/liberty/ - Liberty

>>73254

>Can I even call myself an Ancap anymore?

No

>Like completly privatized healthcare.

Video related. Also read more history. Find out why the AMA was upset with Fraternal medicine.

>finanically independent people to vote

If you want more financially independent people, then get rid of your support of a welfare state which you showed when you mentioned you no longer support privatized healthcare.

>pledge to be drafted to defend to defend the country

Going to be rather hard to consider yourself libertarian with this.

>>73256

>Video related. Also read more history. Find out why the AMA was upset with Fraternal medicine.

I know a lot about the arguments, but the fact is that most people in my country like our healthcare system the most of all social programs.

>If you want more financially independent people, then get rid of your support of a welfare state which you showed when you mentioned you no longer support privatized healthcare.

I don't support completly privatized healthcare, because it's not practical, most people don't want it and it's the only program that I can support from a moral perspective.

I don't know why you focused so much on this tbh.

>Going to be rather hard to consider yourself libertarian with this.

I have to. 2 reasons:

History of feminism:

>when women got the vote, but not the draft

>and because practically a Draft would be implemented the second we would go to war or there was a civil war. Just think about what if the possibility of a muslim civil war became reality. The women would basically collectively ask the men to fight and die for them to fight of the invaders, they supported to get it.

It wouldn't be the women who would save the nation. It would be the men.

So for all intents and purposes we already pledge to fight for our nation.

The fact that I couple it with voting rights, is implicitely libertarian.

>>73257

Correct me if I am wrong, but it just seems that most of your arguments boil down to the fact that because people do want to change these things now, that maybe they are no longer desirable. Just because people are used to something doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reason to change it. A lot of people on welfare do not want the system to change because they get free gibs at the expense of others. Should we continue to drain state coffers, increase tax rates, just to keep others comfortable at the expense of those who are productive?

>Private healthcare is not practical

How do you know? Government healthcare is? Or is because people are used to government healthcare so they go along with it, knowing no other option?

>The draft

You are either for the draft or not. If you are for the draft then yes women should be draftable. However, should people, men and women, be forced by a state to fight and die in a war they may know nothing about? If their country was being invaded militarily, do you think people would stand around waiting to be drafted, or do you think they would volunteer themselves?

>>73254

>Probably still, yeah, but also there I am no longer pure about my beliefs and don't just repeat libertarian ideology as the answer to every single question.

As far as the economics go, I simply haven't found a way to significantly improve on the Austrians. If I have to choose between being original and being right, I'll choose the latter.

On sociology, there never was a consistent libertarian ideology in the first place, only broad agreement on some general questions.

And on ethics, I have moved away from pure Rothbardianism, too, but I'm still an anarchist and share most of Rothbards general conclusions. I don't understand how you can discard those except by conceding to consequentialist ethical systems for whatever reason, and discarding either the libertarian economics or sociology at the same time.

>I just don't think the answer to complex questions should simply be to establish libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.

>I always thought it wasn't practical, but now I come to believe that some libertarian policies are also no longer desireable.

>Like completly privatized healthcare. I don't think I will strive to go full privatized in my country in my lifetime and it inevitably led me into question, if that is even desireable, because that was always the last social policy I would ever want to abolish.

Why that? Because to me, it's pretty obvious that public healthcare doesn't deliver on its promises, that it's a massive drain on wealth, requires an enormous bureaucracy, and never really seems equitable. Research on it is also plagued by flawed methodologies and ignorant of the a priori principles underlying all market interventions.

>What I am not going to leave to future generations and which I believe is the most important moral debate of this century and probably for our entire civilization (for quite a while to come) is the multicultral question.

>I think everyone who is alive to read this, is going to be part of the generation struggle to answer this question, which at its conclusion will mean the return of racially homogenous socities in Europe.

The troubles of Europe didn't start and won't end with multiculturalism. As far as I can tell, the problem isn't multiculturalism, it's islamization and the influx of shitty foreigners. Otherwise, immigration would only be a minor problem, one among many. No one outside the liberal fantasy land dislikes Syrians because they're "different".

>>73254

>I just don't see that happening and honestly?

>At this point I don't see it as desireable anymore. I simply don't.

And why? You didn't explain what's wrong with any major aspect of libertarianism.

>If you are curious, my ideal system (realistic and achieveable in my lifetime) is a limited democracy, which only allows finanically independent people to vote, who pledge to be drafted to defend the country.

Again, why? How do you ethically legitimize the state, and why do you see having a state as expedient.

>>73261

>Correct me if I am wrong, but it just seems that most of your arguments boil down to the fact that because people do want to change these things now,

No. The difference is that in that single social policy I can see that it would do more good than bad.

I am honestly not too interested in discussing this. It's uninteresting compared to the other points.

>You are either for the draft or not.

I am telling you, the draft is implicitely there already, whether it's legal or not.

>If you are for the draft then yes women should be draftable.

No. We need them to make it able to rebound after we lose manpower in the war. We will risk the future of our entire people by letting them fight.

>However, should people, men and women, be forced by a state to fight and die in a war they may know nothing about?

Don't get me wrong. I am against stupid wars that are fought under stupid premises like "our borders are being defended in Afghanistan".

But in a real war that necessitates the draft? A draft will come whatever you might have against it.

> If their country was being invaded militarily, do you think people would stand around waiting to be drafted, or do you think they would volunteer themselves?

Depends. The answer is definetly not always "yeah, they would volunteer".

>>73265

>As far as the economics go, I simply haven't found a way to significantly improve on the Austrians. If I have to choose between being original and being right, I'll choose the latter.

The thing is that you need to actually achieve your vision in the real world and not some fantasyland. There is only one reality and that is ours. I prefer to live in a mostly free system, which is very stable and realistically achievable with many potential allies, who can help me achieve it, instead of a radical utopia, which is going to be very unstable and doesn't have many allies, because you don't allow any nuance to a question, eccept for 100% anarcho-capitialism.

>Why that? Because to me, it's pretty obvious that public healthcare doesn't deliver on its promises, that it's a massive drain on wealth, requires an enormous bureaucracy, and never really seems equitable. Research on it is also plagued by flawed methodologies and ignorant of the a priori principles underlying all market interventions.

I admit it's not ideal. A proper solution to it would be to create a system with designers who are knowledable about the power of the incentive.

But the thing about a public healthcare system (actually am mixed system) is that you would tolerate the sacrifice you have to make for a greater good.

> As far as I can tell, the problem isn't multiculturalism, it's islamization and the influx of shitty foreigners.

That is what I would call multiculturalism though.

>>73266

>And why? You didn't explain what's wrong with any major aspect of libertarianism.

Because I am still (quite) libertarian. Didn't you read where I called myself /LIT/?

>Again, why? How do you ethically legitimize the state, and why do you see having a state as expedient.

1. I don't think that our generation will have the opportunity to solve the moral debate about whether a state should exist or not.

2. Practicality and the fact that lots of people are incapable of living their lives completly free, necessitates the presence of a state, if not simply to protect exactly people like us to at least allow us to live in a quite free society.

>>73267

You haven't really clarified your position because you still seem to be defaulting to the fact that because something is in place, and because people do not seem like changing it, that maybe it should just continue.

>We need them to make it able to rebound after we lose manpower in the war.

How long do you think the war will go on for, and what kind of war do you have in mind that you need to worry about the next generation. To me that sounds like an offensive war more than a defensive war. In a defensive war, you do not have 15-16 years to worry about when the babies are ready to fight. Because when you are fighting that long, it may very well be that your nation is no longer around, having been captured, or so economically fucked that a revenge war is impractical.

>Depends. The answer is definetly not always "yeah, they would volunteer".

Then the nation wasn't worth saving. You cannot place blame on a people for not having the desire to save their state. If they were truly in love with their nation they would volunteer as patriots. Nationalist style drafts cannot force patriotism or love of country, but it can force the hate and despise of a nation.

>A proper solution to it would be to create a system with designers who are knowledable about the power of the incentive.

Read more economics about the fallacies of central planning.

>But the thing about a public healthcare system (actually am mixed system) is that you would tolerate the sacrifice you have to make for a greater good.

That sacrifice being efficiency and innovation.

>>73267

>because you don't allow any nuance to a question, eccept for 100% anarcho-capitialism.

You're compromising on matters of principles, which makes no sense. Compromising on strategy would, but that was explicitly acknowledged by Rothbard himself. Do you think that if ancaps had a chance to reduce taxes by even five percent, they wouldn't take it?

Leaving the talk on healthcare to the other anon. Just this, you seem to take an agnostic position, when the Misesian account of market interventions ought to settle it.

>That is what I would call multiculturalism though.

But you agree that the issue is not them being from a different culture, but them being morally inferior and Muslims?

>Because I am still (quite) libertarian. Didn't you read where I called myself /LIT/?

I read that you applied this label to yourself, yes, but I don't make much of that. You haven't shown deeper knowledge of any particular libertarian idea.

>1. I don't think that our generation will have the opportunity to solve the moral debate about whether a state should exist or not.

>2. Practicality and the fact that lots of people are incapable of living their lives completly free, necessitates the presence of a state, if not simply to protect exactly people like us to at least allow us to live in a quite free society.

With both, you conflate ends and means again. Why compromise on the end, when compromising on the means would be sufficient? You made the impression that you just don't know if we ought to abolish the state given the chance.

>>73270

>You haven't really clarified your position because you still seem to be defaulting to the fact that because something is in place, and because people do not seem like changing it, that maybe it should just continue.

Well, I don't have any established ideology to point to that will automatically answer all your questions for me. I did tell you that I am /LIT/ tho. Feel free to AMA.

>How long do you think the war will go on for, and what kind of war do you have in mind that you need to worry about the next generation.

I think an actual war is not likely, but it's a possibility. At least in relation to what will happen when we solve the multicultural question in Europe.

>Then the nation wasn't worth saving

The nation is worth saving, but the goverment is not. You are a libertarian, you should know that distinction.

If the civil war in Europe comes, I don't want everything to go on as it did before. I wouldn't fight for the goverment.

I would totally join the rebellion that … DOES SOMETHING COMPLETLY LEGAL :^).

>Read more economics about the fallacies of central planning.

You know that I was an ancap once, right? I know the arguments. My point is that you would sacrifice economic efficency for something else, so your counter point cannot be an economic one, because I already sarcificed it.

>That sacrifice being efficiency and innovation.

You got it!

>>73272

>You're compromising on matters of principles, which makes no sense.

You have to see it from my perspective though. My perspective is that we are only one Generation of the West and will only solve/engage in so many political debates.

I can see the feminism, multicultural, currency, EU and a few other questions being solved, but not that much more.

>But you agree that the issue is not them being from a different culture, but them being morally inferior and Muslims?

Actually no, because muslims are a large and problematic subset of the foreigners, but not all of them. You still don't understand. I don't want to simply reduce the number of radical muslims by a bit. I want it to be common wisdom for the pupils of 2150 that multiculturalism cannot work and that the multicultural experiments of the 20th and 21th century were short-sighted. I want them to write essays about pro-immigration media and how it manipulated people. I want them to analyze how despite opinion polls immigration continued. I want it to be common knowledge that citizenship should be only open to people of your own ethnicity/race.

You understand me now? That is what I mean by solving the multicultural question.

I want there to be no people left, except nutcase lunatics who would argue for multiculturalism like today not even nazis on /pol/ would argue for a return of slavery.

>You haven't shown deeper knowledge of any particular libertarian idea.

Okay? Well, that isn't a question.

>You made the impression that you just don't know if we ought to abolish the state given the chance.

Because honestly at this point of time with the people we have right now I just don't even see it as a possible end.

I would have nothing against the creation of some ancap territory somewhere as a testing ground, because I always argued for that in reference to people who ask "how would that work?" - well you don't even let us show you how it would work.

But I don't see it possible for a large region in middle-europe.

>>73254

Thank you for your blog post!

>>73279

np friend :)

>>73254

You don't really seem like a Libertarian just an old fashioned conservative, maybe that's your problem, you never really believed or understood Libertarian principles but for whatever reason never identified with conservatism so you just adopted Libertarianism as your identity.

Also, what is the "feminism question"? Is it similar to the so-called "Jewish question"?

>>73292

>You don't really seem like a Libertarian just an old fashioned conservative, maybe that's your problem, you never really believed or understood Libertarian principles but for whatever reason never identified with conservatism so you just adopted Libertarianism as your identity.

No true scotsman. Nice. Any argument or can you only try to shame me?

>Also, what is the "feminism question"? Is it similar to the so-called "Jewish question"?

Are you not aware of the context of what it means, when you talk about a problem by calling it the X question?

There have been many "questions" throughout history. The Israel question, when Great Britain gained the Palestine Mandat and was persuaded by jewish authorities to grant them Israel in exchange for pulling USA into the war. Even back then the american media was jewish owned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Question

But to answer your question, the feminism question is about the rebalancing act of female participation in politics and their preference in the legal system.

It's about everything that first wave feminism (giving women the rights of men, but not their obligations), second wave feminism (lower the obligations of women) and third wave feminism (increasing the obligations of men) pushed through. It's not only a libertarian question, but a question that is important for our entire civilisation, because as it was shown we cannot continue on like this.

>>73303

Not >>73292 but tbqhwyf you do sound more like a conservative than a libertarian; not that that's a bad thing, of course, though it is unpopular in the current political zeitgeist.

You seem to be talking past most of the people who reply to you and they seem to be talking past you, as your arguments are grounded in experience, stability and practicality, whilst theirs are based on principle and ethics. By the way, in all personality tests libertarians and anarchists rank highest in openness to, and interest in, ideas, whereas conservatives rank higher in conscientiousness and orderliness, which seems consistent with my initial assertion and observations on how this argument is going nowhere.

I'm not trying to demean or dismiss any side of this argument; I'd just like to call for a tad more introspection when making our cases.

>>73303

Not trying to shame you, just giving it to you straight. Your aversion to Feminism also only more firmly cements my belief that you are merely a Conservative with perhaps some more Libertarian leanings than your run-of-the-mill conservative. Which might make you one of the better ones, so that's good, I suppose.

Also I wouldn't use the 'X Question' with regards to groups of people in the future, it's sort of fallen out of vogue since the end of the second world war for reasons which are obvious. hth.

>>73254

I completely agree with you OP except for one point.

>privatized healthcare

It will be much cheaper and of higher quality than public healthcare paid through taxes, if you don't know this then maybe you just don't know too much about ancap in the first place, but I won't be too anal about it either, it is something I am biased towards since I nearly got killed in a government hospital before being transferred to a private one but overall I like agree with the other points you are making and multiculturalism, feminism and cultural marxism is something that must be dealt with first if we want to live in a free society.