[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ 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: 47acc75d7219c74⋯.png (434.97 KB, 812x793, 812:793, milton-friedman-socialist.png)

 No.85594

What do you think about Milton Friedman?

 No.85619

He was a jew. At their core they can't be pro-liberty, they can just pretend to be pro-liberty.


 No.85621

>>85619

so, when Rothbard goes full ancap he's anti-liberty because anarcho capitalism is so pro-liberty that it becomes anti-liberty?


 No.85623

>>85621

(((ancap))) is just the freedom of Jews to further control whites through cyberpunk tier corporate rule.

>inb4 "corporations can't exist without the state"

>Inb4 "monopolies don't naturally occur"


 No.85624

>>85623

Wouldn't you want to become a jew?


 No.85631

>>85623

>(((ancap))) is just the freedom of Jews to further control whites through cyberpunk tier corporate rule.

Yes, let's have Soviet-tier rule instead (with racism this time!), the wet dream of all natsocs.

>"corporations can't exist without the state"

Said no one ever.

>"monopolies don't naturally occur"

If people are content with the services of one company then they will allow that monopoly to continue until the monopolist fucks up somehow and compels people to start their own alternatives to undercut his business. There's nothing wrong with natural monopolies.


 No.85662

>>85631

>Yes, let's have Soviet-tier rule instead (with racism this time!), the wet dream of all natsocs.

False dichotomy. You fail.

>Said no one ever

Say pretty much all the an-cap fundies I talk to. "The corporate fiction exists because of government contracts. They literally don't exist without government!"

>If people are content with the services of one company then they will allow that monopoly to continue until the monopolist fucks up somehow and compels people to start their own alternatives to undercut his business

Meanwhile, in the real world, big companies with first mover advantage use underhanded corporate dickery to destroy and strangle their competitors even if "the market" prefers them because they have the resources to buy them out or muscle them out. Then the consumer is fucked and has to deal with the one provider of X good or service or eat shit.

Example: ISPs and why net neutrality along with regulations on utilities are critical for a sane and functional society.


 No.85666

>>85662

> use underhanded corporate dickery

You mean state regulations and lobbying?


 No.85678

>>85662

>False dichotomy.

It really is. On the one hand you have retarded leftists who want trannies and rapefugees, on the other you have retarded leftists who want nationalism and traditionalism. Both for some reason just can't keep their slimy commie hands out of our pockets, both want to tell us what to do with our money, both want to tell us how our businesses should be run, both want to tell us what do on our property, both are afraid of monopolies but aren't afraid of the government monopolizing everything for itself, and supposedly all this shit is "for the greater good".

>"The corporate fiction exists because of government contracts. They literally don't exist without government!"

>Say pretty much all the an-cap fundies I talk to.

Corporations won't exist under capitalism? Am I reading this correctly? Do they exist only under communism or what? Holy shit, I think this is what Yuri Bezmenov meant when talking about subversion, either that or your "ancap" friends were just fucking with the retard in the group, and you fell for it. (Holy fuck. No corporations under anarcho-capitalism? Seriously, goy?)

>Meanwhile, in the real world, big companies with first mover advantage use underhanded corporate dickery to destroy and strangle their competitors even if "the market" prefers them because they have the resources to buy them out or muscle them out.

Define "corporate dickery", if it's something that violates the NAP, you can take your shitty low IQ bait argument back to /pol/, /leftypol/, 4cuck/pol/, /soyboypol/ or whoever gives a fuck.

>Then the consumer is fucked and has to deal with the one provider of X good or service or eat shit.

If the consumer really, really, REALLY doesn't want to eat shit that badly, then that would make for a really fucking great business opportunity for whoever challenges the monopolist, don't you think? Considering that a) people will pay you a good price for the new service, and b) the monopolist will pay you a high price just to keep you out of the market. The question is, how long can the monopolist keep buying out that one faggot that keeps challenging his monopoly with some flashy new alternative, when it's such a cool business idea for them to wreck your shitty monopoly? You think it's cheap to sustain a monopoly? Maybe it's cheaper to play fair?

>Example: ISPs and why net neutrality along with regulations on utilities are critical for a sane and functional society.

Define "sane and functional society", what does sanity have to do with ISPs and net neutrality? Why is it good for the government to hold a monopoly on everything and regulate everything but not for corporations to do so and for the consumers to decide what is better for themselves? If you take Russia for example, where the government controlled every part of their economy except for telecommunications, the country had better, faster and cheaper internet than first-world countries despite being totally backwards everywhere else economically, the economy performed best in its only unregulated private sector than in all other parts of the economy that were touched by the government. There's countless examples like this around the world.


 No.85687

>>85678

>It really is. On the one hand you have retarded leftists who want trannies and rapefugees, on the other you have retarded leftists who want nationalism and traditionalism

You don't understand what you're ranting about. Traditionalism and nationalism are not now, have never been, and never will be "leftist" concepts outside of your perverted libertarian fantasy land and that's all there is to it.

>both want to tell us what to do with our money, both want to tell us how our businesses should be run, both want to tell us what do on our property

That's called "civilization" to an extent. You don't get to do whatever you want all of the time because there are consequences to your actions. Too bad your parents didn't raise you properly enough to understand that.

>both are afraid of monopolies but aren't afraid of the government monopolizing everything for itself

You have more power over a government entity than a greedbag megacorp. I know that libertarians pretend otherwise, but their theory looks nice on paper and doesn't prove true in the real world. No, it's not okay for monopolies to exist because they kill innovation and competition. Yes, it is okay for the government to monopolize SOME services because it doesn't make sense for certain things like electricity and internet to be completely provided by a free market. It's less efficient and pretty much everyone but Austrian school kooks understand it.

>and supposedly all this shit is "for the greater good"

Better than letting huge ass companies do whatever they want and expecting consumers to fend for themselves or the quasi-religious invisible hand to fix things, that much is for certain, yes.

>Corporations won't exist under capitalism? Am I reading this correctly?

No. Their argument is that in le TRUE free enterprise no government capitalism, corporations can literally not organize.

Do they exist only under communism or what? Holy shit, I think this is what Yuri Bezmenov meant when talking about subversion, either that or your "ancap" friends were just fucking with the retard in the group, and you fell for it. (Holy fuck. No corporations under anarcho-capitalism? Seriously, goy?)

Not really and you're obviously too retarded to quote based Yuri like you know shit from shinola. It's kinda amusing.

>Define "corporate dickery"

Ever heard of Comcast? Electronic Arts? Bank of America? Are you 12?

>If the consumer really, really, REALLY doesn't want to eat shit that badly, then that would make for a really fucking great business opportunity for whoever challenges the monopolist, don't you think?

It sounds nice on paper, but again, they can't challenge the monopoly. They're too weak and small. When the monopoly finds a threat, they temporarily alter policy to snuff out the alternative then go right back to fucking over consumers. See what Wal-Mart does to small towns and what oil-rich Arab countries tried to do to American fracking.

>The question is, how long can the monopolist keep buying out that one faggot that keeps challenging his monopoly with some flashy new alternative, when it's such a cool business idea for them to wreck your shitty monopoly?

Pretty fucking long time, actually. Most Americans still only have 1 or 2 ISPs to choose from because monopolies maneuver to close out fair competition and the government refuses to regulate them properly for the public good thanks to dickass lobbyists.

>You think it's cheap to sustain a monopoly?

It's obviously worth it when it clearly happens all of the damn time unless the state does one of its rightful duties and steps in on behalf of consumers.

>Define "sane and functional society"

Do you have autism? You need electricity. You need the internet. Modern society doesn't function without certain technologies. So while they might not have some on paper "right" to them like the right to not get beaten or robbed, the consequences of not looking out for the little guy and making sure that everyone has access to hospitals with electric power, clean and free fresh water, quick communication, and the exchange of ideas makes for a shittier society. That isn't even up for debate anymore.


 No.85688

>>85687

>what does sanity have to do with ISPs and net neutrality?

Sane nations regulate the internet as a public good. Net neutrality is the only sane policy because it stops ISPs from throttling data to line their pockets and keeping users from fair and free access to the wealth of human creativity and knowledge. Again, you need the internet these days and siding with the rights of corporations to discriminate in traffic is just sucking corporate dick to fuck over the poor.

>Why is it good for the government to hold a monopoly on everything and regulate everything but not for corporations to do so and for the consumers to decide what is better for themselves?

Again, you can vote out the government. You are powerless before a corporate monopoly that gives "our way or the highway," which is not a real choice at all. Consumers can't fight the monopolies on their own, so they need the instrument of public good to fight on their behalf. "Voting with your dollars" is horseshit because some chucklefuck idiot will always be willing to take it in the dick rather than have no service at all. This is one reason why consumers rights exist and are not controversial outside of America. Holy shit, this is intuitive. I shouldn't have to break down something so obvious to you.

>There's countless examples like this around the world

No there aren't. You cherry-picked one of a small smidge of examples that back up your theory. Meanwhile, in reality. countries have better, more stable, faster, and cheaper internet when it's well-regulated. Pretty much all of Europe laughs at Amerifat internet "freedom."


 No.85690

David Friedman > Milton Friedman


 No.86405

>>85688

The fact that net neutrality is even a concern is a design failure of the internet. It was originally designed with far different intention from what it's become, and we've just been tacking extensions onto so much legacy cruft that there's absolutely no way to ever make it work the way we need it to. You can achieve a useful level of security and resilience by using software like Tor and IPFS, but with crippling performance penalties and other usability issues. What we need is a new internet, built from the ground up to provide scalable, resilient and secure communications, but it doesn't actually matter since it will never see widespread adoption.


 No.86408

File: e1db71245a7f1c3⋯.jpg (40.92 KB, 819x460, 819:460, back_to_pol.jpg)


 No.86459

>>85623

Corporations in their current form cant exist without the state.

>>85631

>Said no one ever.

The statement stems from the key differences between owners and shareholders and the role the government has on controlling how you interact with them. One of the key differences being liability.


 No.86461

>>85688

>Pretty much all of Europe laughs at Amerifat internet "freedom."

t. Fugitive for violating hate speech laws


 No.86853

lolberg-lite who caused the financial crisis


 No.86874

>>86408

The more I lurk the more I think ancaps in here are false-flagging, since the actual ancaps are all on the tradcuck and larpan threads on /pol/

>>86461

>all of europe is angloyim and norcs

<implying amerimutts will EVER learn geography


 No.86876


 No.86919

>>86874

Germany and France also have hate-speech laws


 No.86946

>>86919

More organized but still stupid norcs, cowardly norc-anglo mutts (goblin).


 No.87159

>>85619

Go back to /pol/ retard




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