/liberty/ - Liberty

>>79514

>So what exactly was this guy's beef with science fiction aficionados

You tell me. This is the first time I've heard about anything like that.

>>79516

He called Star Wars a "cartoony, comic-strip movie," and I don't think he was a fan of 2001 either. According to Tom Woods on his latest podcast, he hated the kind of people we call "sci fi nerds" God I'm loathe to use that term since Big Bazinga Theory, which is kind of ironic given the demographics of libertarianism today.

>>79517

>He called Star Wars a "cartoony, comic-strip movie,"

Sounds about right to me.

>and I don't think he was a fan of 2001 either

I'd disagree with him there, but I'm still interested in the reason why he didn't like it.

>he hated the kind of people we call "sci fi nerds"

Given that demographic's tendency to circlejerk over post scarcity, I can't exactly fault him for this either.

>>79517

I really wish people would seperate science fiction and science fantasy.

Science Fiction = usually good

Science Fantasy = magical bubbly shit that normalfags watch

>>79514

There was an essay Rothbard wrote on "modal libertarians". He characterized them with their love of sci-fi, among other things, but he didn't say explicitly why he found this disdainful. I figured from the text, though, that he didn't like that all they read was sci-fi, and that they had zero regard for culture, which includes other forms of literature. He was a historian too, after all, so it only makes sense he wouldn't hold people in high regard who try to live in the future and forget the past.

>>79529

Name was left over from /monarchy/, kek.

>>79517

If he has anything against Dune, I will officially renounce libertarianism.

>>79522

>Given that demographic's tendency to circlejerk over post scarcity, I can't exactly fault him for this either.

You're not wrong, but isn't that a comparatively recent phenomenon? They may have been vaguely to the left before, bu it seems like sci-fi wasn't as politicized in his day. Also, this kind of entertainment is quite popular throughout the decidedly right-wing 8chan.

>>79526

There is a difference, and you're right in that a lot of modern science fiction has completely abandoned the speculative fiction half of sci-fi. That being said I would contend that science fantasy, provided it's well-done (and aware that it's fantasy in space and not sci-fi), has the potential for value within it and shouldn't be dismissed simply for being science fantasy.

>>79529

>he didn't like that all they read was sci-fi, and that they had zero regard for culture

That makes a far bit of sense. Thinking about it, I would suggest also that Rothbard in his activism probably saw it as a kind of escapism, removing oneself from the crimes committed by the state instead of trying to act against them.

>>79536

Well Dune is about a space imperium which is the opposite of ancap

>>79514

Is he a good Jew?

>>79557

>You're not wrong, but isn't that a comparatively recent phenomenon

Star trek for example has always been utopian commie shit.

>>79627

Well, you got me there. I'm used to /strek/, where the Feddies are an Orwellian dystopia and Dukat did nothing wrong.

>>79565

I thought Herbert was a libertarian and the whole point of writing Dune was to make statism look bad?

>>79666

Holy shit that post wasn't meant to be satanic.

>>79666

>>79668

Dune had a lot of themes in it I've only read the first three and part of four so excuse me if I'm missing information, but where do you see anti-statist sentiment? There's a lot in there about being self-sufficient, which is in some ways a libertarian ideal, but at one point an objectively superior being took control of the whole of humanity to guide it to the future. Or is the message that nobody should be allowed this power, because in reality we're not living computers with prescient memory.

>>79514

I don't really think that's an opinion that was held just by Rothbard or even a result of libertarian beliefs. I don't know much about literary criticism but I do know that generally sci-fi stuff has been generally disdained by a lot of critics for its needless use of scientific sounding jargon and really simplistic plots and themes. Though, this is what I've heard I never really found sci-fi interesting so I never read anything outside of Dune and some Halo novels (which were pretty bad) so I can say for certain if this is true.

>>79676

> being self-sufficient

> a libertarian ideal

How come libertarians never understand their own ideology? Libertarianism is based on interdependence, otherwise there would be no trade, no capitalism, no prosperity. Self-sufficiency is anti-capitalist.

>>79666

Heil Satan. Also the space-worm emperor of the galaxy crushing the spirit of humanity for ten thousand years in order to drive a hatres of statism into their very genes seems at least somewhat /liberty/

>>79724

Yes, it is a libertarian ideal. You don't understand what both libertarianism and capitalism is nor what the word "interdependence" means.

Not going in to too many details, from the capitalist's point of view (and when I say "the capitalist" I'm talking about YOU and ME, the ordinary working man, not some fat guy in a top hat), you want to become as independent as possible because the more you rely on other people, the more money you have to spend to use their services, YOUR end goal as a capitalist, as a human being is to own the "means of production" because (for example) owning your own house and land is obviously more profitable than paying rent all your life, allowing you to spend money on other things. This is the meaning of the word interdependence, when you are already independent and based on that independence you choose to use your surplus to either serve or buy services from other people. You can't be interdependent without being independent first and independence is synonymous with liberty.

Paying other people to give you a comfy life is obviously better than relying on a government to provide you these things, but it is still a form of dependence. If you think capitalism is all about acquiring debts and working in wageslave jobs to buy useless products and pay rents and bills all your life then you are not a capitalist, or at least not a very financially literate one.

>>79744

>self-sufficiency means being dependent on everyone but the government

I guess it works if you redefine the meaning of every single word to suit your agenda.

Capitalism works because of the social division of labour, that's why it is so successful and why we live in prosperity today. Dependence is what makes capitalism work. If people were self-sufficient there would be no capitalism, no society and everyone would live in poverty.

>>79529

>muh genre differentiation

>if only we could gatekeep properly everything would be alright and those filthy casuels and normalgafs would keep out REEE

Hilarious. Your kind of thinking has dominated SF-F for ages and turned into the ghettoizedm irrelevant wreck it is today.

>>79770

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I take it. Also,

>leftist

>bitching about redefining words

Expect many rocks to be flung at your glass house.

>>79771

You're technically correct, but capitalism also works because everyone is seeking self-sufficiency, in the same vein that all humans are constantly seeking a state of total satisfaction (a la Mises). We're interdependent strictly out of necessity, trading for those things we can't produce, or can't produce efficiently. But we're constantly trying to acquire more assets, develop greater skillsets, to tip the balance in our favor. We never achieve it, because the most efficient thing to do is usually to specialize in one area rather than generalize in many, but we're always striving for it.

>>79775

Why do you assume that I'm a leftist? Just because I understand capitalism?

Capitalism works so well because you are incentivized to do what you are good at, to specialize. Since everyone specializes, does what they are good at and depend on each other for everything else, everyone ends up with a much higher quality of life compared to trying to halfass everything themselves. If people strive to be self-sufficient, it is despite capitalism, not because of it.

>>79770

That's not what I wrote. Before talking about words, learn to read, you illiterate dumbass.

>>79771

Dependence on others is a necessity but it isn't a good thing in and of itself and neither is "capitalism" the goal that you would want to achieve, it is just a means by which we achieve the true goal, which is independence. If people were fully independent, if they were gods or if the had an army of robots serving them, there would be no need for capitalism anymore except in limited cases.

You're very wrong with this whole "capitalism for capitalism's sake" thing and you're closer to corporatism with this mentality.

>>79777

Don't be ridiculous. Isn't it good that you have internet in your house and you don't have to go to some internet cafe or some library or something use it? Isn't it good that you have shower in your own house instead of going to a bathhouse like the Romans did?

Yes, it's impossible to become fully self-sufficient, and yes, the reason we depend on others is so that we don't half-ass things ourselves. But that is the reason we work and earn money - to become self-sufficient, so that one day we could have the means to not rely on others for a lot of the expensive services we use, or at least so that we could retire and not have anyone else depend on us for our labour.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

>>79514

reading fiction is for girls and faggots

>>79794

What the fuck are you even talking about? I can have Internet and showers in my own house precisely because I'm not self-sufficient. Do you have any idea how many people's work you depend on for those? How many people work together just to maintain the plumbing in your house, not to mention the insane amount of people that is necessary for the infrastructure and devices necessary for the Internet? Do you not understand what self-sufficiency and dependency means?

>>79724

It's not an either/or. You can choose to associate with as many people as you want. It's not based on "interdependence". It's based on solving conflicts over scarce means. It doesn't say you HAVE to trade with anybody. You're thinking of Anarcho Communism.

>>79802

t. never read a book in his life

>>79805

Geez, are you fucking dense or is English not your first language, lad?

>>79822

I'm not a native speaker.

>>79817

untrue

>>79827

Damn foreigners

>>79536

why do so many ancaps like dune?

>In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores issues regarding children's rights in terms of self-ownership and contract. These include support for a woman's right to abortion, condemnation of parents showing aggression towards children, and opposition to the state forcing parents to care for children. He also holds children have the right to run away from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He asserted that parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract in what Rothbard suggests will be a "flourishing free market in children". He believes that selling children as consumer goods in accord with market forces, while "superficially monstrous", will benefit "everyone" involved in the market: "the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing".

In Rothbard's view of parenthood, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights." Thus, Rothbard stated that parents should have the legal right to let any infant die by starvation, and should be free to engage in other forms of child neglect. However, according to Rothbard, "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children". In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum".

Economist Gene Callahan of Cardiff University, formerly a scholar at the Rothbard-affiliated Mises Institute, observes that Rothbard allows "the logical elegance of his legal theory" to "trump any arguments based on the moral reprehensibility of a parent idly watching her six-month-old child slowly starve to death in its crib."

lol

>>80524

Because Dune requires a high enough IQ to appreciate, which ancaps conveniently have.

>>80524

Because they are crypto-feudalists.

>>79522

>I'd disagree with him there, but I'm still interested in the reason why he didn't like it.

If I had to guess I'd say it was tied to his personal dislike of the space program. Rothbard frequently referred to the Apollo program and other NASA ventures as modern pyramid-building, a claim that admittedly has a lot of validity.

>>80524

Because it's good, but it's longer than 140 characters. Who else is going to read something like that?

>>80527

I've always disagreed with Rothbard's views on parenting. Bringing a child into existence is a conscious decision on the part of the parents; the child has no say at all in the matter. The parents know full well that the child will not be able to fend for itself. Given that they are the ones who decided to have a child, they are the ones who should be held liable for the consequences of that decision. "Accidental" pregnancies are no excuse, either: people know damn well what happens when benis goes in bagina.

Bringing life into existence that is unable to support its own existence implies a duty of care on the part of those responsible for doing so. After all, without such a duty (and the necessary authority that goes with it), what right did they have to make such a decision on the infant's behalf in the first place? Without the parents' authority to make decisions on behalf of the child, conception, giving birth, and everything that occurs in-between, could easily be considered a violation of the infant's rights. In that scenario, parenthood performed to an adequate standard seems like fair compensation.

Human beings are not fungible, and treating a newborn baby the same as a fully-grown adult is just ridiculous.

>>80632

Lots of people read regardless of their political views.

>>80632

Parents generally don't want their kids to die slowly and having a legal obligation to keep a kid alive wouldn't stop people from abusing or harming children considering most of the time people who do that are suffering from some mental malfunction. The reason kids are taken care of by their parents today isn't because of a legal penalty if they fail to do so but just because parents generally like their kids and want them to be healthy and happy and if they aren't caring for their children it isn't because the laws aren't harsh enough it's because the parent is messed up. In any free society I couldn't imagine other people standing around while a child is abused considering I live in a world where child abusers are murdered in jail and socially ostracized for far less.

There's a bit of conditioning when you live in a society of coercion where you begin to think that if there isn't the implicit threat of violence then everyone would become infanticidal and generally immoral. I think that is really naive.

>>80642

This.

Did he ever interact with Heinlein? He was a sci-fi writer and a libertarian.

>>80692

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein#Politics

> Heinlein considered himself a libertarian

Nice

> After 1945, he came to believe that a strong world government was the only way to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation.

> He was among those who in 1968 signed a pro-Vietnam War ad in Galaxy Science Fiction.

lmao right, """libertarian"""

>>80701

Huh didn't know that. I knew The Moon is a harsh mistress had libertarian themes in it though.

>>80719

I thought Heinlein was just giving credence to each majorly ideology since Starship Troopers has some fascist undertones and Stranger in a Strange Land is disgustingly communist

>>80715

To be fair, Rothbard also posited that a child can run away from its 'owner,' which tends to put him above the shit-tier variety of post-90s spam-leftist.

Authoritarian socialism is the only true pedo ideology, though. "Is property of children's soviet, comrade."

>>80733

I still enjoyed reading Stranger in a Strange Land despite the commie undertones. I'll also admit that my enjoyment of it increased a bit when I learned how mega-ultra triggered feminists get over it.

So Rothbard's personal library has a copy of Das Kapital in it, which includes his notes and annotations. In one of the margins, next to a paragraph, is just the word "gay" underlined.

>>88379

lmao, I might start taking that Jew seriously from now on.

>>79676

>at one point an objectively superior being took control of the whole of humanity to guide it to the future

Leading to millenia of stagnation which finally ended in his death, which in turn created a huge explosion of human population across the stars all according to the golden path he saw.

>2018

>not being a left-rothbardian

https://invisiblemolotov.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ma1.pdf

>All Power to the Soviets: Murray Rothbard