/liberty/ - Liberty

>>70047

>I think we should engage Statist more than we engage Socialist/Commies.

That's impossible considering all Commies are Statist or support the State in expropriation in the case of AnComms.

>>70056

It's pointless keep engaging the left when the state keeps producing them. It's like attacking the symptom and not the disease.

>>70074

Go light a garbage can on fire.

>>70094

Good job confirming my bias. Would be even better if you posted this from an expensive smartphone.

>>70097

>>70103

>Influenced by memes

Knew reactionaries are this retarded. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

>>70114

Isn't the whole point of a /leftypol/ meme for it to be agitprop?

>>70114

>I was just pretending to be retarded

>>70047

How would you even begin to "engage" the state? If you mean armed rebellion, That would only be very effective if most voluntaryists were willing to wage such a war, and good luck getting the people on your side. The only way this would work is if there was a strong incentive to support an uprising against the state, but even then, you'll have multiple ideologically different rebel groups vying for control. How many people are willing to support the one that vows to do nothing with political power?

>>70170

>Violent war is the only way to a free society.

No.

I didn't say engage the state, but to engage those who believe in it (statist). There's no point in destroying the state if people are just going to rebuild it once again. We have to delegitimize such an institution in the mindset of people in order to strive for something new.

>>70074

>every single socialist/communist movement in history has ended up with a dictator and his friends as the ruling class

>followed shortly by mass genocide of people who think communism is shit

>GOD WHAT KIND OF BRAIN BACK FLIPS DID YOU DO TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT COMMUNISM IS PRO-STATE?

I dunno, maybe the bit where the only one who wins in communism is the state? Let's face it, an AnCom uprising would last about a week before somebody instates themselves as dictator because you retarded faggots would just be floating around wondering what to do now you own a car factory that you have no fucking clue how to use.

>>70178

>I didn't say engage the state, but to engage those who believe in it (statist).

You still have the same problem, how do you "engage" statists and delegitemize their beliefs? Appealing to someone's logic through rational discussion and discourse is never effective, because you're trying to take away their emotional crutch that they've invested so much time, energy and money into. It's the same reason you can't just get an addict to give up his addiction by listing reasons why his drugs are bad. No matter how non-combative you make your argument out to be, he will always interpret it as an attack on him and an attempt to deprive him of his emotional crutch.

The same goes for statists and their crutches are politics. Whenever someone argues with statists, they always see their opponents' attacks on their political ideology as attacks on them, because they've delegated their identities to their movements and see themselves as apart of a higher collective, not individuals. Again, because they've invested so much into politics. Under normal circumstances, no would ever become statists on their own, or see themselves as cogs apart of a mass movement, but as a result of frustration of problems they face in society (almost always engineered by government), they involve themselves in politics, desperate for solutions from politicians all too happy to scam and use them. Statism isn't the result of intellectualism, it is almost always the result of frustration and desperation for easy solutions. Most Antifa members can't find jobs because of labor regulations and student loan debt. Most alt-righters feel cheated that they have to give money to poor people via the welfare state and fund government-supported immigration. In both cases, government was the cause of their problems, but they were set up and exploited by ideologues who tuned their heads towards outgroups, but never the government.

It's nearly impossible to change the minds of people with deep emotional investment in their beliefs. What does change minds, however, is emotional experiences. All it took for people from communist countries to renounce communism was witnessing first hand the brutality and horror of their governments' atrocities, or a trip to the Western Bloc and experiencing a world much more prosperous and harmonious than their own. Most people during the American Revolution were ambivalent towards either side. What would they have to gain by learning vague political theories, something that had little to no use to them? But once they experienced the newfound benefits under the Founding fathers, they went along with them, and eventually, so did most of the entire world when they witnessed the effects of constitutional republics. The people didn't need to understand the philosophy of liberty to change their political beliefs Once they experienced the newfound prosperity, they supported the system that gave them such and out-competed other systems.This is what needs to happen if we want to have any hope for advancing voluntaryism, not by engaging in the "War of Ideas", but outcompeting governments with our own free society. It just goes to show that economics doesn't end at financial transactions, but all forms of transaction.

>>70193

>Appealing to someone's logic through rational discussion and discourse is never effective, because you're trying to take away their emotional crutch that they've invested so much time, energy and money into. It's the same reason you can't just get an addict to give up his addiction by listing reasons why his drugs are bad. No matter how non-combative you make your argument out to be, he will always interpret it as an attack on him and an attempt to deprive him of his emotional crutch

This.

>>70193

>people are too emotional to change their mind.

This is so fundamentally flawed.

You seem to think that somehow sense people are so emotionally invested in their beliefs that you can't teach them. One of the most common mistakes in economics is not seeing the long term effective, and this holds true to you. The thing is, you don't know how much of an impact you have on somebody. Just because they aren't 100% converted doesn't you haven't got them thinking.

Also, how you structure your argument is just as important as the argument itself. The average person doesn't understand a damn thing about economics. Take the recent example we just had with the hurricanes, and how everyone was complaining about "prices gouging". If you just argue with these people talking about how there's going to be a shortage on supply if they don't raise prices. That's not going to click with most people. You have to explain the economic concepts behind prices of goods and how prices contain knowledge signals, as well as being properly allocated between consumers.

Plus, you seem to think that emotions are the dominant authority of ones mind. Exactly how do these emotions form? Where do they come from if not developed by the perspective of the individual? You see, someone's perspective IS the core of their emotions. They taught to take a certain outlook on a specific thing, like how the government is "for the people by the people" or how "democracy is the best system". If you break down peoples core belief, explain how they're inconsistent, you'll have a dialogue on your hands. And don't get me wrong I do expect backlash from people, but there are also going to be those who are will to listen.

Video Related.

The traditional left position, otoh, is that Marxists and/or Leninists are an equal or greater danger. Comes from the whole "purging leftists at the first international, then going on to attack the February revolution and/or Krondstatting everyone."

Check out the FAI for mainstream left thought on that count. Also…

>>70103

>Setting cops on fire who are doing their job…

…are you sure you're on the right board? Noble… state… violent… enforcers?

>>70208

>…are you sure you're on the right board?

If you're about to smash some store and a cop comes to shoo you away, then I'll root for the cop if you start throwing molotovs at him. Investigating and preventing crimes against person or property is the one legitimate function that cops have. There's a hierarchy of shittiness in the public sector and if all that cops did was investigate and protect, they'd be fairly low on it.

>>70196

You just proved my point. If you understood human psychology, you'd know we're emotional beings who think, not logical beings who feel. Once again, politics appeals to people's emotions as a result of frustration and directs their hatred to outgroups, who then get frustrated themselves and the cycle repeats itself. It doesn't matter how you argue, you can't take away someone's emotional crutch and expect them to change. You need to remove their emotional attachment first, and that can almost never be done with logic. It's never been the logicians and intellectuals who defied the status quo and changed history, it was always the charismatic demagogues and pathos users who could sway crowds of people to follow them. Even Marx and Hitler when they wrote their books were using pathos to tug at peoples' heartstrings, and they amassed hundreds of millions of followers. Meanwhile, even though you have dozens of books, intellectuals, documentaries, and other content about Libertarianism. Most people aren't libertarians. Because libertarianism appeals to people's logic.

As stated previously, why would anyone want to learn about libertarianism? What does the average person have to gain by learning an idea irrelevant and seemingly useless in their everyday lives? Statism is the result of frustration about a societal problem, reinforced by their social groups, their friends and family. Most people aren't going to want to go back on them, especially for an ideology they've learned to associate with nasty people, so they conform to their groups and follow the crowd.

However, the most important reason why engaging in the "War of Ideas" is a failed strategy is because the liberty movement suffers from the same core problems as other political movements based on logic and trying to win the "War of Ideas." Movements like Occupy Wall Street, The Arab Spring, Atheism+, and GamerGate. They all got hijacked and mostly everyone went over to the new leaders of their movements and discarded the principles they once stood for. You see the exact same thing happening with the Liberty Movement. We're divided, we bicker, we can't seem to agree on what libertarianism is. We have offshoots like Physcial Removal, Positive Libertarianism, Libertarian Fascism, Race Realism, Trumpkins and others. And even though they disregarded the fundamental principles of libertarianism, a lot of libertarians have defected over to them, even people on this board, because figures like Hoppe could supply their emotional needs far better than we could. We got outcompeted by pathos. These fractures are so prominent that even libertarian heavyweights like ThatGuyT, Stefan Molyneux, Liberty Hangout, Christopher Chase Rachels, Chris Cantwell and others have defected along with sizable pluralities of their audiences. If those guys and their followers could defect, what hope do we have for engaging statists when libertarians are regressing back into statism in droves. Even people like Adam Kokesh are supporting progressive thugs like Gary Johnson because he thinks he'll get the message out there. But what message, that we're all lying unprincipled crooks? Or what about the message "pragmatists" are sending, that we're all racist neo-nazis? In fact, that message has already been adopted by college campuses. And now libertarians are grouped together with neo-nazis.

Even if arguing was a good strategy, libertarians can't seem to stay libertarian. And the message nearly everyone has is that libertarians are lying crooks selling everyone out to big business, or neo-nazis. It's become abundantly clear that the "War of Ideas" has become a distraction, if not a detriment to the liberty movement. If arguing ever changed anything, why is it that Big Media hacks like Bill Maher and the rationalist movement champion the War of Ideas? When voluntaryism does gain steam, it'll be because of startup societies like Liberland, Seasteading, FreeSociety, or others. They'll show the world what libertarianism is capable of. And will probably get other countries to become libertarian as a result. Just like the US spread republicanism when it was first founded.

Video Related

>>70215

>As stated previously, why would anyone want to learn about libertarianism? What does the average person have to gain by learning an idea irrelevant and seemingly useless in their everyday lives?

Almost can't tell if trying to be contrarian or just baiting. I'd expect a Socialist to claim we have nothing of value to offer to the "average person" as opposed to the Libertarian Ubermensch. You must either be Fascist-leaning yourself or nowhere near as acquainted with the school of thought as you think.

Vid related.

>>70216

>I'd expect a Socialist to claim we have nothing of value to offer to the "average person" as opposed to the Libertarian Ubermensch.

What would the colonists during the American revolution have had to gain by understanding the Founding Fathers' unorthodox political Ideology? Their everyday lives took more priority over politics. Matters like running a business or raising a family. And yet when the revolutionaries won and set up their government, the colonists supported them when their government (or mostly lack thereof) drastically benefited their lives. Being aware of something or understanding an idea doesn't mean shit if you can't apply it through action. Which is why socialists and fascists have tens millions of supporters. When they tried out their systems, other countries wanted to emulate them. Libertarianism doesn't have any chance of affecting most peoples' lives in the near future. What incentive would everyone have to just drop what their doing and dedicate time learning an esoteric unorthodox political ideology that can't be implemented in current governments and won't affect them in neither the short nor long term?

>You must either be Fascist-leaning yourself or nowhere near as acquainted with the school of thought as you think.

Ignoring the paragraph where I called out fascists for doing more harm than good for libertarianism. I'm actually more well-versed in economics than other libertarians. To them, economics just stops at financial transactions and the trade of tangible goods and services. They don't seem to understand that our time, emotion and energy are currencies and that the activities and social connections we spend them on are markets in and of themselves. How we choose our friends, what we decide to do with our time and energy, what to wear, and so on are markets. Even people who give to charity are buying emotional or social capital from having done something good. The "War of Ideas" is actually the market of ideas, the currency is emotion, and the buyers have a lot of emotional investments. You can argue and debate all you like, but unless you can prove your idea works in practice now, you'll never get any supporters. Just like you can't get people to stop buying from EA or Ubisoft because you argue they have shit practices. So long as they have monopolies, you won't accomplish anything. But there's one thing we can do, compete with them and take away their monopolies. When everyone sees how beneficial your product is, they'll support you even if they don't understand why it's good, just like the colonists after the American revolution.

>>70217

EA and Ubisoft are propped up by copyright laws that punish you if you get caught pirating their games.

>>70215

You seem to talk about pathos a lot. Stating it like we can't argue from such a position e.g. Voluntaryism, but i digress.

You seem to be still stuck on the idea that people are way to emotional to argue ideas. That's a bit of a self-defeating statement, because what are we doing right now? Moreover, even if emotions where the dominant drive of the mind, that doesn't mean it has the same level of grasp on everyone's mind. Like someone's emotional side to their pragmatic side could be 70 to 30 or 60 to 40, 80 to 20, 55 to 45 etc etc. Also, even the most emotional of people can be made to be feel like a fool with a simple philosophic question.

>why would anyone want to learn about libertarianism

Well no one ( or at least most) wouldn't want to learn in such a political theory with in itself. However, this is the very thing you're not accounting for. You forget that people love being right. It's a superiority feeling, just like winning. It's the very thing that drives people to want to learn something new ( minus the curiosity factor). It was the very drive that got me into economics, because back then, I thought economics was one of the most boring doctrine of study ever. That all change until I got into some political arguments with people, and in doing so made me realize that I need to educate myself on some thing. Which in turn made me discover libertarianism.

Like I said before, you don't know how much of an impact you'll have on somebody.

>>70223

There is no way as of yet to determine who can or can not be influenced. Nobody has yet shown any proof to support absolute possibility/impossibility of conviction. The only thing that is sure is that not trying at all doesn't produce better results, or any for that matter. Experience, contrary to what Empiricists would like to believe, is always subordinate to rational interpretation. So no, you can't "lead by experience" if the interpretation of your success is of it being false. Example is not sure to be more or less efficient than theory.

>>70232

What if the data is disputable and insufficient? Where does it provide the information what made someone use that particular search engine to look up this one movement, or what they ended up thinking after, and for how long?

>>70236

Doesn't matter (for now at least), the main point being that a lot more people are becoming more aware of such a movement.

One problem with commies/socialists/utopians that have this grand vision of a utopia, is that you can make an artificial society. The fact is that societies and economies develop biologically through their own mechanisms. Commies want to go against God or human nature, trying to do the impossible.

The underlying fundamental philosophical beliefs and differences between a conservative and a left-wing liberal is that the conservative views man as a wicked being, therefore social institutions and the rule of law exist to ensure freedom and security. We view man as the individual, change happens one person at a time. Start at the local level, family, neighborhood, church, lastly the government. Libtards believe in the opposite.

Libtards think everyone in the world can hold hands and sing Kumbaya. They have a completely distorted and imaginary utopia in their mind that can only be brought forth through destroying the current system. And we've all seen the horrible effects of such radical transformations (French and Bolshevik revolutions). They think in collectivism. They are statists and a danger to freedom.

>>70242

Another thing to add is that conservatives believe man is made in the image of God. The individual is of utmost importance.

Lefties believe man is just an animal, therefore it's all about the herde, the collective.

>ITT

>people still interact with the Antifag

Come on guys….

>>70114

holy fuck just kys