/liberty/ - Liberty

How can printing money for consumer credit not cause a boom? The malinvestments may be concentrated elsewhere, but there will still be things that should not have been made.

>>74033

It does cause a boom, in the short term. In the long term it doesn't do anything because you haven't increased the real wealth within the economy.

>>74036

Mises suggested that it doesn't start a boom, i.e. the trade cycle. From page 567 of Human Action:

Let us assume that a government of an isolated country issues additional paper money in order to pay doles to the citizens of moderate income. The rise in commodity prices thus brought about would disarrange production; it would tend to shift production from the consumers' goods regularly bought by the nonsubsidized groups of the nation to those which the subsidized groups are demanding. If the policy of subsidizing some groups in this way is later abandoned, the prices of the goods demanded by those formerly subsidized will drop and the prices of the goods demanded by those formerly nonsubsidized will rise more sharply. But there will be no tendency of the monetary unit's purchasing power to return to the state of the' pre-inflation period. The structure of prices will be lastingly affected by the inflationary venture if the government does not withdraw from the market the additional quantity of paper money it has injected in the shape of subsidies.

Rothbard said something similar.

>>74038

Haven't read the quote, but Steve Horrowitz explains it as money that would be created/invested later in the business cycle instead gets invested in earlier phases before growth has occured. E.G. we see a "boom" early on followed by a "bust" from the instability whereas the smaller amount of cash flow early on ensures only the competitive get through to the later phases without the cash flow, therefore there's a "boom" but it's more of a "hump" of malinvestment.

>>74029

I read that as "The future is now old, man."

It is a known fact that women are biological socialists, they naturally almost always vote for whoever promises them free shit, higher taxes and a bigger, more powerful government. So would it be a good idea to somehow segregate the economy according to the sexes so that they can have the things they want without involving the male population which voted for something more sensible?

For example: Women get all the bullshit welfare, social programs and communism that they vote for, but THEY are the ones who have to pay for all of it while men have their own economy where they don't have any of these "benefits" nor the taxes that come with them.

>>74042

That's why cyberpunk is now retrofuturism and not science fiction.

>>74047

Seems a bit redundant if you ask me. If a policy like that is within the overton window, then simply not having the welfare in the first place would be in the overton window as well. Neither option is at all likely to occur within a democracy.

>>74047

First of all you start your statement off as if it's a scientific fact proven with empirical data which is totally false, it's something that you cannot prove as a fact, you only have data on who women tend to vote for which is hardly enough to declare something as biological fact. Secondly, men vote for bigger government more often than not, they just prioritize different kinds of big government, at least the ones on the Right. Larger military, stricter moral laws enforced by government, restriction of association in general, those are all advocate by many men. It's ridiculous and non-productive that you scapegoat women as the source of government tyranny.

Would it be a good idea to segregate the economy? That's a broad question and I would have to say no as it would almost certainly require a powerful state to enforce. However, if you just mean a voluntary government, then I would say that would be a much more humane system then what we have to endure now.

>>74075

> but there's definitely something causing them to take leftist issues more seriously

The quickest answer is "muh feels." A lot of people reason that women are more predisposed to "free stuff" policies because in our species' past, women were always handed resources from the hunters that went out to hunt for them. Like the other anon said, though, it takes a couple more leaps to get to here from there. To play Devil's Advocate, remember that ancient women brought in resources too, just not as much, through gathering berries and the like. That's also why women are better at seeing color changes, incidentally.

>>74074

That's probably the anon that said he has an actual degree in Econ so it's not as surprising. It might just be true.

>>74079

Even then. I have never heard of a non-Austrian who got Austrianism right. Whatever it is you need to do to become a professor of economics, reading and understanding Human Action isn't it. So if he does read it, then he's already an exception even among professional economists.

Why are all ancaps idiots?

>>74104

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>74104

tbh the best posts on this board are made by ancaps and the worst posts are made by the /leftypol/ people dropping buy, take that as you will

>>74130

>good posts are those that I already agree with

What a surprise

>>74148

What makes you think he's an ancap? We have several minarchists on this board.

>>74130

I humbly second that, the staggering difference in IQ is clearly evident between your average /leftypol/ or /pol/ ruffian and our ancap gentlemen.

This is more of a question about the alt right. I seem to notice that a lot of the arguments for an ethnostate assume that culture and race are the same. Does the alt right belive this or not and can they elaborate on this subject?

>>74187

The alt-right isn't exactly just one person so it's very hard to say, but I hope not though.

I notice that a lot of them fap to everything that is German, even going so far as to say that everyone from the Romans to the Egyptians to the Chinese were once German, as well as every nigger on /pol/ either claiming to be a blue eyed blonde or emphasizing that they have "German ancestry".

The point is, if they just disregard the various white peoples that exist in Europe (including their own people and culture) and just lump everything together with the Germans and LARP as them or claim that everyone who isn't German/Scandinavian is somehow less white, then what could they possibly know or care about something like culture?

I'm sure they love the concept of "culture" but what exactly it is to them or which form it would be allowed to exist in in their totalitarian Soviet Union for white people is anybody's guess, maybe I'm just a shill and my name is Shlomo so take everything I say with a kilo of (non-kosher) salt, perhaps their nigger moderator can explain better than me.

>>74187

This can get convoluted pretty quickly, as like >>74188 heiled said the alt-right is hardly monolithic, and even then the alt-right is different from /pol/. You get different explanations from different people. The "mainstream" alt-right ignore the race question entirely and just fap to Western civilization as a whole, looking at the issues only in terms of culture.

A lot /pol/acks do exactly what you describe, not really distinguishing between race and culture. A few others acknowledge the difference, but claim that the race difference is what prevents one group from assimilating into the culture of another.

>>74187

I've talked to a few people online and joined a few discords with the focus of alt-right political discussions. The first thing to take away is that alt-right is not really an actual political position but more of an umbrella term, anything that's not mainstream right sort of falls under the spectrum of alt-right. This ranges from your milquetoast conservatives that have an even stronger distrust of foreigners and a monomaniac obsession with the idea of national culture, language, demographics, etc. to full-on ethnonationalists that want to turn every state on the earth into a autarkic national home for some ethnic group.

From what I've seen a lot of them don't have a very developed ideology but just a nebulous end that they want. For example they want the nation to represent some specific demographic but how they decide on who is a true German or Englishman is very imprecise. A Slovak who moved to Germany, changed his name, and raised his children speaking German and learning their history, is almost indistinguishable from any other German. No one is a 'pure' German, Czech, English, etc. everyone is a mix of so many various different ancestries. So instead of using a scientific approach a lot of them either disregard ancestry entirely or lump every European together as interchangeable and emphasize culture as the life of a nation and the object to be protected. This is why they tend to emphasize 'tradition' over new ideas that become popular in any culture, because it is a threat to the culture which is used as a surrogate for the nation.

So, essentially, everyone in the alt-right emphasize culture as the bedrock of the nation and to be protected at all costs. Some just want to limit immigration (to 'white' people) and the propagation of progressive ideas, others want total economic sufficiency and frustration of all immigration for every state and the expulsion of any person who is not apart of the 'nation', so really anyone who has any differentiation from the national culture, regardless of ancestry (unless of course you're dark skinned in which case even if you're culturally no different from any light skinned person, you don't belong).

Also they do LARP like >>74188 pointed out and it's really embarrassing.

>>74124

>the first group to receive the money invests in capital

>both capital grew in proportion to inflation

>real wealth was added to the economy and can now produce better which will improve the economy

No wealth was created. The resources which went into the building of that capital haven't been created from nothing, they have been diverted from other uses. The effect is essentially the same as if you took money from the rest of the country to give to investor, plus you have caused an inflation.

>>74213

>The effect is essentially the same as if you took money from the rest of the country to give to investor

printing money behaves the same as taxed public works?

>>74214

No, it's worse because it has all the pitfalls of "redistributive" taxes, plus inflation.

>>74215

Ok wait, my point was that it doesn't necessarily create inflation if capital is proportionately created from it. I don't see how it reflects taxing since the money isn't being taken from anyone, and (theoretically) by the time inflation would chip at everyone's value the goods on the market would match it. I don't see how the money was "diverted" as this anon said >>74213

>>74216

>I don't see how the money was "diverted" as this anon said

Not the money was diverted, resources were. Capital is put to use for the beneficient of the inflation, as opposed to other uses. Workers work for him, not for others. And so on.

>>74188

It's always fun to explain to a /pol/ack that Germans were the original sandniggers of America, and how German culture completely and irrevocably fucked up the American constitution and legal system. They get super fucking assmad over it, but have no idea what you're talking about when you bring up the Caucuses, Iberions, Indo-Europeans, etc.

<These techbros keep on preaching the golden elephant of blockchains and decentralization but ignore actual socialism smh

Using decentralized software like Nextcloud and Mastodon/GNU Social is the next step in actively conflicting against the consolidation of the internet.

Picture this: A locally-funded and powered co-op or Social Enterprise that has virtually all of the same cloud services that a megabusiness like Google would have. This could be possible by compartmentalizing these services into comprehensible, Libre/Open Source protocols to be used by numerous federated nodes across the world.

Misjudging emerging technologies like these is ignorant at best, disingenuous and prideful at worst.

Also why the hell isn't there a flag for Agorism and/or Counter-Economics?

>>74272

I don't know I guess you can ask the BO or who ever makes the flags. Are you an agorist?

>>74213

>>74217

this anon is correct.

printing money and giving it to someone has the effect of redistributing wealth to that person.

>>74216

i think in theory it could work like this:

1. Central bank prints X money and gives it to Company A.

2. Company A realizes a profit of 2X.

3. Company A returns X to the Central Bank.

4. Central Bank then divides the X among everyone except Company A, thereby restoring buying power to it's previous level.

Why are people so against the notion that taxation is theft? I get that they go to expenditures that some people like but it's someone taking your hard-earned money, why do people get so vociferous when someone proposes taxation isn't just or moral?

>>74297

They've been told practically from birth that the state is necessary and that taxes are how it makes good things happen. Even when the contrary follows such a simple train of logic, it's hard to break that kind of mental conditioning.

>>74315

With regards to your first point, why would a stateless society need to defend itself? States come into conflict with regards to hegemony over geographic areas and smaller states, competition for resources, or just ideological differences, but in a totally free society there would be no restrictions to exploitation of resources, buying land, imports or exports, no centralized state to come into conflict in any sense. A military action would only serve to drain the treasure of the aggressing state for no gain. However, even if it did the defense would be left up to guerrilla fighting. With no state to fight conflict would have no easy or quick resolution, any peace treaty would be strictly made with individuals or small groups and would have no authority to anyone else in "ancapistan", there would be no capital city to take in which to force a surrender, it would be a protracted and grueling conflict with an entrenched and tenacious enemy. There's also the fact that states are not very good at allocating resources efficiently and even if the military budget exceeded ten times what free people spent on their own defense there would, I imagine, be close in parity. This point is especially true when you consider defense is a lot cheaper than offense, a jet costs a lot more than the tools it takes to shoot it down, after all. If you doubt the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare when combating a state just research the guerrilla wars of Cuba, Philippines, Afghanistan, Algeria, Vietnam, etc. when combating superior enemies,

To your second, you're applying ideas of state-to-state competition to a free society where it doesn't apply. If some organization, whatever you call it, buys property then their right to it is the same as any other person. They have the right to put to productive use their own property and the right to exclude anyone that they please. Buying property in ancapistan would not be to the detriment of the people that live there but an economic benefit, it means investment, development, production, employment, a general increase in the material well-being. It makes as much sense to call it economic take over as someone buying a houses in a neighborhood to be an economic takeover of that neighborhood. If they try to establish a state, which would include some coercive use of violence, then this would be the same as declaring war and would be unproductive and uneconomic for the reasons above. I don't know if that answers your question sufficiently but it's sort of illusive, I don't know what a defacto state is and I don't know what a criminal organization buying land implies as a stateless society doesn't mean a lawless society.

As for your final question regarding the Kowloon Walled City, that's a very specific and unique case and it requires a bit more context. Hong Kong in general is a densely populate city, despite the fact that it has no natural resources. The only reason it became so densely populated was that it was one of the few free ports of East Asia, that is, duties were almost non-existent. It's also located next to China, which was politically unstable and has seriously frustrated the free-market. Hong Kong for many Chinese was a safe refuge from war and from government, so of course it became very crowded. People lived in boats, in tiny apartments, anywhere they could squeeze in, and more people continued to poor into Hong Kong for decades to escape government despotism. The KWC was also a place where people could practice work without government licenses or enjoy gambling, drugs and prostitution, so of course a criminal organization would take root, wherever there is crime there will be criminals, but only because Hong Kong declared them criminals. In a free society there would be no criminal organizations, generally, crime would only be relegated to aggression against person or property and that sort of crime doesn't fund criminal organizations like the Mafia or Triads, they operate in areas that are crimes but do not directly affect others. Also, I imagine ancapistan would encompass a significant geographic area so people would naturally wish to spread out to live more comfortably. Essentially, a KWC wouldn't happen because no one wants to live in a giant box.

But here is what makes your questions a little absurd, because it supposes that all-of-a-sudden a significant geographic area of the world decides to become independent while the rest of the world remains burdened with states. It's like asking how the Roman Empire survive if it was supplanted from history into the modern world. If there ever was to be an ancapistan it wouldn't happen independent of the rest of the world nor would it happen suddenly, it would most likely be a part of a larger global trend away from statism, most likely an incremental process.

>>74297

>Kowloon Walled City

I didn't do much research on the subject, but as far as I know, the reason people lived in such trashy conditions in KWC is pretty obvious, they weren't living on their own property, it was about 40000 people sharing one building.

Think about it, when you live in your own house, you know that it's yours, so you take care of it, you fix it up, you paint the walls and maybe plant flowers or trees because you know that you will be living there for a long time, so you're responsible for it.

But as always, the more people share something, the less people feel a responsibility for maintaining it. If you were going to get an apartment in KWC for a few months, I doubt you'd feel like spending time and money making the place look fancy, maybe the most you'd do is setup a TV antenna on your window so you could watch TV or maybe setup wifi so you could go on the internet.

>>74315

>First question

Like with crime, the first thing you want to do is prevent war. There's good reason to believe that an anarchocapitalist nation wouldn't be an inviting target for an attacker, the most important being free trade. It would be a haven for traders and probably for tourists from other nations who want a time out. A lot of wealth would be tied up there, and who wants to be the asshole that disrupts international trade for some petty ideological reason?

The big risk factor, on the other hand, is ideology. Anarchocapitalism would be just as big an affront against the prevailing ideology as German and Austrian monarchism was to the democratic nations. If a Wilsonian crusade happened within the first years, we'd probably be screwed. It might also not happen, however, especially if the transition to anarchocapitalism was organic and fluid in the first place.

Now, to the second part, winning a war if it breaks out. There are some aspects I want to touch on here.

An anarchocapitalist nation, if it was more than city-sized, would be decentralized, hence hard to take control over. Not only do you have to put up a lot of the infrastructure required for controlling it, you also may have troubles with territories plain not considering themselves as being at war with you. They may think you took over one or two cities, but these cities may be as distant to them as Belgium would be to France. What effect this would have is hard to say in advance. It might be a gamebreaker for the invader, or a minor nuisance. It would make a military strategy based on decapitating the central command impossible, for example.

The downside, of course, is that mobilization is also slower and coordination probably harder when the military system is decentralized. And the upside of that is that many smaller units can individually react faster than a big one. My hopefully educated guess is that Ancapistan would have had less of a chance of preventing a Blitzkrieg-style mass assault, where you have to stop a tank charge quickly, but it would then have had an easier time dealing with the aftermath, as the individual militaries wouldn't have had their communication and leadership disrupted. Decentralization can be a blessing or a curse, and what it is depends heavily on the situation, including what weapons are available.

What definitely is an advantage, though, is wealth. After a few years, an anarchocapitalist nation would be very, very rich, which translates into better weaponry and equipment and - perhaps more important - an ability to better deal with atrition. Think about the difference between North and South Korea. As far as conventional warfare goes, it's hard to say who would win, but South Korea has a far lower relative military expenditure. The North is preparing like crazy for a war, much more than the South, and it might completely lose. It would be the same with an anarchocapitalist nation and a statist neighbor. The statist neighbor would have to put in a lot more effort to stay even, and then possibly lose out anyway.

Another factor is mentality, but that is one that may or may not be in favor of anarchocapitalism. Still, I feel like mentioning it. If it's a new and vigorous system, with people dedicated to die for it, then a conquest will be very hard to pull off. Chances are that the second you cross the border, you have a Holy Free Market War on your hands, aimed directly at your capital city. Or, people may have gotten skeptical and complacent. The latter is more likely later on.

>>74297

Where I'm from, people ironically think that if you don't want taxes then you are some kind of anarcho-commie, they think that you are immature and that you want to abolish money or something.

Why do you guys shill for btc so much? Why would I want to invest in a currency like btc which has a limited supply to it, and would make me lose money each time I spend it thanks to its wild speculation.

>>74347

Wait I thought people here promoted crypto-currency in general not just btc. I guess it's better to have your money in multiple crypto-currencies like litecoin, monero or whatever.

>>74348

All cryptos are like btc right now in terms of price fluctuations.

>>74348

It's a good place to keep your savings. You're not supposed to spend it, you're supposed to keep it there for years and take it out in when you really really need it.

>>74348

>>74352

>>74375

BTC seems like it's going to correct itself sooner or later with how much it's rising in value.

>>74382

It halved its "worth" in a month.

https://www.coinbase.com/charts

If individual anarchism is not the same thing as anarcho-capitalism, what kind of system for money/property would be ideal for IndAns, and how is it more individualistic than capitalism?

>>74464

no monopoly of certain currency

no property right of unused land

no intellectual property

>>74550

>no monopoly of certain currency

You mean no legal tender laws? No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to accept precious metals in ancapistan.

>no property right of unused land

You can rehomestead land that someone else has left laying around to the point that it falls into disrepair.

>no intellectual property

Read Stephan Kinsella.

Do you guys notice that in every political group there tend to be certain personality types? Like I noticed there are some people in every group who are stupid and treat their own political ideology as some magic wand that will fix everything. Have you guys noticed this as well?

>>74396

Is it bitcoin cash any good?

>If it weren't for government intervention in the stock market, there would be a lot more diseconomy of scale than there is now, and many large corporations would divide and downsize due to the increased overhead.

I hear this a lot, and it makes sense, but precisely which market interventions are causing this?

>>74651

>large corporations would divide and downsize

Maybe this is a dumb question, but how is that exactly a bad thing? Isn't it a good think to have lots of smaller companies, instead of all the wealth being in the hands of a few big ones? Aren't really big companies just like a tumor in the economy?

>>74674

No, it's not a bad thing. I'm asking why it would happen, as in through what mechanism. I've heard a few people claim that gov't intervention in the stock exchange and corporations being a legal fiction are what cause it. I'm not exactly skeptical of that claim, but I would like to see it expanded a bit.

>>74683

I'm not the most knowledgable person on this but I would guess that cutting subsidies would help to weaken the corporations. So with out their government privilleges they would have to compete on a level palying field. Again,

>>74705

>subsidies

Yeah, sure, but I'm curious about the stock market and the legal definition of corporations specifically.

>>74728

Thank you for the answer, but I knew that already. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm looking for an answer to this specifically:

>corporations are a legal fiction created by the gov't

>NASDAQ and other stock exchanges are regulated by the gov't

<If these facts weren't true many of the really large corporations would have to downsize or or split due to diseconomies of scale

Basically, how do you get from the green to the pink? Exactly what part of the NASDAQ regulation is keeping corporations larger than they should be?

>>74557

If I build 2 homes for myself on opposite sides of the US, and I travel between them throughout the year, and both are fully furnished and whatnot, how would it be determined if/when the unused home is no longer considered "my" property, as opposed to just being there like a natural resource?

>>74883

If you've been dead for a while, and left the property to no one in your will. Alternatively, if your intended beneficiary has not put his name on the deed or otherwise made an attempt to acknowledge the transfer.

>>74739

AFAIK Nasdaq is a private company which offers a stock trading platform service to willing companies. It is almost entirely unregulated, because any amount of oversight would add unacceptable delays to trade times.

It is divided into tiers (eg. Nasdaq 100), which are set using companies' relative market caps.

Now, you might be saying "boy, none of this seems like it unfairly favours large corporations". And you would be right. If any such unfairness does exist, I do not know of it. I urge the first anon you referenced to clarify what he meant.

>>74885

Well, thank you for the clarification. This was months ago so I'm afraid the question will have to go unanswered

>>74883

Property is a consequence of the ownership of one's self and hence labour. If you built the house with your own labour, or sold your labour to get money to trade for the house with a willing partner, you own the house. That's pretty standard libertarian philosophy.

The more interesting questions are, do you own the house if you let it fall into disrepair such that the value of the labour used to build it has completely disappeared, and do you own the land under the house (no and no in my opinion).

>>74887

>The more interesting questions are, do you own the house if you let it fall into disrepair such that the value of the labour used to build it has completely disappeared, and do you own the land under the house (no and no in my opinion).

Why no and no? If I haven't maintained my house for a while and it fell into a state of decay, why can someone else confiscate my rights to the property?

>>74887

>The more interesting questions are, do you own the house if you let it fall into disrepair such that the value of the labour used to build it has completely disappeared, and do you own the land under the house (no and no in my opinion).

Why though? It's still your land, if you want to fuck it up that's your prerogative. The only time "re-homesteading" should come up is if the land in question isn't clearly under anyone's ownership, e.g. the original owner died and left no heirs.

>>74898

>Is it morally wrong to sell soy products to clueless goys and watch their balls shrink and their tits grow?

<Is it morally wrong to allow idiots to act like idiots?

No more so than it is to post with an AnsSoc flag, friendo.

>is it morally wrong to consume these products in large amounts your self?

See above.

>>74029

Why haven't you checked out /objectivism/ yet?

>>74900

Well dubsman, while there are some interesting differences between Rand's philosophy and "orthodox" libertarianism, I ultimately find myself preferring the latter.

>>74900

Because I'm not an objectivist and not very attracted to the philosophy. Also, because the board is kinda dead.

>>74901

>there are some interesting differences between Rand's philosophy and "orthodox" libertarianism,

Like what?

>>74902

>why haven't you checked out this board

>because it's dead

How would you know unless you've checked? hmmm?

>>74903

The idea of basing the ideology on Aristotilean virtue ethics as opposed to freedom for freedom's sake, mostly. It's intriguing, even if ultimately unconvincing.

>>74895

>>74890

I'm still looking for good arguments either way, as it seems like an area of libertarian philosophy that needs much work done on it. The gist of my current conceptualization is, if we take the labour theory of property to be true (and I do) then one believes that mixing one's labour with an unowned natural good constitutes 'homesteading' said good.

However:

1. You cannot own a parcel of space ('land') since a) no labour can be exerted on space itself and b) we're bald monkeys stuck to a rock flying through space at vast speeds, so you left your piece of owned 'space' far behind seconds after claiming it. You own the house you build and the soil you till, not some vague concept of 'land' which encompasses both.

2. If homesteading requires labour, once that labour has dissapeared (the house has broken down beyond repair and the field is now scrubland), your ownership is no longer valid also.

>at what point does the labour decrease enough for the land to be unowned according to you?

I dont know.

>your definition is ridiculous! Once you homestead, you own something until you die or pass it over to someone else!

Why? This concept of eternal ownership, to me, does sound ridiculous. If you are the sole descendant of some long-dead farmer who owned a plot of land at what used to be the outskirts of a small village but which now is part of the downtown of a large city, why would you have a right to claim the highrise that sits there today? Would you have that right even if your ancestor abandoned his farm centuries ago?

>>74908

I think the labor theory is somewhat exclusive to establishing ownership of heretofore unowned property, and doesn't really work as a method for judging whether you currently own something. If I deliberately let my land go wild because I want a private nature reserve, does it stop being mine?

>Would you have that right even if your ancestor abandoned his farm centuries ago?

No. But instead of arguing purely from labor, I would say that it stopped being yours when you cease to take action to enforce your claim (which doesn't necessarily mean physical presence, a court dispute works too). In the example of the long-dead farmer, I would say it stops being the family's the moment the beneficiary of the heir fails to acknowledge transfer of ownership: he doesn't sign the deed or otherwise acknowledge that this land is his.

>>74910

See, the thing is basing ownership on whether you are trying to defend your claim always seemed very… arbitrary to me. What if the owner's incapacitated?

I will admit my thoughts on this are very vague. It feels insufficient, but I cannot eloquently or succintly explain why. If you have any literature on the subject, I'd be thankful.

>>74911

>What if the owner's incapacitated?

That's why I brought up the legal side of things. A signed deed certifying ownership is a defense as much as actually showing up in court. I'm afraid I don't have much literature on this, just answering your questions in the way that makes sense to me.

>>74908

Seems like a very leftist argument to me. You turn away for just a moment and "Finders keepers! You weren't using this right?"

Eternal ownership is perfect, especially Japanese style, Japs don't care about the house so much as they care about the land, they even bury family members in their backyards. When you have generations of family members buried on your property, it has value to you because you are connected it, you wouldn't just sell it to go live like a nomad, paying rents to live on someone else's property. Being rooted to your own land, which is the sum of everything you own, is very important.

>>74921

>Seems like a very leftist argument to me

I think that's the dumbest argument I heard all week.

>the japanese don't do it

I stand corrected

Why are the vast majority of lolberts reprehensible people?

>>75030

Assuming this is a serious question, I assume you're talking about the Libertarian Party. The answer there is democracy. The LP is on a quest to appeal to the lowest common denominator in a misguided quest for more political relevance, and in doing so tend to attract dudweedLMAO types.

>>75041

I assume it's what happened to them back in the day. They take on very basic jobs, or are confined to asylums/prisons for their lives. Or women just get abortions before they're born…

>>75042

>They take on very basic jobs

No no no anon…. these are the types that are incapable, both physically and mentally.

>confined to asylums/prisons

they're not an actual threat so I wouldn't say a prison, but their parents would have to pay for the asylum, I assume it would be quite expensive since there really isn't a mass market for this "niche" if you could call it that

>Or women just get abortions before they're born…

Most likely tho not all pregnancies are predictable. Although, most people on this board would actually rationalize having a retarded self-harming child than aborting.

>>75041

You said it yourself, bureaucracy and organization is a bigger issue than funding. Privately-operated charities and homes for these people will be orders of magnitude more efficient, and could accomplish much more under a smaller budget. As for how the NAP and self-ownership and all that applies, I'd say it's the same situation as children: They have rights, but the parent or guardian is under an implied contract protect the child's rights on their behalf.

Also, never dismiss someone too quickly as being completely unable to enter the market in any way. There are plenty of low effort, low wage jobs that most people would be unwilling to do but these actors might. Their parent or guardian would probably end up handling the finer points of pay, and ensuring the wage received is "fair," but there's no need to assume the mentally retarded can only be a drain and nothing else.

>>75044

Well, I should have elaborated, but they actually do some "jobs" at the center. Some of the ministries or even businesses give them jobs to put stickers on things, like products or bug-catchers. However, they are mostly incapable of doing even that, they have terrible accuracy even to put a sticker and usually must have a handler watching over them, yes they are that retarded, they also get distracted very easily. Although some can focus if it's an autistic job (for once that adjective is apt) like screwing and unscrewing screws into parts, the majority however are absolutely incapable, like, they're just one step above plants, their motor and mental skills are abysmal.

>>75041

>literal subhuman drooling retards

>subhuman

Don't like that wording, but alright.

That's where real wages combined with charity come in again. Not the most satisfying answer, but think about what would've happened to these people five hundred years ago. In a stronger economy, on the other hand, you can give them a somewhat good life just with scraps.

Until then, it's hard to say how well they'd fare. Hopefully still better, as potential donors will instantly receive real wages that are over a third higher, not having to pay taxes so the CIA can bring democracy to the Dominician Republic. It's also possible they'll fare worse. Which is more likely, I cannot say in advance.

Generally, I'd like to see fewer people give away their relatives, retarded or old or not. I know that's not always possible, but I also dealt with mentally retarded relatives. You can absolutely keep them with the family, in many cases, and the family is supposed to support its members before the state even thinks about stepping in.

>And now for something more edgy. Since they are mentally retarded and on par with, if not below, animal intelligence (my dog is literally smarter than most of them), do they have any rights at all in the Rothbardian sense or whatever other system of ethics ancaps have?

Rothbard would certainly say so, as he also did for children. They are potential self-owners, even if that potential is never actualized. The potential itself is enough to establish that they're protected as human beings, although they will never enjoy full freedoms, simply because they cannot enjoy them.

For Hoppe, that's a bigger problem. Unlike Rothbard, he never played around with Thomistic ideas like potential and actualization. Not sure how exactly he'd defend the notion that retards have human rights, but I'm sure he would figure out a way. I'm closer to Rothbard myself, in fact I would go further with the metaphysics than he did.

>could I at least leave them in the desert to ethically starve them the same way parents could ethically starve or abandon their child?

Yeah, that idea. Like I said on some other threads, Rothbard was dead wrong on children. Not as wrong as some people make him out to be, but still wrong. Parents definitely have an obligation to care for their children. They don't have to pay for a third round in university, but they shouldn't let them starve.

>>75071

>They are potential self-owners, even if that potential is never actualized. The potential itself is enough to establish that they're protected as human beings

They're really, really not at all. They have no potential whatsoever I assure you. Unless you count on some scifi tech that could heal a damaged brain.

Under NAP, how are you entitled to seek out your stolen property even after it has gone through several legitimate transactions?

E.g., your great-grandad's chest full of cool shit was stolen when he was young. You see the chest in the home of John Smith many years later, who bought it from his cousin, who bought it from a pawnshop. The pawnshop bought the chest from the son of the original thief, both of whom are long-dead. Assuming you have proof that the chest in question belonged to your great-granddad (IDing marks, scratches, etc), proof that you are who you say you are, that your granddad was who you say he is, and that you're the inheritor and current owner of your great-granddad's estate, could you reasonably demand that Johns Smith give you the chest?

If Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism is good for rich people, then how come most rich people in Europe/US are shilling either for a welfare state or socialism? Why isn't there a right wing George Soros?

>>75792

Because getting your competition banned or sued out of existence tends to be cheaper and easier than providing a superior product. The key part to remember from this that a company is lobbying the government to use other peoples' money to achieve the results they want. If they had to achieve these same results themselves (such as trying to sabotage their competition without this malignant existence using other folks' cash) it would be too expensive for their business model. In other words:

Lobbying Government to kill your competition at their expense > competition > killing your competition yourself on your own dime with the social stigma attached

>>75795

>all these commies and natsocs

Holy fuck, is there some quick way to purge all this scum from our planet?

>>75818

Orbital nuke?

>>75792

It's not, and never was, an ideology solely for rich people, or even particularly for them. Not for people like Mises, Rand or Rothbard (closest would be Rand, but she was trying to be provokative), nor for your everyday libertarian. Me, I admire some forms of asceticism, and my favorite saint is a man who slept on the bare floor and used a wooden log for a pillow.

As for why comparatively few rich people seem to be libertarians: We have small numbers generally; many of the extremely rich got there by being cronyists and greedy and immoral assholes in general; libertarianism isn't necessarily in their favor, as they may profit from cronyism even if they're otherwise respectable businessmen; they have a lot of contact with the government and with cronyists even if neither of the former two is true; and they're not usually philosophers and - maybe surprisingly - aren't trained in macroeconomics. You don't have to understand the intricacies of the monetary system to be a successful businessman or entrepreneur. Keynes too made fortunes on the stock market but lost them during the Great Depression, which he didn't predict. Kind of like how a martial artist may not understand physics or anatomy yet still apply them regularly in his matches.

>>75835

Trained is accurate. Things requiring thought are taught.

>>75856

Common sense dictates that once you give something to someone, even if "temporarily", the chances of you getting it back get slimmer and slimmer with time, this is just how shit works.

>>75859

Well, sure. That's what would most likely happen, of course. I'm just curious as to what the "right" action would be according to the libertarian theory of law. Does the original owner still have a claim to an object which was taken illegitimately, but then sold legitimately?

>>75854

>imperialism

>fascism

>feudalism

>capitalist

>>75862

Yeah, you can take them to the McCourtroom™. to try and get your heirloom back.

>>75862

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)

If we had to say "yes" then who's to say you can't steal your own thing, sell it and then sue whoever buys it? If I hire someone to steal, and then sell my own property, then someone else develops it for me with their own money, and then I sue them in court and get it back would that be fair?

>>75854

>1,635,271,26

- What are the differences between Rothbard and Mises?

- What are the crucial differences between them if there are any?

- If, how did Rothbard expand praxeology?

- Has any Austrian ever refuted Bukharin's critique of Bohm Bawerk?

>>75884

>Bukharin

Bukharin was a drunk

>>75884

The one about how Bohm von Bawerk supposedly disaggregates social forces or ignores historical context or something? IIRC it's a pretty typical Marxist criticism, and I think Mises respinds to something similar in Human Action. Economic Theory of the Leisure Class is basically one long agitprop screed of "REIFICATION!" created to curry favor with Lenin, anyhow.

>>75865

The court might rule that you would pay the cost of the restoration. I'm not a judge in a private court, so I can't say for sure.

>>75917

democracy is about as free as gangrape, because essentially thats what it is

>>75918

Then what good alternatives do we have?

>>75920

it depends on what you are trying to do of course

>>75917

It isn't. At best, it's a way to channel coericon in such a way as to preserve the most amount of freedom. That's not how democracy works in practice, but it's coherent and there's prima facie evidence for it. Saying that it's freedom because "we" make the decisions is blatant collectivism, and easily outed as such if we remember that voter bases are not a community of friends, but can even consist of groups that are like ravenous animals to each other. More often, it's the latter, not the former, but it's the former that democratic ideologues have in mind. Deciding a matter by common vote is not an unreasonable procedure within a community, but nation states or even cities aren't communities, they're assemblages of people.

>>75920

Don't have a state, if that is practical. If it isn't, keep the state as small as possible, keep taxation as low as possible, limit its function to protecting the life and property of the people. A monarchy is better suited for this than a democracy, for various reasons. To name just two: A monarch is more independent of public pressure, and hence of calls for redistribution of property; he has to think in the longterm, and cannot conveniently pass on problems to his successor four years later.

If we didn't have a state, we'd still have law and order. Any functioning law must be a custom, not merely a decree, and some laws have not been decreed at all, but are borne from tradition or the reception of certain philosophical or religious ideas in the popular mind. Legislators, then, are not indispensable.

Order would be provided by companies dedicated to enforcing the law. Why would they enforce it? Because the law is what people demand, otherwise, it wouldn't be law. Criminals wouldn't be able to form a strong competing company, as their interests are divergent, while those of the law abiding are largely convergent.

A monarch with mostly symbolic functions might stabilize this anarchist society. Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but we don't have any fitting terms. Yet, the concept - a nation without coercion, but with a kind of leader - is not contradictory. He could arbitrate between defense companies in case of a dispute, organize defense against larger threats when many companies have to cooperate, or proclaim how the law is to be applied in specific cases. He couldn't enforce cooperation, but uncoerced cooperation has a place in the realm of political action, too.

>>75924

This is all very interesting, however, it relies on being fortunate enough to win the leadership lottery and get the kind of ruler who is enlightened enough to uplift his society and do everything he can to protect his people's liberty, but people like that are quite rare.

>>75925

Not quite. In most cases, it is in the monarch's own interest to maintain his people's liberty. As >>75924 so helpfully pointed out, monarchs are incentivized to think in the long term, in a way that elected leaders are not. Democratic leaders tend to try for slap-dash band-aid solutions to problems that give instant results, because they want those results to happen in time for their re-election campaign. These short-term solutions tend to create even larger long-term problems, but the democrat doesn't care about these. If anything more long-term problems are to his benefit because once they show up, he can promise a different short-term solution with long-term consequences to patch that up.

The monarch, in contrast, is under no pressure from re-election, and can plan throughout his entire lifetime reign. It is in his own interest, in fact, to solve issues using permanent, workable solutions (and economics tells us all long-term solutions involve the state taking a step back and letting the market do what it does best). Slap-dash, quick fixes that make things worse later is making things more difficult for himself later. To expand on this, it is more beneficial for the monarch to keep taxes low and government small. For the monarch understands that higher taxes means lower productivity in the long-term; he sees that by plundering less from his people now, he may plunder more later, because his lower taxes means that the economy will grow quicker. There's no need for the ruler to be enlightened at all, as you can see: if you assume nothing more altruistic than self-interest, a monarch will benefit prosperity far more than a democrat.

You do raise a good point though: A monarch is chosen essentially by lottery, he can be born a good man or bad (although whichever he is, he will be taught from birth what it means to govern by trained officials, something democrats do not have). However, I would consider that an advantage over democracy: While the chances of getting "good" or "bad" kings aren't biased one way or the other, in democracy this isn't the case. Democracy incentivizes the kind of people who can win millions to their cause with empty speeches and false promises, and get away with it; the kind of people who can win popularity contests. In other words, democracy is heavily biased in favor of pathological liars, rent-seekers, and sociopaths.

>>75925

There's only so much damage a bad monarch could do if he had no powers of coercion. He might make some bad verdicts, be a bad role model, but nothing that would seriously harm society. As his institution wouldn't be essential for society, and as he wouldn't have any legal privileges of coercion over the average citizen, he could be safely ignored if he proved himself to be unreliable. Also, with as little power as he'd have, there would be more boundaries for him to maneuver around. If he stepped out of line, say by instituting a 1% tax after a decade of having no taxation at all, people would instantly notice, whereas a government that already has a lot of power could easily acquire more. One reason why civil wars aren't waged over moderately increased taxation anymore is precisely because we've become accomodated to them. A non-existant state is a better safeguard against tyranny than a moderately sized state.

You would have to win the opposite of the leadership lottery to get a leader who's so bad as to be an existential threat to society, and I think the chance for that isn't much higher than the chance to end up with a very powerful but corrupt defense company, or a bad batch of arbitrators that ruin the legal system.

>>75928

Overall, all of this does make a lot of sense and I am a lot more sympathetic to monarchism now, but there are still a lot issues unsolved. One thing I'm also concerned about is the tendency for monarchies to stagnate, if a king is supposed to be the main driving force of a society and he reigns for 60 years and eventually becomes apathetic and doesn't change anything in the lives of his citizens (for the better), then how do we deal with that? You can argue that he is dealing with the "long-term" issues, then who deals with the short-term issues?

Also, there's no lack of examples of some Putin or Assad or Kim Jong Un or whoever treating the country as his own private property and not giving a shit about the citizens who live in it. The examples of that are far more common than an autocrat actually doing the right thing and doing what's best for his citizens, like for example in UAE.

>>75930

But what good is the monarch if he is powerless and isn't essential to society? So in other words, he's just there for show and someone else leads the country?

>>75948

>then who deals with the short-term issues?

That depends on what exactly you mean by "short term issues." One of the perks of monarchy is that it stays minarchist, which is to say it leaves people to figure things out on their own instead of the government trying to solve everything with Central Planning (tm), which tends to just make things worse for everyone. So what "short term" solutions do you mean, that aren't best left to market forces?

>Also, there's no lack of examples of some Putin or Assad or Kim Jong Un or whoever treating the country as his own private property and not giving a shit about the citizens who live in it. The examples of that are far more common than an autocrat actually doing the right thing and doing what's best for his citizens, like for example in UAE.

Autocrat=!Monarch And I'm curious you put Putin in there, he's power-hungry and authoritarian but he has a modicum of sympathy for his people. Kim Jong-Un and North Korea in general are fucked up because of Communist totalitarianism. Remember, the perk of monarchy is that it helps keep things minarchist. NK was an autocratic state that was set up from the start to be overbearing and totalitarian. Now, the people are beginning to feel the usual effects of communism and big government as they starve, and the state's grip grows ever stronger, because Kim realizes that as soon as his people realize that it's his own big government's policies that's keeping them starved, they'll rise up against him. Choosing to rule over ashes, he keeps up the propaganda as everything crumbles.

To reiterate: monarchies can work because there's an incentive in monarchy to keep things free-market and the government small. Totalitarian autocracies don't work because the state is set up from the start to be big, and to follow an ideology that favors more economic control.

>>75884

>>75970

Pretty sure there's more than one of us

You can look at Rothbard and Mises via their differences, but it's more accurate to say that Rothbard expanded further on Mises' work. While Mises was the father of praxeology, and his work provides the philosophical and theoretical basis for Ancap, Mises himself never really considered going farther than minarchy. Rothbard explicitly called out every aspect of the state as unnecessary, made some good arguments against minarchy, and formulated both specific ways that privatized courts and police agencies could work, as well as generalized arguments about why the private sector will always provide these services more effectively than the state. So as far as crucial differences go, you could say that Rothbard made libertarianism a fully self-contained and internally consistent ideology, whereas Mises "only" got us 90% of the way there.

This has probably been brought up to death so I'll ask it here. Why exactly are tariffs bad? I mean I get the idea why free trade is good, but if other countries still impose tariffs on us, it's not exactly free trade. There's also the fact that Asian countries that we import from largely pay their employees next nothing. More importantly what about the American worker? A lot of manufacturing jobs pay well.

>>76056

Tariffs are bad because they a) increase domestic prices, and b) reduce competition. By increasing the price of the imported good, you're reducing the disposable income available on other things. You're also not doing your domestic industry any favors by taking away their competition, it just makes them less efficient and their product even more expensive.

>More importantly what about the American worker

The American worker benefits from free trade. Cheaper goods mean more disposable income. More disposable income means suppliers will produce more to match the increased demand. Producing more requires hiring more people, and as such the net number of jobs in the economy increases. You need to think of the economy as a whole. A country has import sectors, where it's comparatively weak (in this case, America is comparatively weak in putting cheap plastic shit together with unskilled labor, because American labor is more valuable than Chinese labor–Americans work too well to be payed shit, and won't do shit jobs as a result), but it also has export sectors, where it's comparatively strong, and it's those goods that are sold to other countries. So that net increase in jobs will occur in America's export sectors–those areas where America is comparatively strong.

>>76056

Pretty much what the other guy said.

You will get a slightly higher increase in wages, but you'll end up paying much more for everything else, your economy would just shrink overnight. Also, those poor oppressed Asian would be left jobless because if they had a choice to work in a nice place, then they would have gone there already, I don't understand this sense of superiority that commie liberals have that they think that they can decide better than people in third-world countries where they should or shouldn't work. Would you like it if some Asian from the other side of the world told you to quit your high-paying office job because they don't like the fact that people sit all day in a cubicle? This liberal-saviour mentality is even worse than /pol/-tier racism.

Redpill me on the "Nordic model", how is it socialist? How is it capitalist? If it's a welfare state then how isn't it a smoldering trainwreck of poverty and ghettos? How the heck does it work?

>>76069

He's normally shit-tier but Molyneux's video on the subject is actually pretty informative. Basically, the Nordic countries were very capitalist and free-market up to the 1960s or so, making them very rich. When they adopted the socialists policies, socialism still had the productivity-reducing downward spiral it always does, but because it started from so high up it's harder to notice the decline. They're also very free-market, with minimal regulations, in most respects besides the welfare state itself, which further slows the decline.

>If it's a welfare state then how isn't it a smoldering trainwreck of poverty and ghettos

Sweden's pretty close to that already in many of the smaller towns. As for the rest of the countries, it will happen. Just give them time to bleed off all the productivity and goodwill those evil capitalists of the past burdened them with.

Give me the run-down on stocks, /liberty/. The big difference between public corporations and private companies is that anyone can buy public stock, correct? A public company is obligated to put all of its stock onto the NYSE, NASDAQ, or some other exchange, and isn't allowed to discriminate as to who buys that stock?

In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, is GOA a worthwhile organization to be backing?

>>78374

GOA should always be your choice over Negotiate Rights Away.

>>74047

I am not one of those bitches. Damn feminist's have ruined this world for the rest of us women with brains. But, while the feminist are much more masculine today, the male population is being reduced to a bunch of feminine crybaby mama's boys. I miss the good old days when men acted like men, and women were damn glad they did. We each had our roles, and we were proud of those roles.

>>74033

>>74038

tl;dr disregard austrian propaganda and join the dark side of orthodox economics

https://openstax.org/subjects/

>>76056

same thing as why banning a person from buying/selling stuff is bad

How do you respond?

Video by Cockshott.

>>78426

You're gonna need a bigger argument

>>78436

Because we don't want commie cooties.

>>78437

How about commie cummies? (´･ω･`)

>>78440

because commieism is a virus.

>>78424

>completely ignores the subjective value argument, arguably the strongest response possible to labor theory

>that butchering of Occam's Razor

>supply and demand don't real because reasons

>because some basic econ textbooks abstract supply and demand all supply and demand must be abstracted

This man is functionally retarded, and far too busy sniffing his own farts about how "scientific" he's being, despite being nothing of the sort.

>>78436

i dont want to exchange bacteria with commies

>>78424

should've posted that in the LTV thread comr8

>>78474

i agree with cockshott even though i think his reasoning or at least his wording left much to be desired. A real comparison between LVT and SVT would take more than a youtube video. His argument regarding supply and demand was pretty weird and he took a mathematical approach when he should've addressed it from the perspective of underlying theory. His willingness to integrate empirical data into his arguments deserves praise, though.

>>78691

>I don't think it makes sense to say that the economy would be improved or hurt as a result of free transactions, as they can only affect the buyers and sellers

It depends on the scale. It's gonna mean jack shit if we trade pennies between ourselves, it's going to affect everyone if the market is suddenly flooded with new cash either out of reserves or fresh from the printer.

>>78685

>the banks will then acquire property, capital, or any profit accumulating assets in country of B

*for clarity, Banks in country of A will acquire the assets in country of with B.

>>78693

It's the printing that hurts, not the exchange.

>>78696

But this isn't just any exchange, it's a speculative exchange. Even if there was no printing then the value of the currency would still go up beyond the actual produce that's behind it. If afterwards, whether or not said country (A) met growth expectations, the cash will be dumped on the market which would create inflation. I'm not sure how it would develop from here, but clearly there's going to be some market fluctuation with no guarantee for it to necessarily work itself out.

>>78697

If the money didn't go to someone outside the country, it could have stayed in the bank, which would have gained or lost, or would have been loaned, in which case the bank shares risk with the debtor. If the money wasn't printed, the prices of what the bank or debtor buy will be changed, but prices in general may not.

>>78685

>If so, can speculation on currency occur in the same way it does in the stock market?

It can and does occur.

Your question gets very complicated because the situation you describe depends on many things. I'll give you an example:

>An economy goes into recession

>The production of commodities suffers due to lack of demand (money)

>To reduce losses, firms must cut prices to liquidate inventory

>Money gains value relative to other commodities

An increase in the value of money due to foreign speculation would generally exacerbate this problem. One will need to exchange more labor and greater quantities of commodities to earn the same nominal amount. So, like you said, a government would likely begin printing money simply to stimulate circulation of commodities. The big problem with this measure is that by the time money reaches ordinary consumers it has been passed down a financial chain losing value along the way.

What happens when the speculative bubble ends?

Like always, someone will lose a tremendous amount of wealth by being the last man standing during a period of speculation. But these investors will almost certainly be foreign since the domestic economy in which the bubble takes place will be cash-starved due to the factors mentioned above. It is very possible that the end of the bubble will improve economic output as the value of money drops to previous levels.

These predictions mean very little without knowing the type of economy involved, the dependence on exports/imports, and the policy undertaken by the government.

If we then imagine that this occurs in a nation using gold-backed currency it means that the government has no option to simply print money without first acquiring gold. And how could this gold be acquired if the value of domestic output is now so low?

Help me understand these three things, liberty:

1. Should natural resources really be privatized? What if some guy digs them up in a poor country and sells them to another country, then chooses to spend all the money (billions of dollars) also in some other, country?

2. If education improves the economic situation of a country, would it be better if internet or education was public? It seems to me like free (ie. paid by taxes) information is an investment in the future since everybody suffers when you live in an incompetent, uneducated society. Or have I been lied to by commies?

3. Why don't any existing democratic systems have a specific IQ requirement for voters? This takes care of all the negative elements of society - the town drunk, the feminist, the ghetto nigger, the braindead communist, etc… they wouldn't even be able to complain about it because they wouldn't want to admit that they're idiots, so why aren't people required to take IQ tests before voting? Is it because capitalists will be the only ones who pass?

>>74320

>There's good reason to believe that an anarchocapitalist nation wouldn't be an inviting target for an attacker, the most important being…. A lot of wealth would be tied up there

Mein Gott! Pure ideology!!

>>75041

Prostitution.

The irony is, they're pretty much the only people who couldn't do "rape room" prostitution, because they, pretty much alone, couldn't say "you're a decent enough fellow, and it's my fetish anyway - I'll write out a window for the next two weeks." Or safeword. Or anything else that would meet the criterion.

But flap their arms and make more-distressed noises versus raping you like a 'tard? That, they're mostly great at. The people who have problems usually aren't retarded, e.g., Stephen Hawking. Fetish market being what it is, I expect that the tards are our god-damned overlords and live a comfy life, and am far, far more concerned with making sure the paid servants they're cruelly exploiting don't, you know, beat them and embezzle shit - something I'm a little less concerned with when the overlord isn't, you know, sub-droolie.

Stephen Hawking gets dumped down a waste chute in ancapistan, though. He's only here because he was born in a brief age of succdem.

>>78903

>Mein Gott! Pure ideology!!

Pro-tip, all the great philosophers are known for engaging their opponents. Aristotle wrote several pages on why A cannot be Not-A. No one was ever remembered for a century for a book of random insults, no matter how well deserved they were.

>>78685

German ancap please answer this

>>78937

Would "'No one would attack us because we have a lot of shit to loot' is not often believed" be a more acceptable phrasing to you?

>>78943

The argument is that no one would attack us because all the rich and powerful people who would have to sign off on that sort of thing would be using us as a tax haven.

>>78944

That's fairly legitimate in terms of state actors… although, Iraq, Iran, etc had a lot of oil, the americas had a lot of gold, etc.

"There will be no bandits because we have all the lootable shit," otoh, is enough of a non-sequiteur to be an example of giving the right ideological conclusion with an argument AGAINST as it's rationale.

>>78947

>That's fairly legitimate in terms of state actors… although, Iraq, Iran, etc had a lot of oil, the americas had a lot of gold, etc.

All resources that were either completely unexploited or were being severely underutilized. As an economically literate nation Ancapistan would look more like Luxembourg, Singapore, Monaco, and to a lesser extent Switzerland. And a lot of the immunity that would come from it being a trade hub would happen overnight–it's the ultimate tax haven, only subsidies stand a chance of beating it and even then I don't think they would, because subsidies aren't necessarily permanent and don't take away the miles of red tape endemic to a bureaucracy. Hundreds of companies would immediately move their HQs to Ancapistan and take advantage of this.

>All resources that were either completely unexploited or were being severely underutilized.

The conquistadors stole gold, i.e., "resources that had already been exploited." They did not do any mining.

Mossadegh's Iran had THE EXACT SAME INFRASTRUCTURE as london-petroleum-company-owned Iran.

It seriously looks like you're using racial ideology as a substitute for analysis, here. This is fine, UNTIL it leads you to make shit up.\

>>78947

Disorganized bandit groups would be far easier to deal with than state actors. They're less well funded, less well equipped, not as numerous, and no one except that gang in particular will see their authority as legitimate.

>>78955

I dunno. A lot of the worlds' major drug cartels seem a little well-funded and well-equipped.

>>78958

>what is Fast and Furious

Even without shit like that happening, the cartels basically own the Mexican government at this point.

>>78958

Still nothing compared to even a small country's military power.

>>78968

Unless they happen to operate in a county that's unfriendly to the USA, then they have the firepower of the whole army of the AmeriKKKan Empire behind their backs.

>>78900

Bumping question.

>>78903

>anarchocapitalist nation

wtf

>>79552

A nation is not necessarily a state. Think about the Indians in America, who are called nations yet no one would call them states.

>>79606

>implying i dont know it

I notice sometimes commies will claim some society in the ancient past is communist or socialist despite those ideologies not being invented yet and it bugs me. Is it equally wrong for ancaps to claim certain ancient societies like the Icelandic Commonwealth are ancapistan when anarcho-capitalism as an ideology wasn't invented yet at that time period?

>>79866

There's nothing wrong in principle with calling an ancient society communist or anarchocapitalist. That the ideology wasn't formulated does not mean it can't have been practically implemented. You can also make music and only later find out that what you did was in fact classic rock, after all.

I'd still be skeptical of such claims. There are usually still vast differences between these ancient societies and the ideal society that they supposedly resemble. The Icelandic Commonwealth, for example, still had the Althing and a liberal attitude towards violently attacking plebs that insult you. It was remarkably close to being anarchocapitalist, but not yet anarchocapitalist.

What is minarchist?

>>79908

A logical human being who probably believes their bible too

>/poltard

How about you go fuck yourself dickhead.

Collectivist identatarian pieces of shit like yourself are more harmful to any movement or cause then anything someone from the "outside" could do.

You are the subhuman. Not by birth but by shitty choices bringing you to the state of a lower animal who has rejected the light of reason that elevates humans above that of simple beast.

>>79931

>You are the subhuman. Not by birth but by shitty choices bringing you to the state of a lower animal who has rejected the light of reason that elevates humans above that of simple beast.

I really, really, really really like this sentence.

>>80401

scarcity

>>80401

Just because they were grown and not born, it doesn't mean that they're not people. How could a corporation become king of its printed people if all these printed people have to do is refuse?

I know this is pretty much shitposting but I personally think the EU manufactured it's own crisis to gain more and more power. So Clone army when?

>>74124

all austrians is badeconomics

>>78685

https://openstax.org/subjects/

>>80431

But if they're made by a corporation no one else is going to take care of them but the corporation. That's a clean slate to indoctrinate.

>>80677

And if you're the innovator of this? If you guard this complex technology for yourself?

I'm just saying that the amount of available physical power for the first one to do this is incredibly immense and can cause a huge disturbance in any equilibrium of power that exists.

I don't really understand the distinction of what actually defines Capitalism. It's like, Britains started using coal to power machines and now people work in factories and this is the beginning of something totally new and different called Capitalism. But in my mind Capitalism is just a description of a free-market system of private property and exchange and machines and coal doesn't really fundamentally change anything. Is it me or is Capitalism a vague and meaningless distinction?

>>81017

It's more of an ideological shift. There's always been trade, yes, but Adam Smith and the Industrial Revolution were what introduced the idea that trade was better when it was free. Before that you had shit like guilds, mercantilism was the default foreign trade policy of pretty much everyone, and so on.

>>81018

Wasn't trade pretty free during the Middle Ages in Europe? There weren't really tariffs or real prohibitions, it wasn't until the kingdoms became proper states that trade was really limited. Sure production was monopolized and became the title of a caste but trade was arguably more free than in the age of capitalism. Mercantilism was a state thing as far as I know. Couldn't that be a little capitalistic?

>>81027

No it wasn't.

Historically "free trade" is a signifier of empire and bureaucratic centralisation while smaller, less intrusive states relied on tariffs, which could easily be collected at the few points most trade flowed through (ports, rivers, major roads).

Would booms and busts still exist without government interference? Was the tulip mania a result of market speculation or was there some government involvement?

>>81187

>Would booms and busts still exist without government interference?

Very, very large and completely unexpected natural disasters might, and you might see small, localized downturns in small communities in which a couple investors misread the market. But nothing nearly as devastating or as widespread as the cycle is today, because the cluster of systematic malinvestments will stop occurring.

>tulips

The oversupply of tulips was caused, among other things, by the Dutch debasing their own currency.

https://mises.org/library/truth-about-tulipmania

Why do supply side enthusiasts think that workers can recycle and learn to do a new job like Neo learns kung fu in The Matrix?

>>81273

Because they live off their rich parents.

>>81273

Nobody says that. The transition won't be instantaneous, but companies would encourage a faster switch through offering scholarships and similar benefits for people to learn the skills they have a shortage of.

>>81274

>t. projecting commie getting his liberal arts degree on daddy's dime

>>81277

> companies would encourage a faster switch through offering scholarships and similar benefits

lmao no they just complain that universities don't teach "marketable skills" and continue to destroy education.

>>81279

Please enlighten us as to the true value of courses on queer african studies and microaggressions.

>>81279

Education is already nationalized so I don't see how worse can it get.

>>81279

If you attend tech schools that teach useful skills instead of the shit >>81282 mentions you'd see this isn't the case. Students attending the technically-oriented university in my state will regularly receive incentives from the local auto firms to get an education, provided they go work for their sponsor afterwards.

>>81273

…but thats literally what happens in scandinavia

>>81285

Also this. Lots of our tech school guys are on a company scholarship to be there, and have the option to go for a bachelors through the company after they've worked with 'em for about 2-4 years. Some companies (especially in the robotics industry) are actually offering a bachelors of automation engineering/robotics engineering/etc. if you work with them for eight years. The molasses refinery up North a few towns will pay for you to get a bachelors in brewery science if you work for them for at least two years and for at least four more years after completing the degree.

>>81485

>Had the president of our school tell me I was asking him "when are you going to stop beating your wife" when I asked him (on public broadcast) what marketable skills the school would offer in the future to offset the incoming education bubble/degree inflation.

That's pretty sad. Even in my current university (a public institution no less) they're at least acknowledging degree inflation in an implicit way, and telling students to focus much more on landing internship, holding contests for student start-ups, and other forms of practical experience.

>but most universities offer actually useful courses too, where you can receive knowledge that is systemized and makes a coherent whole.

Spoken like a true student who's never worked in the real world.

If capitalism is the most efficient system out there why the fuck does HR exist?

>>81815

>>81815

Then why isnt that the case?

>>81925

Capitalism is a system of voluntary agreements within the free market. HR departments are formed from and operate by voluntary agreements. If a business chooses to have an HR department they're perfectly within their rights to do so.

>>81814

Human resources improve labor conditions to attract and retain workers.

>>81935

>retarded reddit post

https://mises.org/wire/health-care-american-mania-vs-canadian-sclerosis

https://mises.org/library/canadian-health-care

>Wants can not be put on a scale. Action can only express one will, not more. This will can be described as a set of satisfied wants and another of wants which are not, but it can not express a relation between two wants within the same group.

This is irrelevant semantics play and does nothing to refute the action axiom.

>>81937

It's not semantics, a ranking implies multiple elements, which is not possible here. The picture was bait.

I'm skeptical of the idea that monarchism is the answer considering that it lead directly to World War I and subsequently the headaches of Communism and Fascism.

>>86816

The claims of national socialists that they secure economic prosperity, strength, and even tradition are specious. The NSDAP inherited the benefits of economic reforms under the Weimar Republic, they did not unfuck the economy from Weimar mistakes. The bids for "national strength" resulted in centralization and aggression. As for tradition, they only really expressed comely fondness for the tip of that iceberg infographic and coudln't really do much more sense they were a modern movement without roots in the actual history of their countries. Wilhelm II didn't think much of Hitler's claim to championing German heritage.

The best argument for libertarianism for a natsoc is that some hardliner stripes of it, like ancap, would permit you and a like-minded cohort to assemble everything you want and like about a natsoc society provided you didn't start stampeding for lebensraum. You could carve out a community as your shared property where observance of tradition is required, ethnic purity checked, a strong fighting force is maintained, and usury is illegal.

I don't think it's comparable to a Hoppean covenant because as far as I know said covenant would still depend on everyone in it agreeing to abide by libertarian principles. Members of the covenant who started advocating for national socialist policies would probably get physically removed.

>>86822

So follow up question, do you think ancap is possible in the world today? I think that we're so entrenched in this idea that we need a government that it'll be nearly impossible to convince the masses that we don't need one (or at least a smaller one).

>>86824

It is feasible, maybe, to set up special administrative zones that are an-cap as far as not having any local, state, or provincial laws. They would still probably be under the jurisdiction of a nation-state entity, but if one succeeded it could prove that less formal governing apparatus can work out and not necessarily degenerate into Somali warlordism.

>>86801

>pic

Thats disgusting, what country? I want to believe this shit is limited to the US but based on the language used it looks like its Australia.

>>86816

>What is the best argument you have for libertarianism, that would convert someone from natsoc?

Do you want an ethical argument or a consequentialist one?

In the meantime I ask you have a look at this simple game.

https://ncase.me/trust/

>>86824

>So follow up question, do you think ancap is possible in the world today?

Pure stateless ancap? probably not, you could get pretty close to it though. The best you could do is have a tiny state which does little more than issue passports and run a small military for self defence purposes.

>>86826

there are already private cities

>>86832

>Do you want an ethical argument or a consequentialist one?

Either one, as long as it's convincing.

>>86824

Probably not without some kind of revolution.

>>86832

It's from Canada actually https://www.ryerson.ca/news-events/

I'm also interested in your ethical argument.

>>86832

>Thats disgusting, what country? I want to believe this shit is limited to the US but based on the language used it looks like its Australia.

Toronto.

Does the principle of decreasing marginal utility apply to number of commies killed?

Are there libertarians that address culture? I know it's a common criticism of libertarianism but could it address culture and cultural trends?

Anyone have a quick rundown of gun laws under the NSDAP and a corresponding source?

>>87888

Sowell criticizes ghetto culture for hampering black education

>>86816

National Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, whatever you want to call it, I've talked with a number of people online and tried to sort of get an idea about what they actually believe and found it vague and unargumentative. Ironically, fascists use the same kind of techniques of socialists, they employ platitudes, slogans, and normative statements. Any specifics on how a fascism would actually organize a society are kept sufficiently vague to avoid critiques or so not to expose the fallaciousness of their ideology.

It's hard to really tackle such a broad subject but I'll just give a few of my own objections.

Tradition does not need to be enforced. All tradition really is is just transmitting values, ideals, and history onto the new generation, it gives context to people about who they are. Traditions are constantly changing and modifying with each generation who adds their own mark to the collective history of a group of people, if you froze this and kept it constant we would surely devolve into a lesser stage of development. To add what >>86822 said, the German Nazis didn't enforce tradition, in a lot of ways they supplanted what was tradition for a new mythology of a legendary people.

A Libertarian world does not mean a world without order, either. First of all you would have a robust system of enforced property rights that would order society. People would come together to form their own rules of conduct and acceptable behavior as can be seen in housing associations, schools, churches, businesses, ect. and people will tend to associate with people who share the same values and disassociate with people who are incompatible. This system of formal and informal rules would bring about a natural order between peoples without the need of a gestapo and would no doubt strengthen the bonds of communities and nations, rather than destroy them through the socialism of all aspect of life that would occur in a fascist society.

Economically fascism faces the same problems of any other kind of collectivist scheme. Replacing an open market system with the division of labor and a price system for a system of centralized planning will lead to economic ruin. Some might say that Nazi Germany revitalized the economy with their lavish spending and regimentation of the whole economic system, stopping short of outright socialism by keeping the facade of private property. The German recovery was in part the cessation of printing money and a natural recovery, the spending by the central government of Nazi Germany only managed to build roads that were utterly wasteful, there were not enough automobiles in Germany for the amount of roads built. Of course the true military function of these roads were shortly discovered.

Finally, collectivization will inevitably lead to a war against all. In a libertarian world or at least a world without restrictions on economic activities resources will be open to exploitation to all who are willing. The fact that Germany does not have oil fields or produce enough coal domestically for its industry is at best an a bit of trivia but of no consequence. War becomes pointless in this world, no one gains by conquest, they waste blood and treasure and decrease their future amount of goods. In a world of closed economies, where nations use force to remove their resources from the global economy, war is inevitable. Every other state is an adversary that, by their mere existence, decreases your standard of living. To their credit, unlike most collectivist schemes Nazism recognizes this inevitability and aims at global conquest.

>as you could have a monarch that protects the wellbeing and rights of the people

The benefit of a monarchy over a democracy isn't so much that it protects private property but the exact opposite, that a monarch is the predator of property and this role is clear and obvious. The subjects have a clear antagonism toward the monarch and this keeps the powers of the king in check. In a democratic society everyone is a king and aims to seize everyone else's property for themselves, the effects of this are evident.

>>87888

Of course, libertarians always talk about culture, the main point is that culture is directly tied to the economy, to property rights and to laws that either protect or take away liberty. So if you fuck with the economy and create artificial poverty, the culture also suffers and you get a behavioural sink (ie. degeneracy), same shit if you fuck with liberty (eg: take away people's guns and more crime increases).

>>88082

This. Very well said.

There's still a lot more to be added, but not enough for those low IQ white niggers to understand that what they plan (if they even have a plan) is as devastating to the white race as anything kikes or leftists come up with. Sometimes I even feel like national-socialism is in fact one big Jewish psyop to lead people away from real right-wing intellectual nationalism and into some fake left-wing pretend-nationalism that's meant to be laughable and unattractive and to do more damage than good.

Why did HHH marry a turkroach? Was it for the money?

If there's a federal court and police system in order to enforce property rights, how would that system be funded without taxation, and how could it be considered anarchist?

If there is no single overarching court system and your property claims are limited only by your ability to protect them, in what sense could this be considered capitalist?

How can you have an anarchocapitalist society when an oppressive state is necessary to enforce property rights?

>>90007

>federal court and police system

There is no system that has authority over individuals in ancap by default. Property rights are decided upon either by force or by mutual agreement. Because force is in extreme demand institutions like private military contractors(PMC), protection agencies and other mercenaries appear. When there are multiple of such agencies, they make contracts between each other so that they do not have to fight each other over each property damage and conflict, so they decide that for their clients to remain their clients, they would have to compensate for the damage they've done to one of their contractors. The amount of compensation is decided upon by private courts, though they are more of detective agencies, as they do not choose, only investigate things, while contracts are the things on which decisions are based. The courts are chosen by the participants, either the ones mutually agreed upon, or written in contract if cannot be decided otherwise.

>how would that system be funded without taxation

You pay the PMC for protection(or just contract them so that you're part of the system but defend yourself yourself), and private courts are funded by the person who caused the damage which the court investigates.

>how could it be considered anarchist

There is no central authority to force you to do anything, even if you break contact with a PMC they will just not protect you so that if someone else decides to force you to do something(which criminals do today as well) you'll have to rely only on yourself and those who decide to help you, if there are any. A PMC surely does have more power(literally) than any other institution in ancap, but they are still limited by each other and have to be very wary of interventions because the ones who do intervene would become from defenders to attackers, which will lead to either their ruined reputation, loss of clients and bankruptcy or their physical destruction by their competitors. A PMC monopolizing application of force is always a possibility, but these things do their best to prevent it, along with accessible weapons and decentralization.

>in what sense could this be considered capitalist

The system you described might not be, it depends on whether the property rights are mutually decided by all nearby participants, then you do not need a court system, but the most capitalist thing in here is that it is the platform for the system described above to emerge. The decentralized system where people have ultimate authority over themselves and not just choose the ones under which rule to live but are rulers themselves, with PMCs acting only as tools, power in their hands is the most capitalist system there can be, i believe.

>state is necessary to enforce property rights

Not really. Only force is required to do that. If you can protect something from others you can consider it as your property. Still, the system might not necessary be capitalist, as modern states, for example, practically own all their citizens and their "property", forcing them into submission if they act in a way they do not see fit.

>>90007

1. Not sure what you mean by "federal," as any privatized court would by definition not be federal. Payment could be done either through insurance premiums, paid monthly, or if you choose not to purchase insurance (though it's probably in your best interest to purchase) you'd probably pay a service fee to whatever judge you select to resolve your conflict. It wouldn't be anarchist because it would be voluntary.

2. How is it not capitalist? If you decide that you personally are unfit to protect your property you hire a firm or firms to protect it for you.

3. You're begging the question–you're just asserting without support that an oppressive state is the only way to enforce property rights. Rothbard, Hoppe, and many others have described in detail a variety of ways a natural order system could be established and maintained. If you're skeptical of this and can't/won't read Rothbard, you'd have to be more specific as to what your issues are.

>>90007

>If there's a federal court

>federal court

Huh? I don't think anything "federal" could be efficiently funded without taxes. Private courts will be funded by the people who use them, including criminals who are persecuted. Private police will be funded the same way private security companies are funded.

>how could it be considered anarchist?

Depends on how you define anarchist.

>If there is no single overarching court system and your property claims are limited only by your ability to protect them, in what sense could this be considered capitalist?

They are protected by private security companies who are directly responsible for whatever happens to your property. All other disagreements are settled in private courts.

>in what sense could this be considered capitalist?

You're right, it's obviously communism.

>How can you have an anarchocapitalist society when an oppressive state is necessary to enforce property rights?

Citation needed.

>>90012

>>90013

>>90014

All of you seem to be neglecting the fact that I, as a person with a property claim in ancapistan, have the ability to shop around at private courts until I find one that will support my property claim. Somebody else can do the same thing, and then whoever is able to hire the more powerful PMC is the one that gets to keep it. Why bribe a court to support my property claim, when I can just spend that money on a PMC (on top of the money I would already be paying them) in order protect my property and skip the extraneous step of paying some middle men to rubber stamp my claim?

>>90012

>Only force is required to do that. If you can protect something from others you can consider it as your property.

This eliminates the idea of property entirely and replaces it with possession. If you can't own things you don't currently possess (ie, things you don't have immediate control of), then everything becomes communal. Need a car? Just hop in one that's parked on the street. No one owns it, because no one is currently in a position to protect it.

>>90014

>You're right, it's obviously communism.

You're right, it is. Actual communism even, not Bolshevism. You dumbasses are literally fucking Communists, just with an extra layer of ideology on top.

>>90024

>shop around at private courts until I find one that will support my property claim

Did you even read what i wrote about courts? They do not support any property claims, nor does anyone else do, it's your job and only you can delegate doing it to somebody else as your representative.

>I can just spend that money on a PMC (on top of the money I would already be paying them) in order protect my property

That's literally all what's needed, except you just pay for that only and nothing else.

>This eliminates the idea of property entirely and replaces it with possession

Not really. You do not need immediate control of something for it to be yours. You can just take the control back because you claimed the control of it earlier and did not allow transfer.

> No one owns it, because no one is currently in a position to protect it.

They will protect it later, you still will be met with force. Others' respect of your claim counts as control of property and its protection.

>Actual communism even

Wew

>>90025

So you're not even paying lip service to the NAP? My property is whatever I can take and hold from other people? So if someone was to mine the ore and smelt the steel and cast and machine the bits to make a widget all by himself, then I could just walk in and take it and I would be the rightful owner because I could afford to hire a PMC and he couldn't? You're essentially claiming that Stirner was an ancap.

>>90029

>So you're not even paying lip service to the NAP

nap is a practice, not some moral principle. If you are armed and want to live with people who are also armed you'll likely develop something similar to that by yourself just because you want to live and not be involved in unnecessary conflicts.

>My property is whatever I can take and hold from other people

Basically, yes. This is how property works. Mind you though, "hold from other people" does not necessary involve force, as ways such as diplomacy and agreements also work, you need to use force only when they do not, but this applies to everything else anyway.

> I could just walk in and take it and I would be the rightful owner

You could try to do that(in any system, mind you) but "rightful ownership" is not a very clear term, but it's easy to make an agreement with a PMC on the point of it not attacking and you compensating property damage done, without any payments and for the sake of convenience for the PMC and your safety. Also, a PMC would not attack another PMC's client because they'd have to fight each other otherwise, so the compensation thing naturally comes. You can also for some cooperative "PMC" from your neighbors so you all defend each other. Plenty of options, but a total bystander can rely only on himself unless in such an agreement, but i highly doubt somebody would just attack a (possibly) armed person, especially since you can't tell whether he's protected by a PMC or not, that's putting general human unwillingness to cause direct harm to other humans aside.

>You're essentially claiming that Stirner was an ancap.

Stirner was before ancap but yes, he was anarcho individualist(of the earlier ones, idk if first), so it's very possible for him to be ancap, if he decided to be honest. A lot more likely than communist, which could only be a disguise to gain power, even if they wished otherwise.

Any possibility of the stickies getting restored? Specifically the resources one?

I tried to play Impossible Creatures but it says "No valid render is avaliable, update your diretex" or something like that. How do I fix it? I found nothing onnline.

Also, warcraft patch 1.29 doesn't have any maps nor even a custom campaign folder. How do I play my custom campaigns?

Is having zits on your dick normal?

when it comes to primarly aquired property (homesteading etc.), where should borders be drawn? Is putting my dick in the ground and a potato in it afterwards a sufficient claim to all the land within eyesight?

>>90535

You mark ownership of your land by excluding it–either by enclosing it in a border of some sort, or physically transforming it (e.g. by tilling the soil) to mark it as your own. In your example, you don't really have claim of anything besides the hole in the ground and the potato you put into it.

>>90534

Rub it and see if white stuff comes out, the zit itself might be your dick.

>>91749

He was a fine man ahead of his time, probably even ahead of ours as even today the position of moral realism remains prevalent while the religions fall and commonality of negative positions towards knowledge grows. He was not the first, he won't be the last but he did influence our understanding of knowledge greatly.

>>91749

I heard he was a cuck so no, and I couldn't care enough about him or his views to check if that's true.

Going to ask a Q for a change, why were housing prices constantly increasing throughout the Dot Com bubble and the 2000s? Was it the artificially high demand caused by Community Reinvestment Act, combined with near-zero interest rates?

Why are competent auto mechanics so rare? Is there state intrusion in this market that is causing this shortage?

>>91986

Partially. More people are pursuing some degree or another instead of getting cheap, practical education, and a lot of that switch can be attributed to state institutions encouraging more higher education. The other factor is a lot of new cars are so digitized, and have such a high degree of proprietary parts and/or software installed that only authorized dealerships are able to work on them, which decreases the demand for independent body shops.

>>91987

Forgot to say, the reason mechanics can't work on these digitized cars is that a combination of copyright and proprietary software means that it's not just impractical for them, in some cases it's illegal.

Don't you guys like the idea of having your enemies suffer the heel of your jackboot? This is what I don't understand. Trying to get into the feel of liberalism just doesn't feel right—it feels wrong. I want to serve someone, and carry out his bidding. I want to order others, and have them do as I say. I want to see an emperor take control of America and shape it into Imperium Americana. I want to go out and conquer lands for the emperor.

On a semi-related note, from vid related:

>"And just because he's human,/He doesn't want a pistol to his head./He wants no servant under him,/And no boss over head."

But this is just silly. Who thinks like this? I mean, sure, I might prefer not to have a gun to my head. But the idea of dying for something greater than yourself is intoxicating. Serving someone, humility, is intoxicating. Being the lord of loyal servants is intoxicating. But this is more to /leftypol/fags than /libertypol/acks.

what's the difference between the State and the most powerful mccorporation in ancrapistan?

>>92144

A corporation does not have any authority to intervene in to others' property and lives. All it can do is offer, no matter how generous or preposterous their offer is and you can always refuse it and protect yourself from any of their influence or actions, as breaking it would mean that corporation is committing a crime, violating property rights and tries to gain power through illegitimate means. If it does, you have all means to protect yourself from it and this is what your guardians should do. The corporation is indistinguishable from a state if it tries or has monopoly on violence and therefore the legistlation over the people it controls. We've got plenty of measures to prevent it, such as competition, military contracts, private ownership of weapons and decentralized legal system and so if a corporation tries to get there it breaks the NAP and is faced with resistance from both the owner, his PMC, someone he or his PMC hires, while losing the protection from PMCs it has contracted with and probably loses its other clients because of the danger of dealing with it. It is now effectively faced with a highly effective army and has its supply of resources cut off. If it's big enough, it can be insufficient but the amount of centralization we have now makes the thing with monopolies, oligopolies and lack of small and local businesses a lot bigger issue, if there would be any if the conditions were closer to a free market.

>>92145

That's a nice sentiment, but is it the case in reality? What's to stop corporations from just colluding together and funding one or few specific PMC's to protect their property rights, and trample over everyone else? The average person can't afford anywhere near the same defense as Goldmann Sachs can.

>>92147

https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

>>92143

Define "double standards", then, anon. After all, there's no need to be rude :^)

>>92143

>>92168

>"a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups."

Define "unfairly applied".

>>92173

This, tbh.

Would NDA's exist under lolbergstan?

>>92176

Maybe. Nothing is really stopping you from signing such a contract or some 3rd party to recognize them, though i doubt they'd be popular. Still, even NDA or a similar contract can be broken if both parties agree so or are incapable of upholding it(like in one of them is dead, not in i'm bankrupt) because victimless crimes are not recognized as such in ancapistan and there's no victim if the contractor you signed it with does not sue(or accuse or something) in breaking it and demand compensation or enforcement or whatever. Even if you break the contract you'll probably need to compensate monetarily for what other guy had to do or return things to how they've been before. If there was no actions from other contractor then the contract is no different from a simple verbal promise.

>>92176

Yes, but breaking one wouldn't be a criminal act, because you can't sign away your future will. However, firms would encourage compliance through demanding collateral, which you would agree to forfeit in the event of a breach.

>>92179

Is a contract like "if i do X i'll have to pay you Y" viable though, or do you have to offer a collateral beforehand? Is it legal to demand payment based on the contract and would not paying it be counted as theft?

>>92181

>Is a contract like "if i do X i'll have to pay you Y" viable though

Yes, because failure to follow through on that kind of contract would result in theft. That's generally the litmus test for whether a contract is criminally enforceable in ancapistan: If breach of contract would directly result in theft, i.e. the loss of property of one or more actors, then the contract is enforceable through the courts. If violating the contract would not result in theft, then you can't use the court to enforce it, and one must resort to other means of encouraging the other party to stay to his word–collateral, bad reputation, and so on. Rothbard's essay on the subject sums it up pretty well:

https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts

>>92173

>>92174

>samefagging

>>92205

>anyone who agrees with someone on the internet is a samefag

Have you guys been watching politicon?

>>92317

What's that, a convention where people dress up and LARP as ideologies? Nah, I don't get to /pol/ too often these days.

>>92317

What's that, porn featuring politicians? Nah, I have better taste when it comes to hentai these days.

>>92317

Nothing of value to miss out on.

What a breath of fresh air. Great board! Is there a meta thread or do I post mod questions in qtddtot? Also, why no ids? When I read an intelligent poster, I'll usually highlight and peruse his a little more in depth, and I will read the thread through this angle. Is there a better reason not to have it?

>>92418

>Is there a meta thread

Probably not. We use new threads to post one-liner OPs that killed this one if it existed.

>do I post mod questions in qtddtot

You can try but BO isn't going to do anything unless it includes sucking off leftists.

>why no ids

I guess it started without them and nobody cared until now.

>>92418

>cuckchanner

Can someone redpill me on the confederacy? See a lot of supporters here.

>>92462

Reader's Digest Condensed edition, other confederacy-anons feel free to chime in:

–Constitution was more limiting of federal power and gave states more rights

–Secession is always pro-liberty (even if the seceded state ends up being more totalitarian, it's a net gain for the country from which they are seceding as by corollary, it becomes more libertarian)

–In addition to slaves, some of the motivation for secession was against tariffs placed on Southern states by the North which confirms that the Commerce Clause has been used to justify everything under the sun except for the one thing it was intended to do–prevent interstate tariffs

–Realistically speaking, they weren't any more pro-slavery than the Union. Lincoln was prepared to sign a compromise deal that allowed all the Southern states to keep slaves if it meant no secession

–By extension, there's really no reason to like the North. The one thing going for them (being against slavery) is a farce, and they waged war against the South because Lincoln wanted his clay back.

–A E S T H E T I C grey uniforms

–Doughy band of volunteers fighting to protect their home is pretty /liberty/

–Bringing up the Confederacy is guaranteed to cause lefty tears

How do you think place names would work if the whole world were to become ancapistan? Towns and cities would have pretty clear delineations, and you can always use terms such as "northern Europe" or "the Great Plains" as descriptors, but without borders the area of nations and provinces becomes less concrete. Will it just be a case of "you know it when you see it", say if a town lies in the blurred kind between, or will the political place names stop being used in their entirety?

>>89990

Well, they have the same last name, so you gotta take advantage of such an amazing coincidence

>>92657

People will actually have a reason to learn geography.

>>92684

But what would the placenames be? Florida, as it's defined entirely by natural features would likely still remain, but it's hard to define "Iowa" without state borderlines. And saying "The Mideast portion of the Great Plains" is both clunky and not all that descriptive.

>>92688

Is this really your biggest problem, faggot? We will use serial numbers.

>>92691

It's not a "problem," cool your autism. I'm already sold on ancapistan, I just want to have a discussion on what it may look like. And I thought place-names was an interesting one, since it's one of those things that has been tied with the state for so long, and in the US in particular; while the various regions and principalities of Europe have a tribal history behind a lot of their names, every state in the US has been named through government fiat. This isn't meant to be /leftypol/ whataboutism, just idle curiosity and what I hoped would be an interesting discussion.

>>92657

Germany was called Germany before it was a nation. Regions can have names even without a state. Obviously, you wouldn't use an area without defined borders for anything that requires clarity.

>>92692

Names are for noobs who don't know how to use a GPS.

>>92709

But what will you type into the GPS? Checkmate atheists.

Do you think there's a difference between freedom of association and people getting fired by their bosses over tweets and minor stuff? And is it freedom of association when some group makes bullshit claims against a company or Citibank will refuse to do business with customrers that are gun owners? Is this freedom of association in action or a perversion of it?

Am I losing my fucking mind or something? The leftists at my school have recently been campaigning and putting posters up around saying our premier is trying to pass an anti-protest law, and the only thing I've found is this article which says Ford is planning on cutting the funding of schools that don't support free-speech.

>The free-speech policies now required by Ontario’s government must mandate that schools remain open to discussion and free inquiry, should not shield students from ideas or opinions they find offensive and will not allow students or teachers to obstruct others from expressing their views. Hate speech that violates Canadian law will not be allowed.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-doug-ford-says-ontario-postsecondary-schools-will-require-free-speech/

>>93065

Reading that article it seems like it's only going to get worse over there.

Do you guys think people tend to conflate ethnicity and culture? I've noticed this more and more recently. Like there's a difference between a Japanese person from Japan and a 3rd generation Japanese-American. Ethnically they are the same yet culturally they are very different. Same if it's some white guy or hapa that happened to be born and raised in Japan despite not being full blooded Japanese.

a shepherd allows his sheep to graze on his neighbor's lawn, and as consequence he confiscates the sheep for himself. Who is in the wrong here?

>>93170

I'd say the shepherd started it. Though hopefully he'll learn his lesson and not do it again and hopefully negotiate the return of his sheep.

>>92693

I thought Germany got it's name from the Romans when they called it Germania when it was inhabited by a bunch of tribes.

Does accelerationism hold any value as a strategy to defeat the state?

Will anything come of Trump announcing he sides with Maduro's opposition?

>>94322

Experience suggests no. Commies have killed 110 million and counting, it hasn't stopped the commies from shilling for it.