If it hadn't been for colonialist exploitation, there wouldn't be any railroads in Africa. Funny how exploitation consistently makes people richer.

It's especially ridiculous when the right of people to rule themselves is invoked. Awesome how that worked out in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Rwanda. There was no self-rule of the Bengals in Pakistan, or of the Tutsi in Rwanda. It's a crazy idea that rule of the majority is somehow better for a minority than the rule of another minority. You gotta ingest a lot of democracy before that kind of thing sounds sensible.

>>68357

So how can the market protect property rights, if respect for property rights precedes the market?

>>68358

India and South Africa are doing just fine if you analyse it objectively based on broad measures

>>68370

"The market" doesn't, protection agencies that operate within the market do. Similar to what's happening nowadays. Do you think the state would protect any property rights if no one thought that they were legitimate? What's so hard to grasp there?

>>68372

>India

Point taken.

>South Africa

Still shit-tier. People rape like crazy, the president is illiterate, the national hero was a commie terrorist, and the HIV rate is enormous.

>>68373

The existence of the market would still be a necessary condition for such firms to 'operate within the market'

But the market can't exist without the firms defending property rights…

>>68374

But the direction of change in South Africa is fine (lower crime, bigger economy)

>>68375

>The existence of the market would still be a necessary condition for such firms to 'operate within the market'

>But the market can't exist without the firms defending property rights…

Stop trying so hard, there is no circularity involved. A market comes into being when property rights are respected. It becomes free when they are respected unconditionally.

That they are protected is likewise conditioned by them being respected in the first place. Only once they are violated against must they be reaffirmed to the rest of the population, which can take the form of protection, enforcement or punishment.

I could go into more detail, but I'd rather not.

>>68376

Give it five years and tell me that again.

>>68379

>That they are protected is likewise conditioned by them being respected in the first place.

But nobody will respect them without the existence of a security market.

If you can't see how circular this is, maybe you are the problem.

>>68392

>But nobody will respect them without the existence of a security market.

That is your assumption, not mine. Care to prove it? Show me categorically that only a "security market", as you call it, can lead to respect for property rights.

>If you can't see how circular this is, maybe you are the problem.

Nothing's circular except your strawman-argument. Let me guess: You found this exact argument online on someones blog and now you want to fieldtest it. I'm telling you that I've heard of it before and it just doesn't work on me.

>>68376

Whites are being genocided in South Africa, m8

t. Cape Townian too lazy depressed to provide proof….

Just do a web search for 'plaasmoerde'. I think the latest figure is that over 300,000 White-South Africans have been killed since the end of Apartheid (by blecks that is).

>>68403

Seems to be 1500 farm murders in total, from what I gathered, but 300000 total murders since Mandela "freed" the country.

Mind providing more info on what South Africa is like? This interests me.

>>68395

>Show me categorically that only a "security market", as you call it, can lead to respect for property rights.

That's not what I'm saying retard. But I'm saying you need something.

>>68408

Is your argument that Somalia isn't real anarcho capitalism because people didn't magically start respecting the NAP? How pathetic

>>68403

There have been some nasty murders, but that doesn't make a genocide. The blacks are murdering each other far more, and we don't call that a 'self genocide'.

>>68410

There are also far, far more blacks, so while they may be killing each other like crazy they aren't really making a dent in their numbers. Also, it could be considered genocide if the violence were divided along tribal lines, which is known to happen in Africa (see Hutus and Tutsis).

The amount of whites killed is FAR more significant as they are a relative minority in the region and that 300000 is a hell of a lot more threatening a number in light of that fact. Is it a genocide? Well, just ask the blacks who murdered the whites why they did it. They want to kill all the whites and they're going to use muh oppression as a shield against those who would say they were being genocidal.

Yes, it is a genocide. It's the START of one, at the very least, and I really don't think it's fair of you to say "We have to wait until the numbers reach X amount before we can call obviously genocidal behavior that these people have demonstrated a predilection for committing in the past, ACTUAL genocide".

>>68411

>There are also far, far more blacks, so while they may be killing each other like crazy they aren't really making a dent in their numbers

But I'm saying the rate is higher among blacks. Total numbers don't affect it.

>Well, just ask the blacks who murdered the whites why they did it. They want to kill all the whites and they're going to use muh oppression as a shield against those who would say they were being genocidal.

They probably murdered them so they could take their stuff and rape them. Nobody is going to go to jail for 20 years to make a tiny contribution to white genocide.

You could argue that there's little risk of being caught so you might as well but I think there's a decent chance of being caught given that the authorities have managed to cut the murder rate in half since the 90s

>>68415

>They probably murdered them so they could take their stuff and rape them.

Then why is the violence against white farmers so much worse than against black farmers? Both are being victimized, but the blacks don't get tortured with blowtorches. They're not even murdered at the same rate. Of 1500 farm murders, 1300 were against whites.

>Nobody is going to go to jail for 20 years to make a tiny contribution to white genocide.

Going to jail for 20 years for killing an evil white oppressor? Sure as hell people are doing that, especially irrational savages with a high time preference.

>You could argue that there's little risk of being caught so you might as well but I think there's a decent chance of being caught given that the authorities have managed to cut the murder rate in half since the 90s

And you believe these numbers?

>>68423

It's categorically impossible for any real universe because people want each others' stuff more than they care about your precious NAP.

>>68424

>Then why is the violence against white farmers so much worse than against black farmers? Both are being victimized, but the blacks don't get tortured with blowtorches. They're not even murdered at the same rate.

Blacks are murdered at a higher rate than whites. The farm killings are far too occasional to be a genocide, at most they are hate crimes.

>Going to jail for 20 years for killing an evil white oppressor? Sure as hell people are doing that, especially irrational savages with a high time preference.

I don't know what to tell you except I'm very skeptical people value a 0.0001% contribution towards white genocide more than 20 years of their own life.

>And you believe these numbers?

Experts seem to believe them. Murder rates are usually quite accurate because murders are more reported than other crimes (there are bodies that show up)

>>68431

>you're a retard

Not an argument

>read this book

Not an argument

>>68432

>The victimization rates, from what I found, are roughly proportional to the demographics

Do you mean roughly equal? This says otherwise.

https://africacheck.org/reports/are-white-afrikaners-really-being-killed-like-flies/

This is likely to be due to higher contact with other blacks. But the point is that blacks are 'genociding' each other as much as they are whites.

>contrary to what you say, the farm killings are racially motivated.

Some of them probably are racially motivated. But I was referring to the majority of murders, not just farm murders.

>I've heard experts claim that out of every two murders here in Germany, one is reported'.

These professors say that murder is well reported.

https://theconversation.com/facts-show-south-africa-has-not-become-more-violent-since-democracy-62444

I suppose the line around what constitutes genocide is somewhat subjective. I can't prove that the term is inappropriate and alarmist.

However no official source has said that there is a genocide taking place

>>68432

There is no argument because the discussion is over, you child. Back to /r/atheism or RationalWiki or wherever you came from.

>>68433

I looked over your first article and it sounds solid. Count me as standing corrected for now.

>>68379

> It becomes free when they are respected unconditionally.

so no free marked ever existed because there are always exceptions- ppl breaking nap

?

>>69282

The free market is an ideal. It's practically impossible to ever fulfill it, but it's possible to get closer and closer to it. Same with peace too, for example. It's conceivable that a world be without any violence at all, but not practically possible.

>>69284

so what is the difference between statism and ancap? in both NAP is sometimes broken…

>>69282

It exists usually as black or grey markets.

>>69600

terrorism is defined as killing or harming random ppl