[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / cafechan / canada / flutter / general / htg / magali / roze ]

/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: dadcc0c7d12559a⋯.png (141.02 KB, 500x566, 250:283, dadcc0c7d12559adaa3b827005….png)

 No.81620

Alternative title: why do you allways go for Marxist assholes instead of nice guys like us.

To specify, I am talking specifically about the queer faggots who would rather ally themselves with statist commies (USSR/Maoist china apologists as well as labour party fags) than ancaps, right wing agorists, minarchists or other libertarian right ideologies, and then accuse right libertarians of always siding with fascists over them, even though it has always been right libertarians who extend an olive branch to left libertarians and not the other way round. I know allot of you, don't peddle this "left unity" shit, and if this describes you than this thread is not for you.

I hope you realize that statist commies have historically betrayed you guys at every turn throughout history preventing you from creating and maintaining ancom societies (Catalonia as an example). Meanwhile capitalist societies have allowed for numerous worker cooperatives, to crop up and exist. furthermore, freedom of association in an ancap/libertarian society would theoretically allow you to buy territory and start your own communes (that being said, I wouldn't want to live in a covenant that didn't physically remove commies, just in case). also how retarded do you have to be to believe that pure communism could be achieved the way Marx thought it could,

 No.81622

Degenerates want gibs and subsidies to fund their degeneracy status. In democracies minority groups in general will happily suck government cock and steadily vote for larger government, in exchange for "reparations against injustices" and the like. Queers (and lefties in general) want to get in on the victimhood gravy train because it's in their interest to do so; if they aren't a part of an "oppressed class" they'll just make up their own, which is where the sudden explosion of trannies in the past few years comes from. Further, consider that leftist ideology, particularly the degenerate "cultural marxism" that dominates the mainstream left today isn't so much a reasoned, self-contained philosophy as it is a hodgepodge of anti-traditional views followed for the mere fact that they are anti-traditional; leftism is nothing more than daddy issues incarnated in political form. Knowing that this is the mindset of leftists, it should not surprise you that the degenerates will favor the left; even they weren't receiving gibs and heaps of undeserved praise and attention because of how Brave™ they are, the degenerates will flat-out refuse to follow anything that implies stability and prosperity because they're psychologically opposed to those things.


 No.81630

Oooh! My new favorite thread…

> I know allot of you, don't peddle this "left unity" shit, and if this describes you than this thread is not for you.

We're the ones you need, though.

And to be fair, "left unity" doesn't always mean "unity with marxists and stalinists." I'm rather fond of some of the ecofreaks, and am hella down with the whole anarchonudist scene. It's postchristianity at its finest, strolling around in a magic garden of abundance where there are no rules and everyone's okay…

As important as antimarxism/antileninism is to the left, "what do you think of the anarchonudist wingbats" is a much cooler litmus test. If it starts screeching about degeneracy, kill it.

>it has always been right libertarians who extend an olive branch to left libertarians and not the other way round.

…and yet I'm here entirely because you need us and we need you.

As much as you rant about the beneficience of the center-right, let's look at what you've actually got. Sure, you've got helicopter folks. You've got your first respondent as a shining example of "not safe for earth." And yes, like plague-fleas on a rats nest, these torment you…

…but you've ALSO got folks who hold that diverting fiat printing via regulatory connections is great, libertarian, and free trade. A realistic NAFTA is marching from Honduras in a PR caravan; maybe you can trade with them when they get here. "Free" trade, but only for the few, is not really a free market.

This is a major reason that people who are perfectly comfortable to ride with agorists are slightly uncomfortable with you, tbh. It's not Rothbard, who gives us way more meat to work with than you're comfortable with, frankly. It's not the helicopter guys, who are frankly prone enough to "physically removing" each other, not to mention skilled at convincing even the pacifists to kill them. No, it's the slightly-higher-functioning psychopaths that sort of pass, "the peasants are trading without including me" style.

The ENTIRE left, including crazy utopian "everything is free" shit, is entirely predicated on free-market economics. Frankly, until you get better at noting trade barriers arising from within the illusion of the right-business class, we're mostly going to smile, think you're cute, and ignore you. If you want unity, scrap barriers to buying and selling on the street and in parks and watch the whole business class come crashing down.

>I hope you realize that statist commies have historically betrayed you guys at every turn throughout history preventing you from creating and maintaining ancom societies (Catalonia as an example).

It goes a bit further than that. Marx wrote a book about capitalism, and spent his time at the first international purging leftists until everyone he hadn't gotten around to purging yet left and went to St. Imiers with the people he had. Lenin, a member of a capitalist party, attacked (october) a socialist-inclusive governance (feburary) and exiled almost all the left, except for a last few whom he killed at Krondstat, to implement, in his words, capitalism. You mention Stalin's coordination with Franco, but you omit his coordination with his other proxy, Hitler, in gas van operations in Poland, as well as his direct attacks in the Ukraine.

Killing Marxists and/or Leninists on sight is the basic understanding which underpins Left unity. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of pacifists and/or anarchonudists, who unfortunately crumple quickly when shit breaks out. A strength for peacetime, but vulnerable.

Lenin also forms the left's understanding of capitalism, and is commensurate with the outlawed truck system of england, the history of appalaichan coal mining, and the like. Such a system could be subverted if the peasants were allowed to quit their job and buy and sell on the street, but trying to get a "free trade libertarian" to care about that is like pulling teeth; it might compete with the overlord class.

So, that shows off the glaring flaw in the system, and until you can manage to get by that, we'll look at you as possibly cute, and nothing more. It's still this board we look to, while /leftypol/ is left as a glaring shithole of stalinists and succdem-facist hybrids, but since as the saying goes "niggas ain't ready for revolution," we just stare at you and move on.

Are you ready to kill off the business class by letting the peasants trade, yet? Because that is the price of moving from far-right to right-libertarian, the complete destruction of the powerholders as people are suddenly allowed to do without them…


 No.81636

>>81630

>strolling around in a magic garden of abundance where there are no rules and everyone's okay…

Pointing your eyes at my daughter's ass will be counted as a violation of the NAP.

>Because that is the price of moving from far-right to right-libertarian

>far-right to right-libertarian

Stopped reading right there. Learn a bit political literacy before spouting your bullshit.


 No.81643

I took that stance from the general discourse on this board. Y'all want to kill us. Plus my epistmology is very materialist so I gravitate to Marxist arguments in the first place.

> I wouldn't want to live in a covenant that didn't physically remove commies, just in case

Hence


 No.81646

File: 5b4c51c1dace7ac⋯.png (143.28 KB, 500x524, 125:131, isymdam1.png)

Why is it that none of these systems has ever produced a liveable society?


 No.81650

>>81643

>>I took that stance from the general discourse on this board. Y'all want to kill us. .

Remember, this is an 8chan board, so of course your gonna get some /pol/ ideology seep through occasionally, so if you want to talk to ancap who don't want to unironically helicopter you guys, this board isn't the best place to start. as for "libertarian Pinochet apologists", they are basically our equivalent of tankies, and not all libertarians would unironically claim he did nothing wrong. he did nationalise copper after all.

>> I wouldn't want to live in a covenant that didn't physically remove commies, just in case.

>>hence

in case you are unaware, physical removal does not actually mean death squads and helicopter rides (although the memes are funny). what Hoppe was actually talking about was how when private property owners come together to establish a community (proprietary neighbourhoods usually owned by one guy), they are allowed to create a contract for what people can and cannot do/be in that community, and as such should use that contract to make the act of espousing communistic or democratic beliefs, punishable by being kicked out of that neighbourhood and being made to find somewhere else to live.

I know that /pol/ and the alt kike like to straw-man Hoppe just to make his philosophy more inline with their's, so i can understand the confusion.

Personally I would only go for right wing death squads and executions in the case of a full scale armed socialist revolution, since that seems like a fair and appropriate act of self defence in that situation.


 No.81655

>>81636

>Learn a bit political literacy before spouting your bullshit.

m'clergy, m'nobles, m'monarch?

The irony in your words is thick.


 No.81660

File: 6d2fff9814ea9ff⋯.jpg (93.16 KB, 700x796, 175:199, cEMMkUu.jpg)

Only retards support "left unity," it's only popular on meme sites (in my experience even there only "leninists" push it because they don't want to be left out of the cool anarchist activities), not among real organizations/activists.

As for your "libertarian unity," it sounds like a bad joke. We have nothing in common. Just because you stole our name does not make you our comrades.


 No.81663

>>81643

>Y'all want to kill us

No, I only want to stop shitposting. We have meming helicopterfags, but they're not the posting majority. Exremely rarely we get an alright commie. Surprisingly, it was not an Ancomm, but your standard Soviet Marxist instead.

You can claim we don't act as we preach. That's not something you can prove, of course. What you can't attack us for, is that unlike your average radical Leftist we do not call for a violent revolution and have argued reasons to be against it. To find a truly Libertarian Leftist is always necessarily the exception.

Besides maybe Bookchinners, but they're too busy mixing their cum into their fertilizer to worry about violence.


 No.81676

i don't believe in left unity per se but i do see myself as fundamentally on the left rather than the right.

>>81643

>Ya'll want to kill us.

this. the number of people on both left and right who actually value freedom is incredibly tiny. most people just want to cheer when team red beats team blue.

>>81622

"every one who disagrees with me is mentally ill."


 No.81681

>>81636

>Pointing your eyes at my daughter's ass will be counted as a violation of the NAP.

Here is a knife, xir; cut it off or don't.


 No.81682

>>81636

>Pointing your eyes at my daughter's ass will be counted as a violation of the NAP.

Here is a knife, xir; cut it off or don't.


 No.81689

>>81650

>private property owners come together to establish a community

This is called socialism. It is good.

>(proprietary neighbourhoods usually owned by one guy)

This is called monarchism.

Why the hell do you always fetishize subjugation to a single absolute ruler, anyways?? Where does that come from?


 No.81690

>>81689

>This is called monarchism.

Today /leftypol/ taught me that apartment buildings are monarchies.


 No.81692

>>81690

And lemme tell yah, the alternative leftist solution Home Owner's Associations are hella worse than some landlord who lives in the complex and knocks on your door for his fucking money once a month.


 No.81694

>>81692

It's kind of important to distinguish between democratic, republican, and corporate HOAs.

Guess which one has the largest incentive to manufacture fines due to this being the company's only source of income?


 No.81703

While I've got you here - is there any reason NOT to have UBI in a fiat system?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want a currency system in which UBI makes sense, except possibly the primitivist "holy crap, the forest I live in is edible" variety… but for the duration in which the government just prints it and hands it out to people, is there any actual benefit in handing it out solely to special people with dubious relationships to legislators?

I'm curious…


 No.81704

>>81703

Plenty of reasons. For one, every single job under the threshold would simply evaporate. Quite a few jobs immediately above it–So if the UBI was 10k, jobs that pay 11k, 12k, 13k, for example–would be lost as well, because there would be quite a few people who would decide that the extra leisure time is more valuable to them than the extra thousand a year or whatever. You specifically mentioned "LOL JUST PRINT MORE" instead of some kind of progressive tax system so I won't go into detail on the economic impossibility of such a program being fiscally sustainable. If the entire basis for funding this shit is to put more money in the system you'll just cause hyperinflation and make all that money you're issuing worthless. The greater the amount of money being printed the worse the effect is.


 No.81705

>people who would decide that the extra leisure time is more valuable to them than the extra thousand a year or whatever.

Your numbers suggest a little over an extra 10k a year; someone is using their UBI, or other income, to pay someone else.

>You specifically mentioned "LOL JUST PRINT MORE"

Yes. That's the literal system we have now.

You seem to be a bit confused as to the basis of my question. I'm not asking if just printing monopoly money is good; we're already doing it. I'm asking if there's a specific benefit to distributing it exclusively on the basis of having dubious relationships with one's legislators. We already just print unbacked money and hand it out NOW, albeiit on a lobbying and corruption basis.


 No.81706

>>81705

If we're giving it out to specific people we're giving it out to fewer people. Fewer recipients means we're not printing as much, and as a result the inflation doesn't happen quite as fast.

>That's the literal system we have now.

It's part of the system we have now. Government borrowing and taxation are parts of it as well, with borrowing being the largest by far. We're not quite at Zimbabwe's level where we print money for everything.


 No.81707

>81706

>If we're giving it out to specific people we're giving it out to fewer people.

I dunno; I'd think the same budget = the same budget. If the budget only comes out to $10 UBI per person, tough shit.

>Government borrowing and taxation are parts of it as well, with borrowing being the largest by far.

…at the federal level, taxation just destroys money, which is admittedly helpful… but "borrowing" is just a promise to print more money later. And it's getting a little huge, at least in the US.

>We're not quite at Zimbabwe's level where we print money for everything.

>amsuspiciousoftheseclaims.jpg




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / cafechan / canada / flutter / general / htg / magali / roze ]