/liberty/ - Liberty

>>74296

>Third wave feminism along with many cultural marxist (or at the very least, phenomenons that would broadly be considered Cultural marxist in general nature) are ultimately the result of public schools and government interference with education.

That's also a good point.

>More like the S. to the H. to the I. to the T. GermanAnon

And this.

If I don't like you don't come on my property or I'll shoot you, how's that for a social incentive? I don't give a damn about the 'West' or European culture and I certainly don't want the state intervening to protect it, let it die.

>>74294

>but still dependent on his money

i think we dont have this cancer in europe hopefully

>>74322

>i think we dont have this cancer in europe hopefully

What the fuck, anon? How can you be so ignorant? Do you know what alimony is? Child payment? Divorce laws? Wife gets half, remember?

This alone is probably one of the most civilization-destroying incentives there is.

>>74300

>Ich bin Deutschanon, du Hurensohn.

No, you can only speak a bit of German, but you aren't German.

>Having a government is also a bad per se, pdf related.

Do you think certain morality laws have a place in a transition period to a better system?

I mean you can't just drop all rules at once. I mean in particular reference to marriage.

>>74296

>More like the S. to the H. to the I. to the T. GermanAnon

Rude.

> Most governments are aware of how incentives work

Then why are socialist dictatorships, whose ruler(s) have a long-term interest in power always on the clear decline, if they are aware how incentives work?

>Why should I be forced or have others be forced to pay for laws

How is declaring that the wife has no right to demand the assets of the husband through divorce paying for a law?

How is regulating marriage something you have to pay for?

>>74325

>I mean you can't just drop all rules at once. I mean in particular reference to marriage.

I would say that this more then anything else is something you could drop all the rules for, considering there are already tons of people who live in "lawless" marriages, where legally speaking they are not married but they went to a church and wear wedding rings

there are also people faithful to eachother without a church involved, even having and raising kids

the only parties you need for a marriage is the marrying parties, nothing else is necessary and in the case of a state I would go so far as to say it has a very long and well established track record of being detrimental

>>74325

>Do you think certain morality laws have a place in a transition period to a better system?

>I mean you can't just drop all rules at once. I mean in particular reference to marriage.

Hoppe shows that removing antidiscrimination laws (thus allowing men to exercise their freedoms of association and dissociation), and reducing/eliminating public property is very effective at incentivizing 'moral' behavior. Certainly much more so than trying to legislate morality by committee.

>Then why are socialist dictatorships, whose ruler(s) have a long-term interest in power always on the clear decline, if they are aware how incentives work?

These rulers are incentivized by their own welfare, not the state of their country as a whole. They may know that they're ruling over a banana republic, but they assume whoever replaces them will be the one to deal with that.

>>74326

>>74327

>considering there are already tons of people who live in "lawless" marriages

But in non common law countries they often still have a few laws applied to them. In Germany you need to pay the Arbeitslosengeld for 1 year, if she doesn't find a job.

And of course then all that gets thrown out the window when you have kids, because that applies whether or not you are married.

And personally at that point you might as well marry her, when you have kids.

>Hoppe shows that removing antidiscrimination laws (thus allowing men to exercise their freedoms of association and dissociation)

That's not enough. Look, I would totally support contractual freedom and if people were able to still have real legal marriages by them just being able to write whatever they want into their marriage contract.

But that is completly unthinkable at this point.

>Arbeitslosengeld

please explain what this is, if you dont mind, I can see your greater point here without knowing what this is, but I am curious

>they have to pay a fine for being together

how is this kept track of?

>That's not enough. Look, I would totally support contractual freedom and if people were able to still have real legal marriages by them just being able to write whatever they want into their marriage contract.

I dont think you get it, I would attribute it to a language barrier but you english as actually pretty good so I am just going to shout it to you since I dont know why you cant understand it PEOPLE LITERALLY ALREADY DO THIS, WHY IS IT UNTHINKABLE

>>74294

One thing that guys at /pol/ don't understand is that responsibility is power, when you surrender your responsibilities to someone else, you are also surrendering your power to them and emasculating yourself. If you are the one responsible for defending your own home, then you can shoot any nigger that breaks in to rape your girlfriend because there will be no state to say that you are racist and that you should have locked yourself in the bathroom and waited for the cops like a little bitch. Even if it's some right wing government, they will still find a way to fuck with your life if you give them the power to do it, maybe they will start invading other white European countries, maybe they will even install a nigger dictator just like /pol/ has a nigger moderator and no one will be able to do jack shit about it.

When you take away the government's power to fuck with society then things will just go back to their natural state, women will go back to being submissive helpers, niggers will go back to being in Africa, white men will go back to being self-reliant alphas and not soyboy cucks because the system that supported all of this has collapsed.

>german anon

Also why is everyone on /pol/ German? I mean there has to be some French, Italians, Bongs, Scandinavians, Spaniards, and other Europeans. Why does everyone LARP as a German?

>>74331

>please explain what this is, if you dont mind, I can see your greater point here without knowing what this is, but I am curious

It's free gibs when you are unemployed.

>how is this kept track of?

No, if she can't find a job than you are responsible for paying her those gibs instead of the goverment.

You also have to live together for some time for that to apply.

In common law countries that stuff is way more severe. While in the past common law used to be the more "free" legal system, now it makes it so that the goverment forcefully marries you two.

>PEOPLE LITERALLY ALREADY DO THIS, WHY IS IT UNTHINKABLE

I want you to tell me, if you really think that people can just write stuff into their marriage contract and it counts.

It doesn't in most cases. I read that in Mark Zuckerburg's contract he wrote in that his asian gf should fuck him every month (or every 2nd week, I don't recall exactly).

Or let's not even take that example, but if she cheats. Do you think that when she just wants to divorce him, the courts will literally give her nothing? No half of his stuff (okay, he probably has that in his contract and sometimes this seems to be respected), but also zero alimony, no access to any possible kids as well?

I would even agree that it might be kinda unfair to never let her see her kids again in that case. But the Schuldfrage (question of fault) is a practice that has been completly abandoned in the west for decades now.

It doesn't matter, who has cheated on whom. It doesn't matter if anyone breaks any clauses in the marriage contract. All that stuff doesn't matter, feminism pushed for no-fault divorce, with the wife still being able to get all her rights.

>>74345

>One thing that guys at /pol/ don't understand is that responsibility is power, when you surrender your responsibilities to someone else, you are also surrendering your power to them and emasculating yourself.

I understand that. I really don't like the self-defence laws in europe for this reason.

Even though the law itself in Germany is actually in theory incredibly pro defender. "Das Rechts darf nicht dem Unrecht weichen" Righteousness mustn't give way to injustice.

But in effect that is the case, because they expect you to just flee and hide like a bitch.

>maybe they will start invading other white European countries

I doubt it for 3 reasons. The moral attitude of the population, who would really not prefer a war in any situation. The american supremacy. And nuclear weapons. France would not like us invading Poland again.

>When you take away the government's power to fuck with society then things will just go back to their natural state, women will go back to being submissive helpers

Okay, I'll just assume that you describe minarchism there and not anarcho-capitalism.

Since you want some sort of court system, there would still be laws about marriage.

I mean it wouldn't just be nothing. Not every marriage is perfect and you need a mediator to solve conflicts.

>Also why is everyone on /pol/ German?

Are they though?

I can literally speak German as you can see and I live here, so I am not just some American with german heritage.

>>74364

> Just because they understand incentives and the impact it has doesn't necessarily mean they understand economics

Anon, incentives and economics are very closely linked together. Let's just look at unemployment benefits. The Socialist looks at 5% unemployment, which is a certain number of people. He redistributes X amount of ressources to these people and he calculates this into his budget.

The person who understands incentives will realize that this action would increase the number of unemployed people, who rather collect benefits than work and that suddenly you have less money available to spend and further expenses. That also means you can't accurately calculate your budget.

Look at Venezuela. They for years invested all their earnings into household items. They gave their population microwaves and other shit, instead of developing their infrastructure so you might be able to pump more oil or maybe even some factories, who are going to do stuff with the oil like refine it.

Now people don't even have enough to eat and it's like you might as well never have given them that stuff.

> It's not.

Sorry, I guess I shouldn't directly translate common phrases into English and expect it to have the same meaning. I wanted to say something like "What if/how would you like it if that was a law?".

> Marriage licenses, the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy required for a marriage, etc are all things that we have to pay for in the modern marriage.

Okay, but if that is your problem with it than you cannot maintain a court. I guess you are an ancap then, right?

You should choose what you want to argue for ancap or minarchism. But not both at once.

I am also interested in talking with you about transitory states, before it's pure police/courts/military minarchism.

>>74325

>What the fuck, anon? How can you be so ignorant? Do you know what alimony is? Child payment? Divorce laws? Wife gets half, remember?

>child payment

children are supposed to get the money

>wife gets half

only if husband agreed to share budget with her

>>74410

>children are supposed to get the money

Yeah, but you might as well properly marry her then, if you have kids.

>only if husband agreed to share budget with her

Sure.

>>74421

Yeah, I agree. But it's weird saying that you know how incentives works as a Socialist, because then you kinda wouldn't be a Socialist honestly.

>>74365

>Anon, incentives and economics are very closely linked together.

That doesn't mean they're the same thing. Incentives play a huge role in economics but an understanding of incentives does not inherently mean that you understand economics. It doesn't even imply that they see certain incentives (such as those that occur in a free market) as beneficial, some people genuinely see the pursuit of one's incentives in a free market as a morally evil thing. That doesn't mean that they necessarily understand the implication of what comes next or even what would happen without this fulfillment of incentives.

>I wanted to say something like "What if/how would you like it if that was a law?".

It wouldn't really need to be one.

>kay, but if that is your problem with it than you cannot maintain a court.

> I guess you are an ancap then, right?

I genuinely don't understand what you're grasping at here? Maybe something got lost in translation?