[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / arepa / ausneets / tacos / vg / vichan / zoo ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 7ebddf136979ff5⋯.png (146.55 KB, 680x510, 4:3, 1513124915237.png)

 No.79137

 No.79183

>>79137

>December 2017

So where can we get a copy of this book?


 No.79201

>>79183

ich wiess nicht


 No.79305

File: b744cf8d951f12a⋯.jpg (70.4 KB, 802x630, 401:315, libertarianism is cultural….jpg)


 No.79306


 No.79313

>>79305

>I post someone's opinion and that means it is true.


 No.79316

>>79305

>freedom is Marxism

>lets cage our people and our race like animals, then everything will be fine!

It's not surprising but ironically moralfags are always the most evil, most hypocritical, most harmful force to ever exist in history. Every time large-scale atrocities are committed, it's always rooted in the desires that a low-IQ, highly emotional part of society wants to enforce upon others,.


 No.79317

File: cc8dbb0070a5bed⋯.jpg (101.35 KB, 960x560, 12:7, tyranny for the good of it….jpg)

>>79316

Always relevant.


 No.79367

>>79317

“All the same, the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like. Perhaps it gives us more than we can take. It tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Every one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one’s work is to produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to be no ‘swank’ or ‘side’, no putting on airs. To that extent a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience—obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly, it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding worry or anxiety as wrong. Courtesy is one of the Christian virtues; and the New Testament hates what it calls ‘busybodies’.

If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced’, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned—perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from the total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.

Now another point. There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest; and lending money at interest—what we call investment—is the basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians agreed in forbidding interest (or ‘usury’ as they called it), they could not foresee the joint stock company, and were only thinking of the private money-lender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about what they said. That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are in or not. This is where we want the Christian economist. But I should not have been honest if I had not told you that three great civilizations had agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which we have based our whole life.”

C.S. Lewis was NAZBOL


 No.79445

>>79317

HAHHAHAHAHAHAA you libertardians really are just marxists without taxes.


 No.79776

File: 8fc292fbd44c9fd⋯.jpg (171.79 KB, 1000x810, 100:81, 8fc.jpg)

>>79445

marxist:

>private property = bad

>rich people = bad

>money = bad

>individualism = bad

>free market = bad

>capitalism = bad

>state taking peoples assets through taxation for wealth redistribution and/or killing someone and seizing his/her property = good

storm fags:

>private property = bad

>rich people = bad

>money = bad

>individualism = bad

>free market = bad

>capitalism = bad

>state taking peoples assets through taxation for wealth redistribution and/or killing someone and seizing his/her property = good

libertarians:

>private property = good

>rich people = maybe good, maybe bad, but with the free market, I as a consumer can regulate these guys for their shitty behaviour

>money = good

>individualism = good

>free market = good

>capitalism = good

>state taking peoples assets through taxation for wealth redistribution and/or killing someone and seizing his/her property = bad

I guess you guys have more in common with Marxists than we do.


 No.79778

>>79776

storm fags:

>private property for Jews = bad

>private property for Aryans = good

>rich Jews = bad

>rich Aryans = good

>Jewish money = bad

>Aryan money = good

>Jewish individualism = bad

>Aryan individualism = good

>Jewish free market = bad

>Aryan free market = good

>Jewish capitalism = bad

>Aryan capitalism = good

>state taking peoples assets through taxation for wealth redistribution and/or killing someone and seizing his/her property = good, unless it's an Aryan


 No.79780

File: ca1361e933f9104⋯.jpg (7.29 KB, 207x253, 9:11, 14c.jpg)

>>79778

>our USSR style authoritarianism is OK because we are non authoritarian to some people who we like.

bad argument based on double standards, and even then its not even fucking true. white Germans had to pay high taxes to fund the welfare state. Germans who disagreed with Hitler were taken away by the SS along with the jew and had their property seized. Hitler banned hunting, lobster boiling, placed regulations on factory owners,created strict gun control laws, and censored books that he didn't like, he also outwardly spoke out against capitalism as a whole to get unions and lefties to support him. the Nazis had a different interpretation of private property where a property owner didn't truly own his property but rather was borrowing it from the state, meaning the government can take away a persons property if they did something the party didn't like.


 No.79788

>>79778

Commiefags:

>private property for Jews Bourgeoisie= bad

>private personal property for Aryans Proletariat= good

>rich Jews Bourgeoisie= bad

>rich Aryans Proletariat= good

>Jewish money = bad

>Aryan Proletariat money ""labor tokens""= good

>Jewish Bourgeoise individualism = bad

>Aryan Proletariat individualism = good

>Jewish Bourgeoise free market = bad

>Aryan Proletariat free market "muh from each according to ability, to each according to need"= good

>Jewish Bourgeoise capitalism = bad

>Aryan Proletariat capitalism "muh from each according to ability, to each according to need"= good

>state taking peoples assets through taxation for wealth redistribution and/or killing someone and seizing his/her property = good, unless it's an Aryan Proletariat Party Official

Real world of difference there, anon.


 No.79789

File: a678688fec4e9b3⋯.jpg (24.41 KB, 530x435, 106:87, a678688fec4e9b3cec4ffa15b6….jpg)

>>79776

I honestly don't understand the difference between the end goals of /pol/ and /leftypol/ besides the fact that /leftypol/ besides the obvious fact that /pol/ is racist and /leftypol/ isn't.


 No.79790

>>79788

What commies don't realize is the ultimate redpill that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are the same and that everybody is a capitalist.


 No.79795

>>79790

This.


 No.79987

>>79790

Yes but what people often don't understand about capitalism is it's only good as a tool and not a societies end goal or net outcome.


 No.79988

>>79987

inb4 that Keynesian retard comes and starts telling us to break windows in order for capitalism to exist


 No.79995

>>79987

>Yes but what people often don't understand about capitalism is it's only good as a tool and not a societies end goal or net outcome.

Practically speaking, what's the difference between those two? A completely free market is still the most efficient and ethical method of organizing a society, regardless of whether the participants are fervent supporters of free market ideals, or dispassionate actors who just acknowledge the market as the only thing that works.


 No.80010

>>79995

'i want a monopoly on force to enforce my theories'


 No.80012

File: 3d466d99d80c60e⋯.png (2.09 MB, 1400x1100, 14:11, ClipboardImage.png)

>>79995

I agree, free markets are definitely the best method of organizing society today, but we don't live just so that capitalism itself could continue to exist just like we don't break windows to stimulate the economy. As long as you are forced to participate in the market (life itself forces you to, because one way or another you need things from other people) capitalism will be the best method of organizing society but it is only a temporary solution until we reach the level of technology and automation to become entirely self-sufficient as individuals.

"The goal of humanity" you can say, is to reach the point where markets aren't needed anymore, we win the game when capitalism becomes obsolete.


 No.80024

>>80012

>post-scarcity society

I have to say I'm skeptical. Even if we all get replicators and holodecks, human demand is by its nature insatiable. Even if a majority of the population is content being NEETS, and never leaving their personal holodeck fantasy program, there are still going to be people who desire to engage the services of others, either for personal prestige, a subjective disdain for VR and replicated goods, or whatever reason. And the desire to attain these goods and services will necessarily create a market economy to provide for these people. I went into more autistic detail on this subject over here:

>>/strek/21018


 No.80025


 No.80079

>>80024

You're right, we will probably forever have to rely on other people for something, it might be impossible to become entirely self-sufficient but it's still a good thing to move in that direction. Post-scarcity is the end-game of capitalism, and if you're wise, you would be trying to achieve a post-scarcity situation at least in your own life.


 No.85381

>>85379

No they can not, without refund unless. it is the whole idea of renting, idiot.


 No.85382

>>85381

fuck, wrong thread


 No.85460

>>79789

That's essentially it; I argued a while back that they both ultimately want to live under a dictatorship and that fundamental desire for dictatorship is the ideology in itself, with Nazism and Communism acting as patinas. They're left leaning and right leaning authoritarians. The false dichotomy arises from the fact that authoritarians are naturally hostile towards any differences in methodology, even those of other authoritarians, and will therefore look to differentiate themselves to the point of contrivance.


 No.85533

>>85460

what about nazbol? is it right or left right authoritarianism?


 No.85538

>>85533

It's a good example of the contrivance of the two.

There is too much of a tendency to say “x is Nazi! or x is Communist!” and to then discuss the issues of authority present, when we should be saying that x is firstly authoritarian, and Nazism or Communism, or whatever, is its secondary characteristic. We have allowed authoritarians to mask themselves with loaded terminology; this is why ostensibly "liberal" governments are able to get away with the gradual implementation of more and more authoritarian policies today. We don't have our eye on the ball; we're vigilant, but our vigilance is directed at ghosts.


 No.85540

File: 78499e292bf38eb⋯.jpg (77.69 KB, 765x570, 51:38, 5a9c490266ef6785f3574c4096….jpg)

>>85538

This is an example of a high IQ post.


 No.85546

>>85538

Excellent post, and an interesting thought.

I've been saying for some time that we should not indulge Marxists or Nazis too much when they bring up their totally unique ideological differences. It doesn't matter if you're a syndicalist, a guild socialist, a market socialist or a socialist, your ideas won't work and the way towards them will look the same. The only question is whether the resulting fuckup will be huge or completely devastating.

You're going farther than I do, I would say a bit too far, as there's still some differences between different authoritarians. Overrated differences, though, and mostly ones that are matters of degree. The Nazis destroyed fewer churches than the Soviets because atheism wasn't part of their ideology, while the Soviets didn't systematically exterminate mentally ill patients. In practice, the Nazis had plans to create a new state religion, and the Soviets probably killed far more patients, just not systematically. Those questions would mostly be of academic interest, though. And psychologically, Nazism and Marxism are probably far more alike than they are different, so treating them that way is only fair.


 No.85633

>>85538

why do you call both authoritarian and not totalitarian?


 No.85639

>>85633

Authoritarianism is an ideology, while totalitarianism is a practice. Theoretically, you could be authoritarian while being a lot less totalitarian then expected, though this is generally present for a short time, if any.


 No.85645

>>85639

Authoritarianism is when a government or a party is only concerned with keeping power and couldn't care any less what happens to the people. Totalitarianism is when a government not only wants to keep power, but also control every aspect of people's lives.


 No.85657

>>85645

>is only concerned with keeping power and couldn't care any less what happens to the people

No, authoritarianism is enforcing policies onto people, they do care, especially as people are their main resource.

>Totalitarianism is when a government not only wants to keep power, but also control every aspect of people's lives.

Since when government would not? Especially authoritarian government. Its very survival is dependent on the people's belief in it, it is only natural for govt to try to reinforce it. Again, totalitarianism is not an ideology, but a practice of total control over people.


 No.85734

>>85645

>Authoritarianism is when a government or a party is only concerned with keeping power and couldn't care any less what happens to the people.

so why authoritarianism sounds like authority? no connection between the two?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / arepa / ausneets / tacos / vg / vichan / zoo ]