/liberty/ - Liberty

>>69056

Found it.

>>69062

>How the fuck do you not stop soldiers form entering inner cities without protecting outer cities?

Inner and outer cities? I don't know what exactly you mean, so I'll assume you mean cities further within the country and those nearer to the border of a potentially hostile nation. In that case, it's easy: Reinforce and protect whatever city has clients that paid for your service. If you have clients in other cities, offer them evacuation to these reinforced ones. If that means you only protect the inner cities, no problem. If it means you protect outer ones, also no problem, as these cities will hardly create a solid wall that no army can march behind.

Alternatively, make it like an insurance scheme, so that every client whose property is damaged in a war is reimbursed by you. Will work especially well with missile shields and other forms of air defense. We'd probably already have the capacity to reliably intercept ICBM's if such a scheme had been implemented.

>Would you risk letting a enemy PMC form getting closer to your not paying house X if it was right next to paying house Y?

Is that even a problem? If you know they will not rob Y for fear of retribution, then there is no problem at all, as far as the public goods problem is concerned. If you do not know that, then you will probably intercept them, whether X paid or not. If only Y was there, would you act any different?

Your scenario suffers from the fact that you already assume that someone paid for the defensive services. If so, where's the problem? The question of whether ancapistan could thwart an invasion is already answered. By definition, in your scenario, it can. Nothing else needs to be said.

>>69128

How has that linear interpretation of history been doing for you the last two centuries? Is the world still not woke enough to the class consciousness?

>>69131

Where does it say that capitalism is supposed to end by 2017? Feudalism was 1000 years, capitalism has been here for barely 200 although it accelerated in a speed that makes it no more sustainable by the end of this century, I assume. Probably earlier.

I still prefer a somewhat linear non-deterministic perspective on history than a cyclic one, that shit is almost esoteric

>>69128

I love how you type so much and yet say so very little. Literally nothing of what you said has anything of real meaning. Almost all of it is either completely incorrect or nonsensical in nature and fails to understand anything regarding what it describes.

>>69132

>Where does it say that capitalism is supposed to end by 2017? Feudalism was 1000 years, capitalism has been here for barely 200 although it accelerated in a speed that makes it no more sustainable by the end of this century, I assume. Probably earlier.

Yet socialism and the like have all completely failed in any, if not all, their iterations, whereas capitalism and the free market has made entire civilizations, and none of Marx's historical predictions have come true in any form or manner. So how long must we wait until this 'Proletariot' uprising comes and things actually work out? Another thousand years? Two thousand years?

>>69132

>capitalism has been here for barely 200

>private property and trade began 200 years ago

>it accelerated in a speed that makes it no more sustainable by the end of this century

Surely, reverting back to a freer market from "not real Socialism" doesn't upset the linear trend at all. A cyclic one doesn't work either as there has been no regression back to Monarchy or Feudalism.

>>69133

What did I say what was nonsensical to you? That the nation state and capitalism emerged arround the same time? Y/N? That ruling institions are always a means of the ruling elite to perpetuate a certain socio-economic system? Y/N?

>Yet socialism and the like have all completely failed in any, if not all, their iterations

Maybe stop listing to cold war propaganda. If you seriously think that socialist states have been hell on earth considering the conditions they have to work with you have been exposed to very selective information. Also, you guys aren't in a position to make such criticisms as Libertarianism has yet to be implemented besides medieval Iceland

>capitalism and the free market has made entire civilizations

<ideologies make civilizations

lmao. If anything capitalism destroys genuine culture and art through commodification of everything.

>none of Marx historical predictions have come true

Which ones? Falling rate of profit? Came true. Rise of monopoly-capital? Hell yeah. Increasing rate of exploitation? Yes.

>>69134

Private property and wage labor as been arround in feudalism

Wew lad. In feudalism you own the land and wage labor is replaced by personalized relations between people. In capitalism you own the means of production (tools, factories). In capitalism you have generalized commodity production, which means production for profit, before people produces what they consumed and sold the rest on the village market via barter economy

>not real socialism

I didn't say that, I'm not a Leftcom. What's the deal with socialist experiments dissolving though? Before capitalism won in the 19th century, you had capitalist/republican experiments before like the United Provinces or the Commonwealth of England but they also dissolved and reverted back to feudal mercantilism. Marxism isn't deterministic.

>cyclic one doesn't work either as there has been no regression back to Monarchy or Feudalism

So my point stands that human progression can be measured objectively?

>>69017

>How will /liberty/ deal with being attacked by neighbouring countries for no reason?

Homeowners will defend their homes with firearms. Small businesses will have armed security guards that can call in private military contracotrs during emergencies. Large businesses can afford to hire private militaries full-time.

>David Friedman argues that you only need to make conquering Ancap no longer worthwhile.

He is right. It isn't worthwhile to use tanks and fighter jets just to take somebody’s house. A missile can cost more than the average home. Anybody with property worth waging war over can afford their own army.

>But this assumes war is ever rational.

No large-scale war was fought over some poor farmer’s land. If there are enough farmers with enough land worth fighting for, they can share a contract with a PMC. Or they can risk going without professional protection. That’s what liberty is about.

>So my question is, are you not worried that you will be attacked by an irrational nation state and be unable to adequately defend yourselves, resulting in wholesale slaughter?

I am more worried about the current police and/or soldiers killing me.

>those who begin wars usually lose them

So you are saying I have nothing to worry about.

>>69136

>What did I say what was nonsensical to you?

Pretty much everything you wrote, most of it confuses one school of thought with another, and states the end goal of Libertarianism is a "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" which is odd as much as it is nonsensical.

> That the nation state and capitalism emerged arround the same time?

>Maybe stop listing to cold war propaganda.

>Cold hard facts are propaganda

Look, I can ignore the things that I don't like as well. That doesn't change the fact that the world doesn't care much for my ignorance.

> If you seriously think that socialist states have been hell on earth considering the conditions they have to work with you have been exposed to very selective information.

Venezuela, one of the richest agricultural and oil filled countries of the world has turned into a shithole in a matter of a decade through socialist policy and the seizure of the means of production. What fucking conditions were they handed to turn them from a country which had a very healthy population due to a year round growing season into a country in which people starve left and right and have to scavenge food in the trash to even survive?

Sounds like they were given a good case of socialism.

> . Also, you guys aren't in a position to make such criticisms as Libertarianism has yet to be implemented besides medieval Iceland

That's just not even remotely correct. Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, and even the United States in it's earlier days were all success stories of the market. Sure none of these examples are 100% free market examples, but the fact that there was a high level of respect for private property rights and that individuals were (and in some cases 'are) taxed at a very low rate in each of these cases shows the success of the market.

><ideologies make civilizations

The idea of 'let's just not steal from other people, and let's let people live normal productive lives' is pretty much the very basic stone on which civilization. If one doesn't respect the right of the other person to live peacefully on his land with his property, then the only real other alternative is war or slavery, neither of which form any civilization by any stretch of the imagination.

>lmao. If anything capitalism destroys genuine culture and art through commodification of everything.

I'm always amused by this as well. "Genuine culture"? Who is to define what is genuine culture and what is not? I consider the video game industry to be a part of modern day culture, is it suddenly not so because video games are sold products? Is all the art, music and the sort developed for them no longer something that can be admired or appreciated? Artists have always sold their arts and their crafts, that is how they've made their living. The idea that this phenomenon is a recent thing is hilarious, and the idea that this somehow destroys the merit of the art even though this is how art has been for hundreds of years is even more funny.

Upon re-evaluation your claim, I had another good laugh. Capitalism "DESTROYS" art and culture? Even on an empirical level this makes no sense, I take it you've never heard of the Cultural Revolution in China which virtually destroyed most of anything that had any cultural semblance to the people of China. I don't even mean that in a "they disrespected the culture" type of way. I mean they actually went around and took statues, literature and everything of the sort that was hundreds and perhaps even thousands of years and old and proceeded to destroy all of it through force. It doesn't just stop there, Stalin's censorship of art and especially music was nauseating for artists in the time. Composers like Dmitri Shostakovich who formed great work often had troubled times under the scope of the government

Fuck off, you know just as much about 'genuine' art and culture as much as you do about genuine economics.

> Which ones?

Pretty much all of them. People aren't poorer today, there isn't an increasing number of poor people, there are far more "capitalists" then there are poor people, etc.

> Falling rate of profit? Came true.

In what way?

> Monopoly-capital

Expand please.

> Increasing rate of exploitation? Yes

lel.

>>69142

>>69145

>To be fair Signapore is fairly draconian despite its free market economy.

That's completely true, you're entirely correct. I'm just saying that the economy is still a very well functioning one, their political laws as well as their drug laws are generally very draconian in nature however, the people still live very well and do still prosper due to the degree of general respect for private property rights.

>>69142

>states the end goal of Libertarianism is a "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" which is odd as much as it is nonsensical

In practice it is. This isn't some far-fetched theory, how come all the examples you name have authoritarian governments that crack down on any indication for dissent, then there is Pinochet's Chile, I can go on. Free market extremism usually requires that. Once you have a somewhat liberal democracy people will vote for regulations.

>Cold hard facts are propaganda

You havn't named any, you just said they were a hellhole despite the population in all former socialist states describes themselves as being worse off than under socialism. Hell, even fucking Romanians say so, despite Ceausescu's Romania being objectively the worst communist state of the 20th century.

>Venezuela, one of the richest agricultural and oil filled countries of the world has turned into a shithole in a matter of a decade through socialist policy and the seizure of the means of production

>le Venezuela meme

What seizure? Venezuelas industry is 70% private economy, even fucking Norway as a higher state quota than fucking Venezuela. So according to your definition Norway is more socialistic than Venezuela. How do you explain that?

>That's just not even remotely correct. Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong

Yeah a bunch of city states, tax havens and bank headquarters. None of these countries can sustain themselves. Cut Hongkong off China and all international trade and see how they are doing.

>what is authentic art

That artist did get paid for art did not mean that the artwork was commodified. Mass appeal and entertainment didn't exist. Main work about this:

http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~randall/Readings%20W2/Horkheimer_Max_Adorno_Theodor_W_Dialectic_of_Enlightenment_Philosophical_Fragments.pdf

Regarding culture in a broader sense, this is quite obvious. Whereever you go as a tourist you can buy trinkets from the local indigenous people as a souvenir.

>People aren't poorer today, there isn't an increasing number of poor people, there are far more "capitalists" then there are poor people

WTF. You mean by capitalists owner of means of production? Then that's a wrong statement.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

Poverty is a relative thing. I don't care too much about it anyway when it comes to Marxism. Marx never says that people become poorer as the time goes on. It can be concluded that poverty is a result of capitalism. Rate of exploitation doesn't equate human misery. Somebody pressing a button in a car factory in the West gets more exploited than a sweatshop worker in Bangladesh, due to the insane amount of value he creates. That doesn't mean the sweatshop worker isn't ten times more miserable.

You seem to be under the impression that Marxists don't believe that 19th century laissez-faire capitalism built up modern society. We explicitly do.

>In what way?

What do you mean? Rate of profit has been objectively sinking since the 19th century.

http://www.anwarshaikhecon.org/sortable/images/docs/publications/political_economy/1992/-The%20Falling%20Rate%20of%20profit%20as%20the%20Cause%20of%20Long%20Waves_%20Theor.pdf

>expand please

Capitalism leads to monopolization, which results in increasing sate involvement creating monopoly-capital interwoven with the state.

>>69141

>Gotta be careful; some people are so retarded they won't realize you're joking and actually believe that bullshit. I know it's hard to believe, but some people are actually that retarded

Not an argument.

>>69171

The other guy named Liechtenstein and other tax havens as a shining example of Libertarianism, thought Venezuela has seized industry despite having a lower state quota than Scandinavian countries. Don't tell me /liberty/ isn't as much as a circlejerk than /pol/ or /leftypol/, no reason to be buttflustered mate.

>>69172

>The other guy named Liechtenstein and other tax havens as a shining example of Libertarianism

>"market success story" = "shining example of libertarianism"

Sure, that sounds like the same thing to me. Why not?

>Venezuela has seized industry despite having a lower state quota than Scandinavian countries

Because nominally private companies with heavy state controls on every aspect of your business is still genuinely private industry, right?

>Don't tell me /liberty/ isn't as much as a circlejerk than /pol/ or /leftypol/

It's a dedicated interest board. That makes it a circlejerk by default. That's kind of the whole point of having these boards. /liberty/ exists for the sole purpose of pro-liberty discussion. If you don't want to get teamed up on and laughed out of town, find some place that buys what you're selling.

>no reason to be buttflustered mate.

Look ma, I'm projecting!

>>69169

>>69169

> how come all the examples you name have authoritarian governments that crack down on any indication for dissent,

Liechtenstein cracks down on people for dissent? That's news. Switzerland? gee that's a new one. And the United States in it's earlier more free market days? None of these examples fill the criteria whereas Communist China, the USSR, and even Yugoslavia actually did crack down on dissent with violence. The only example on there that can even barely fulfill the criteria you listed is possibly Singapore, but Singapore's main troubles are the drug trade, it has very little in the way of censorship of dissent besides "Hate speech laws" which unfortunately have become common place in most countries.

>Hell, even fucking Romanians say so, despite Ceausescu's Romania being objectively the worst communist state of the 20th century.

Oh for fuck's sake. Getting an opinion poll, especially of around 1,000 people, in which most of whom never actually lived in Romania during the time of communism is not proof of anything at all. The poll that arrives at this fucking conclusion even says so, how the fuck is a 15 year old going to have nostalgia for communism?

>What seizure? Venezuelas industry is 70% private economy, even fucking Norway as a higher state quota than fucking Venezuela. So according to your definition Norway is more socialistic than Venezuela. How do you explain that?

> Muh still 70% private

Wow, if this was 2010, you would have a point. Except, it's no longer 2010. So congratulations on getting outdated data but unfortunately, I wouldn't say that this is the way things work. Especially when the Venezuelan government promises readily available data to it's civilian population but commits to the complete opposite. The government has seized good portions of most industries and even a good portion of it's food distribution (so much so to the point where farmers have to rely on the black market and outside forces to even feed their own livestock), so to pull up a statistic from 2010 is rather disingenuous in nature. It's 2017, I think it's safe to say that things have undergone very radical changes since then, unless all the rioting in the streets is just them committing to some sort of nationally recognized pastime which I'm not aware of.

>even fucking Norway as a higher state quota than fucking Venezuela. So according to your definition Norway is more socialistic than Venezuela. How do you explain that?

In what way? Norway is a place that actually respects property rights, has low taxes, etc even moreso than the United States actually (of course with the unfortunate fact of the welfare state, but that doesn't change many of the other factors), I'm curious where you came to this conclusion? I tried finding data on the matter but I couldn't find anything to prove your claim. Also when did Norway start mass-seizing industries such as oil and food distribution?

>None of these countries can sustain themselves. Cut Hongkong off China and all international trade and see how they are doing.

Cut off most countries from international trade and they'd end up losing quite a bit of wealth. It's almost like free trade, much like the normal free exchange of goods actually helps people get richer in the long run even if they don't live on something like say, productive farmland. What do you know? It's almost like with trade and a free market, I can have things that other people have that i want even when naturally in my own property or land, I can't have them. I can buy good wine from Portugal, and sell my oranges from Florida. Fucking amazing I know.

>That artist did get paid for art did not mean that the artwork was commodified

> My specific walking around the issue shows that my specific definition of art is not commodified.

There is still money involved in the art no matter what, drawing an arbitrary line here and there doesn't change anything. Just because the art satisfies or entertains doesn't suddenly take away it's status as art or anything of the sort. Just like what I said about video games, the art within them, the music inside them, etc. Art directed to entertain masses has just as much merit as art directed to satisfy few or just the artist himself.

>Regarding culture in a broader sense, this is quite obvious. Whereever you go as a tourist you can buy trinkets from the local indigenous people as a souvenir.

So because I can buy some trinkets from some poor vendor in India, the culture is dying? What the fuck? It almost sounds like anything you like = 'culture' whereas whatever you don't like somehow doesn't count as culture. Ironically this whole argument was pretty much Theodor "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist, check out my 'f-scale' " Adorno in a nutshell.

>>69169

>WTF. You mean by capitalists owner of means of production? Then that's a wrong statement.

> as proof, I shall show you an opinion piece that bitches about the UN

Really convinced me there, really got the almonds going, never-mind that this has no real objective evidence or anything of the sort to actually debunk any claim I've made but rather just a mess of opinions about the UN's 'reduction of poverty' goals (which are definitely subject to criticism, but it's entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand).

> It can be concluded that poverty is a result of capitalism.

An yet all the Capitalist nations finds themselves living very well whereas socialist nations find themselves in a world of shit. Even countries that have only privatized most of their economy in the last 40 to 50 years or so have made major strives and have eliminated a good amount of poverty. Ironically, Bangladesh is actually flourishing because of it's garment industry, something that has helped halve the population living in poverty in the country and has helped set it on track for a relatively good future.

>You seem to be under the impression that Marxists don't believe that 19th century laissez-faire capitalism built up modern society. We explicitly do.

>"<ideologies make civilizations"

Well, next time just don't act retarded.

>What do you mean? Rate of profit has been objectively sinking since the 19th century.

First of all, the link doesn't even work, and second, quit showing me books and opinion pieces and show me actual arguments. No one is going to read some shitshow by Theodor Adorno or some obscure economist just to get the crux of your argument. Either you've read these things that you link and you know the arguments displayed in them and can present them or you're just blowing smoke to avoid the argument itself.

>Capitalism leads to monopolization, which results in increasing sate involvement creating monopoly-capital interwoven with the state.

Except it doesn't. Capitalism by itself does not usually lead to monopolies at all, (and when there is a 'monopoly', it doesn't last very long simply due to lack of information, miscalculation of consumer needs, the arrival of new competitors, etc) it's when the state gets involved and starts imposing regulations that smaller firms can't afford to begin with that this "monopolization" happens. State regulation (as I shouldn't have to explain by now) is not Capitalism, free trade, a respect for private property rights and the sort are ultimately compromise of Capitalism. I shouldn't have to explain this, but then again, I probably shouldn't have had to explain half the shit I wrote and yet I had to anyways.

>>69181

>>69180

By the way, in case anyone's curious about the whole "Romania wants communism" back debate. The article he's referring to is this one.

http://www.thediplomat.ro/articol.php?id=1444

The article itself is based on a study asking around 1,000 people age 15 year old and older in regards to their opinions on Communism. It's not important for the general argument itself nor would it honestly be important in any discussion, but it's one of those things that gets thrown around time and time again despite the numerous problems with this type of analysis.