[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / cafechan / fur / htg / hypno / strek / vg / zoo ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = 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
Password (For file and post deletion.)

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: 8a0bd302b2c7f6b⋯.jpg (82.34 KB, 1400x569, 1400:569, ancap.jpg)

 No.80349

so yes, I get that methodological individualism is the best way to explain things and the collective isn't something that physically exists. However that doesn't change the fact that humans have collectivist tendencies that change how they act; they are tribal creatures that want to be part of a group, whether that's a nation state or a football team. So knowing that, in an anarcho-capitalist society, what replaces the nation state as an object of people's nationalistic tendencies?

 No.80350

>>80349

*there


 No.80353

File: 00bac6f9db7af14⋯.mp4 (917.07 KB, 468x352, 117:88, memelurking.mp4)

You're allowed to freely associate in any way you want. The main thing about ancap is that all association is voluntary. So you have the option to opt out of any community you disagree with. You didnt even try with this thread.


 No.80357

>>80353

shitty response that doesn't answer the question. Association is voluntary, so what, what are you going to associate with? A football team?


 No.80358

>>80357

Friends, family, work, militias, book clubs, hippie communes, neighborhood watch groups, you're allowed to choose anything you want.


 No.80362

File: dc5945a1fd932d3⋯.png (51.16 KB, 500x302, 250:151, tassation-is-thef-mike-ayn….png)

>>80349

While it is true that humans have collective tendencies, and will form into groups, they usually do so with self gain being a priority. the mistake that many ideological collectivists make (especially within alt right and communist circles), is fusing collectivism with ideas of altruism or putting the group/nation/people before the self, as opposed to working within natural social hierarchies to get something that you want. this mentality is dangerous because it leads to collectives forcing individuals to involuntarily do things they do not want to do, or otherwise surprising them. for instance, do you really think that McDonald employees genuinely care about expanding the McEmpire? probably not. the employee is just trying to make money and both they and the boss know it. so the employee gives the business his labour and the CEO line the employees pocket with shekels. fair, voluntary, capitalist, individualist collectivism is the only acceptable collectivism in Ancapistan.


 No.80370

>>80362

Self gain is the evolutionary reasoning behind being part of a group but that's not the conscious motivating factor for people within it. And collectives don't necessarily force people to do something they want to, you can have a collective based on Libertarian ideals that respect the rights of its constituents.

And there's nothing wrong with having ideas of altruism within a collective, so long as the altruism is voluntary. Indeed it's something that's good and necessary, you need people to die for the cause and martyr themselves, and indeed otherwise you could destroy the collective by making it more profitable for its constituents to betray it. Being a Libertarian isn't about being a hedonist, because if you're purely about self-interest it's not that hard to game the system to your advantage. It's about believing in the ideals of Liberty even if that goes against your self interest.


 No.80371

>>80370

>muh greater good


 No.80372

>>80371

>muh non argument


 No.80384

>>80358

i would like to congregate according to values/interests/hobbies/philosophies and i would like it to be common in ancap


 No.80396

>>80349

Biologically, the only collectives humans belong to are their family, their tribe and their race. It's not voluntary to join these collectives, rather, you are already part of them by default and it is voluntary for you to leave them. Modern society is too big to be considered a "tribe" and that's why people choose their neighborhood, the district they live in, their school, their fraternity, their army unit, their company, their fanclub, etc… as tribes they belong to, especially if there's a hazing process involved.

When it comes to race, people also choose those of their own race and language to associate with. You can of course try to be smart and say that "I would rather try and associate with everyone who I like, and not just people who look like me" but that's a retarded mentality that's only found among white people exposed to cultural Marxist propaganda in the past 70 years, every other race associates with people like themselves first, before anyone else.

Human beings aren't ants and we're not totally individualists either, the individualist/collectivist question is a false dichotomy meant to trap people and how important your affiliation is to a certain group should always depend on context. In my opinion the priorities should be: Yourself > the family > the tribe > the hometown > the language group > the subrace > the race > the planet.


 No.80399

File: 69d21d147604cef⋯.jpg (846.22 KB, 2560x1688, 320:211, region-web-map-WORLD-large.jpg)

File: 9ed57624998cd85⋯.jpg (41.34 KB, 640x626, 320:313, 6a8d21ebc23c7324e80e543501….jpg)

File: bfe4f2b37438227⋯.png (365.29 KB, 680x544, 5:4, b2c.png)

>>80370

while I agree that acts voluntary altruism such as charities are fine, the kind of altruism I'm talking about is the kind where the collective must suppress, forcefully steal from, or otherwise harm Individuals for the good of the collective. these forms of altruism include taxation, drafting, getting the state to seize the means of production and killing those you deem undesirable, and or forcing them to leave their private property.

>if you're purely about self-interest it's not that hard to game the system to your advantage.

this is not true. putting your own happiness first does not mean you have to exploit and back stab everyone within the collective for personal gain, as long as that collective is able to secure a decent quality of life for individuals within the collective. take the USSR for example, when the union was about to fall, people were so eager to get away from the shitty collective that starved and oppressed them, that when some generals organized a coup to dispose of the politicians disbanding the USSR, people actually joined hands to create a wall around those government buildings to stop the tanks. the Berlin wall fell accidentally when some soviet official accidentally said it would fall too early, causing lots of people to go out with sledge hammers and remove the wall themselves. In the case of America, students weren't becoming commies in the 80s, its only now that student debt is driving millennials into what they see as poverty (never would have happened if it wasn't for the government handing out student loans, driving up college prices due to more easily available money) that millennials are becoming commies. an understanding of how people turn against collectives when quality of life becomes low was key to Truman's marshal plan, which sought to prevent potential trading partners becoming communists by giving aid to war torn European countries so that people had no reason to attempt a 1917 style revolution.

capitalism in many ways is ideal since it is a system in which you must help people (through employment or through the sale of consumer goods, etc) in order to gain anything thus harnessing people's selfish nature in a way that benefits everyone. no other system has been anywhere near as successful in securing a good quality of life as shown in this map. in this system manipulative behavior, is usually punished by the market since most consumers will not go to businesses that sell them dysfunctional garbage at a high price. cheating the system to your advantage only occurs when the state creates monopolies through tax breaks, stimulus packages, government subsidies, nationalization, regulations, patents and business licences as well as killing off small business who cant keep up with taxation, since without any risk of going out of business, big companies have no intensive to not screw over their consumer base for profit. as such the state is what is holding capitalism back from its full potential.

>you need people to die for the cause and martyr themselves

>>>/islam/


 No.80400

>>80399

what the fuck happened with my green text?


 No.80402

>>80372

"The Greater Good" is a nonsensical statement. It's purely arbitrary. There's no need to argue further with it besides pointing it out. Which makes your reply twice as stupid.


 No.80404

File: 066da73ea4dbf42⋯.jpg (68.89 KB, 710x982, 355:491, 066da73ea4dbf4295601c550cd….jpg)

>>80349

>>80384

You shitpost on a privately owned imageboard like this one dummy.


 No.80405


 No.80415

>>80349

Just plain the nation, without a state, or your community. Same as in ancient times. The idea that people ought to belong to a state with millions of inhabitants is very new. It coincided with the disintegration of the traditional family, local authority, and religious identity.


 No.80426

>>80399

>(((civic))) nationalism

>western (american) supremacy

Good meme, besides those two points.


 No.80435

>>80402

No, it's not arbitrary. If you care purely about self interest, you're not a Libertarian you're a hedonist.


 No.80438

>>80435

>No, it's not arbitrary

If the Greater Good is not arbitrary, where does it stop? If I predict I can save an average of three lives through murdering a random homeless man and harvesting his organs, does that not serve the Greater Good™? And on top of the lives saved I'll be reducing the poverty rate by reducing the number of people in poverty, and I'll be making the city look cleaner and more friendly for all the other residents. What's not to like? If you claim that this form of serving the Greater Good™ is not acceptable but your form of serving it is perfectly fine, then you're being arbitrary.

>If you care purely about self interest, you're not a Libertarian you're a hedonist.

I agree that hedonism is degenerate and most hedonists have no care for the concept of liberty further than as a means to facilitate their next dopamine rush, and if they decide that the Democrats are better suited to providing this they will turn their coat without hesitation. That being said, personal quality of character, while a desirable trait in libertarians, is by no means a prerequisite for being one. As long as you're completely self-consistent in abiding by the NAP you can be a libertarian, whether you're a productive member of society or just a libertine.


 No.80449

>>80438

>it's being arbitrary to say that martyring yourself for some greater good is fine but killing homeless people is not


 No.80459

>>80438

The bigger problem is who has the authority to decide what the "greater good" is. There is no such thing as good in itself. Concepts of good and bad can exist only in relation to other states of being and are completely subjective. Libertarianism does not allow for the "Social Contract". Nobody can be born in debt. Especially an indefinite kind which has to be paid all your life and can end only when you die.


 No.80467

>>80438

Yeah, basically any form of consequentialism fails basic moral dilemmas. Short of omniscience, there is no way to evaluate any immoral action as being justified because the consequences, even if they could retroactively make such an action morally good, cannot be fully known.


 No.80479

What's the point in arguing about hypothetical scenarios that will never become reality?


 No.80480

File: a575d76f2323b9a⋯.webm (551 KB, 512x384, 4:3, Where_do_you_think_we_are.webm)

>>80479

>he posts this

>on the ancapistan board


 No.80531

>>80449

It is being arbitrary. Putting it in greentext isn't going to change that. Wherever the line is drawn, it is an arbitrary one. Any time before "no restrictions at all" is potentially preventing more good from being done, which itself wouldn't be for the greater good.

This doesn't mean everyone should be a conniving dickstabbing fucker, because that doesn't actually serve anyone well. Nor does it mean no one can do something charitable for 'no reason' (other than the good feeling it gives them, or the reputation, or something like that).


 No.80538

>they are tribal creatures that want to be part of a group, whether that's a nation state or a football team.

Prove it.

>>80353

This. You can associate if you want to.


 No.80558

>>80402

The greater good is very clear. It is simply how the world would be run if it was the property of a single corporation.


 No.80566

File: 4d4dea8b60a5037⋯.pdf (203.04 KB, Economic Calculation in th….pdf)


 No.80567

>>80566

>Companies can't exist because they don't use a market to solve the calculation problem internally.

jejejejej




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / cafechan / fur / htg / hypno / strek / vg / zoo ]