/liberty/ - Liberty

Because the BO is a cuck that has allowed lefty shitposters to infest the board.

The guy how posted that shitty binary political spectrum is dumb, thats why.

>democractic socialism

>left libertarianism

>activism

Kek!

>>87353

>the BO is a cuck he hasn't censored the people I disagree with from speaking

If they have something to discuss, they can chat and the people here can debate them on it. If their beliefs are actually wrong, then people should have no problem proving them so. Free speech is incredibly important, I think discussion like that is healthy and good for a community like this. Lets you bring up more points to prove the good sides of your party to others and teaches you how to defend your beliefs in the advent that someone comes to you to debate you about it.

>>87360

The BO is a nigger for acting like socialism is a free ideology =/= censor socialists

>>87353

This. There's no productive discussion when it comes to leftists, they lower the quality of the board like spammers.

Besides that, when they ban you from their board but you're such a nice guy that you let them shit up yours, it's a one-sided relationship, it's the definition of cuckery.

>>87353

I agree, even though constant banning is no good, encouraging them to join and welcoming them definitely made it worse, while could be easily avoided with no disadvantages, so this.

…because this is a centrist libertarian board overrun by (unwelcome) right-wing authoritarians, not a right-wing board overrun by libertarians.

>>87395

>centrist libertarian

There's no such thing, sweetheart. Back to reddit with you.

>All these niggers coming out of the woodworks bitching about BO

I don't recall any of you statist cucks being here a year ago.

>>87396

…and yet the line in the sticky is still horizontal, so cry harder.

>>87401

>social democracy in GTFO

Cringe

>>87408

Democracy of any kind. Doesn't make it any less authoritarian if it's by a majority.

>>87395

socialism requires a large state by design tardfag.

>>87408

just because there are more of you does not mean you have the right to steal from someone.

>>87417

>State Farm is the government now.

No. Not really.

>>87341

It's not about the BO being "cucky" or anything. The problem is that it's a slow board with no active mods around to remove anyone posting off topic. No more moderation than that is needed. The vast majority of leftist shitposting is prove me wrong threads without a beginning argument to respond to. or someone posting "x group is retarded" and everyone being retarded enough to take the bait.

>>87424

> The problem is that it's a slow board with no active mods around to remove anyone posting off topic.

This is provably false, as the BO will regularly remove or spoiler porn posts, and logs in often enough that the board isn't listed on the "unclaimed boards" list. Hands-off moderation (or at least moderation you don't notice) is generally the best kind of moderation, however I think we can agree that deliberately inviting in lefties, per the graph in the sticky, is not a good thing. Neither is this "nothing is spam and nothing is a shitpost" mentality.

>>87427

I thought he doesn't log in often cuz the off topic porn posts from our Literotica guy are still there and we've had more than one "LMAO X Group is pathetic" threads. This isn't and should not be /b/.

>>87416

It's been like that for two years (at least).

>>87421

socialism = government

state farm = voluntary

do you get it now?

>>87445

Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff the government does, the more socialist it is.

>>87445

>do you get it now?

Not quite clear on whether you're on "total break with reality" or "just lie your ass off," so no, not entirely.

Proudhon overtly described himself as a socialist, though. So, yeah, state farm = socialism.

>>87447

This gets even more amusing when one notes that private ownership is, in fact, a form of governance.

"Socialism is when Elon Musk does something, and the more stuff Elon Musk does, the socialister it gets!" Also, if you kill the boss and take her/his shit, you're just "abolishing socialism."

…someone's on the "lie" circut, though… which implies a policy they do not want to announce the actual merits of.

>>87461

I was making fun of retards who don't know what socialism actually is.

>>87461

I'm trying to do google searches with proudhon and state farm and nothing is really coming up. Are we talking state farm the insurance company?

>>87462

woke me up then m8, how can you make a small government that redistributes wealth.

>>87462

How long does your ban last before you go back to /trannypol/?

>>87464

>I'm trying to do google searches

The term you are looking for is "mutualism," as in, "mutual insurance."

>woke me up then m8, how can you make a small government that redistributes wealth.

The left doesn't give a fuck about redistributing wealth. It does care about devolution of power, and might redistribute anything to this end, but your person of straw is, well, absolutely irrelevant - and something the other person was making fun of you for.

You can live in a gold-plated mansion - as long as you don't need servants. If you're used to servants, though, it is now their mansion… because they're in charge now. State Farm's insurance wing - which owns its international banking division, by the way - is socialist not because Proudhon used the word socialism, but because it is owned by the policyholders and operated peer-to-peer as a mutual aid system. My luxury condo timeshare is socialist, not because it calls itself that (it doesn't), but because I can show up at the owner's meeting and set policy. Agorism is a left-libertarian philosophy, not because SEKIII really liked the color red, but because one does one's illegal buying and selling without masters or servants; one is never the proprietor of someone else.

"Making a small government" is basically as simple as no one doing anything. In socialism, however, government is when the casual folk do stuff. Not their servants, not their bosses. If you see a piece of litter on the sidewalk, and pick it up and put it in the trash, you have enacted socialist governance in your community. The trick is to abolish all others… whether it's the owner of the land you walk on or the owner of the mayorship in the now.

You can do this alone, or by mutual agreement of a group. You just can't dictate to others - or allow others to dictate to you.

>>87462

Well, yeah… but socialism is when Elon Musk does something! He's the commandante, after all. :p

>>87471

Jesus christ man, use normal terminology. You guys can't just change definitions of words and expect people to join your side.

Socialism, as it is widely seen today, Is when a government (such as the US) redistributes wealth, but not to the extreme of communism.

>If you're used to servants, though, it is now their mansion… because they're in charge now.

No, they voluntarily agreed to work on my property on my terms. Voluntary hierarchy is not a violent act, you have no right to my property.

>f you see a piece of litter on the sidewalk, and pick it up and put it in the trash, you have enacted socialist governance in your community

Government requires violence, otherwise it is simply an organization. This is not governance.

>You can do this alone, or by mutual agreement of a group. You just can't dictate to others - or allow others to dictate to you.

So like hiring someone to work as a servant in a mansion?

Hierarchy is not a violent act, you cannot respond to it with violence. If you want you could convince people to boycott hierarchy, but other than that and you're a tyrant.

>You guys can't just change definitions of words and expect people to join your side.

Exactly. Yet here you are trying to change a definition which stood for a couple thousand years for, what, absolute bullshit propaganda?

>Government requires violence, otherwise it is simply an organization. This is not governance.

Governance is rule. Here, one rules by doing.

…perhaps you were thinking of an occupying state?

>Hierarchy is not a violent act, you cannot respond to it with violence.

The movement disagrees. Perhaps you should tell the police officer that you are boycotting them and see if you are suddenly immune to law?

>>87501

>Perhaps you should tell the police officer that you are boycotting them and see if you are suddenly immune to law

That's a coercive hierarchy. Try telling your boss you quit, or dropping out of college. Employer-employee and Teacher-student are peaceful examples of hierarchy that hurt no one.

>>87501

>government means doing actions

No it doesn't, use definitions identifiable with the rest of the world. I'm trying to work with you here.

>The movment disagrees

Just because your niggerfaggot friends at diversity university don't want to work doesn't magically transform a voluntary act into a violent one. I swear, you guys never explain why you believe this shit.

>Perhaps you should tell the police officer that you are boycotting them and see if you are suddenly immune to law?

Are you retarded? The state is not voluntary. police are apart of the state. comprede?

>>87501

Yeah, no one knows what the fuck this guy is on…

>Proudhon

<socialism is when we do for ourselves without masters.

>Shore Porters' Association

<socialism is when we run the business for ourselves, without an external proprietor

>Robert Owen

<if this screwed-up factory system was run and owned by the workers, it would be socialism

>Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers

<if we form self-managing communities without bosses, it would be socialism

>Some guy on the internet, 2018

<anything I don't like is socialism.

The fact that he bitches about "changing" a definition which has stood for centuries from one which exists mostly in brain-defective rants (and declares the Roman imperium socialist) just makes it more amusing, in a sad, "laugh at the 'tard" sort of way.

>>87511

>use definitions identifiable with the rest of the world.

I… take it you're lost on the difference between 'government' and 'state?'

They're not the same thing, which is for instance the reason phrases like 'corporate governance' exists. To govern is instead to rule a thing; states theoretically govern, but often functionally govern very little of their professed territory. Someone who gets up and implements their own policy in the community is ALSO governing, in this case through direct action.

The more you avoid bossing other people around in the course of doing so, the more minarchist of a government you are.

>Just because your niggerfaggot friends at diversity university don't want to work…

…for a master..

> doesn't magically transform a voluntary act into a violent one. I swear, you guys never explain why you believe this shit.

Consider, if you will, a state of nature. Human zero has been beamed down into this lush abundance. They are free to wander where they will, to share in the fruits of the garden freely with the other living creatures, to act solely by their own directive without any mortal masters, et cetera.

This is everyone's basic right and their natural inheritance.

Consider the modern area. Individuals claim vast domains in which they claim the right to control all others. There are laws against selling things without a permit. There are laws against not working for another; they're called vagrancy laws.

The whole system is literally run at gunpoint, and if you don't work for your masters, people will literally kidnap or kill you - a situation you mysteriously describe as "voluntary."

I have a newsflash for you : I don't believe those laws came about by those targeted by them, I in fact believe they came about at the behest of the exact people profiting from them.

>>87502

Yeah, well… fucker didn't exactly specify, did they?

>>87527

Alright I'm starting to get what you're meaning.

So what's the actual problem with voluntary hierarchy?

>>87537

Temptation.

My 'anticapitalist' tendencies are those of Adam Smith; those who become used to profiting off a system of advantage over others are at risk to take means to ensure it. Hence, the government is a bailout machine for large corporations. Hence, fractional-reserve banking ensures that your money goes to other people - usually, a banker and an LLC/Ltd scheme. Hence, anticompetition laws, from minor regulations (which are noted as usually being drafted by the established players, largely as entry barriers), to simply outright banning competition. It is apparently the natural case that, when a person realizes they are successfully robbing the fuck out of someone, that they seek to make it illegal to do anything else. A similar position exists in government, where incompetent middle management realizes how useless they are and launches great schemes to make themselves look important, necessary, or useful - and we'd be better off if they took the stolen paycheck and DIDN'T do anything.

It's because of this that peer-to-peer buying and selling is usually called Left - Agorism, Market Anarchism, even the crafts movements. It leaves no room for would-be masters to have much to scheme over, and posits a dream of a world wherein the folk of the community construct the community, small crafters trading amongst themselves. Should the ancap revolution (or its more vulgar counterparts) come to pass, the Agorists will be the ones buying and selling on your private property without your permission.

The two responses to the panic over being useless are to keep what one builds to things which cannot incentivize using coercion to keep such a profitable arrangement… and shooting people. Most folks prefer to avoid the latter, and thus, abolish the heirarchies which can create this.

Historical examples are rife and descriptive : the banal rights of the landlord, the capitalist truck system, modern regulations. They all lean towards one thing - gibs, by the dictate of "voluntary" (but swiftly regulatorily demanded) heirarchy. Helping grow a guy some extra crops because their manor walls repel invaders first SOUNDS legit… but, history also show us where that ends up. Doing a few years' work in exchange for a ride across an ocean SOUNDS legit, but history shows it swiftly turns into something not quite the original contract, especially if you're black. "I guess I could take time off from my own shop to run your factory equipment so you don't have to" sounds decent enough, maybe the poor guy wants a few days' vacation. History suggests s/he'll immediately burn your shop down and possibly tell you that you owe him/her an infinite amount of money.

…better just to skip those situations.

>>87545

>Should the ancap revolution (or its more vulgar counterparts) come to pass, the Agorists will be the ones buying and selling on your private property without your permission.

Why there though? Just to show off like commies always do?

>>87546

Pretty much. It's COUNTEReconomics. Bastards are downright contrarians.

…the total absence of a commons helps promote it, too, though. They're the kind of bastards that would do it just to spite the rules in either case.

>>87548

Eh, it seems pathetic to act straight on the contrary. They do not even seem to advocate for a certain system at this point. Though i'd still not worry about it as an ancap has the right to kill such a worthless poser outright anyway.

> i'd still not worry about it as an ancap has the right to kill such a worthless poser outright anyway.

You're not too familiar with ancap theory, are you?

>>87551

If you spot someone on your property you can physically remove him through violent means, you are not obliged to care about his well being, it can be a personal choice. No property damage is necessary for this to happen. Though the systems may vary.

>>87552

this is kind of the case, but in practice nobody would really do that.

>>87545

almost all of these are examples of people using the state to keep their power. Eliminate the state and you eliminate coercive hierarchy, or am I wrong?

>>87553

Yeah, though i doubt that there would be any "agorists" to do that in the first place, given that there are more viable alternatives.

>>87554

>Eliminate the state and you eliminate coercive hierarchy, or am I wrong?

There's several possible answers to that. The least interesting one is to suggest that you're right - it generates very little discussion.

One of the first on the "no" side is the commonality of arguments that ancap will rebuild the entire state. This… is more of a coincidental cultural effect of arguing mostly with statists, but does create the risk that someone will still believe this after the revolution, and the Hoppean Ministry of Ensuring that your Underwear meets Homeowner Covenant Guidelines will be running a massive surveillance-and-totalitarian-micromanagement state, just because it's what they're used to arguing and where they got their recruits from. One can, in fact, kill one's own movement by appealing to the wrong folks.

Speaking of Hoppe, another real-world example comes from the Hoppean v. Council Communist free-market wars. (Council Communism isn't even remotely communist and is in fact socialist. Also, spoiler alert, Hoppe lost the public reputation thing; most folks prefer the freedom of socialism). A LOT of data was generated, but the least successful model was one where a private governance company had literally no means of generating revenue but fining members, but can generate as much fines as they want without any mode of appeal. Unsurprisingly, they did what was incentivized, much to the dismay of homeowners. It's a private state, but it provides a real-world example of how wrong incentives = wrong outcome.

So, that's a real-world argument against. It's narrowly applicable (VERY wrong incentives and a limited number of moves), but does suggest that structure determines action. Like the more formal and recognized states, the best outcome can sometimes be to pay them off in the hopes that they do literally nothing.

Hoppe was NOT your best foot forward, btw. Turns out most people don't really like the creepy, all-micromanaging fascism. Those who do can live there, I guess, but for the most part, freedom > hoppe.

Another real-world example is the tendency of drug-trafficking gangs to attempt to monopolize territory. This is a downright-unfair indictment of ancap, since left-wing territory literally revolves around ensuring that anyone can sling on the block and economics isn't a reason to take a life, while I'm guessing the average ancap hasn't really gotten into that scene at all, creating a person of straw. It IS, however, an example of an entity creating monopoly through force without the official assistance of the state. It is also comical because one generally doesn't have a problem making sales without all the senseless shit.

…and for an argument on the other side, I visited a small tourist city in Cali (forgot which city) with a fairly ancap flair. City gov outlawed tobacco except on private property. Private property owners which had a reasonably-sized outdoor area (like, resort/mall scale, with a few small side-porches that didn't affect the main business) would let the smokers pop in for free. They're not buying and selling on other peoples' property, but it's still a case of private elites promoting freedom just because they want to and had the power.

So, there are examples of both cases in the real world. Even discarding the "when you basically make an organization do one thing" example, it varies… and a classical state may have little to do with it. Private goons and shills are often as cheap as a legislator or more so.

No real way to tell what will fall which way, except that incentivization is usually followed. The turf-propertarian drug dealers really don't seem to have any more sales - I've never heard of anyone not being able to sell their stash on an open block - it's just a mental thing. And while the Cali propertarians probably DO get a change in consumption on the "help versus asshole" thing, it's not as directly visible up-front, so that was probably a mental thing, too.

Hell, free-market theory tells us that elitist market inhibitions impoverish both haves and have-nots, but we still have several millenia of folks trying to be the monopoly. And while the italian mafia largely got its start thugging for landlords, I'd expect goons would gladly help any dysfunctional theory fairly cheaply.

…so, it's kinda up in the air. Feudalism is a large argument against, with its history on market restrictions.

>>87402

Who is she?

>>87480

No, socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Wealth redistribution is not in itself socialist, you fucking retard.

>>87635

It's not socialism, you fucking retard.

Socialism means that the workers own the means of production. The government regulating the economy is not socialism.

>>87643

>redistribution of wealth isn't socialism

>soc-dems aren't socialist

>BLM isn't nationalism

>everyone is a fucking retard except me

Just fuck off, you don't belong here.

>>87669

>redistribution of wealth isn't socialism

True.

>soc-dems aren't socialist

True.

>BLM isn't nationalism

Not in their post.

>everyone is a fucking retard except me

Nah, just you.

>>87674

Nobody has ever specified the redistribution of wealth has to be done peacefully, Much the opposite. It's not the only step, but it always is the first and never absent.

>>87643

>The government regulating the economy is not socialism.

Marx and many more would disagree. It's not that redistribution via coercion is not Socialist, it's that what the Socialists want never happens. "The workers", as if only low to medium skilled employees work and nobody else, never get their gibs. Largely because even if you were to "tax the rich" hard enough you would still not be able to meet the absurd demands and goals. That's when inflationary spending comes in, which again, only a government can enforce. But then you're back to square one, because you're only shifting money from the middle class and poor around to themselves.

>>87675

>Worker-run businesses are robbing me of my profits. People who drop out are robbing me of my workforce.

You're… just a walking anticapitalist stereotype, aren't you?

>>87691

Who was that reply meant for?

>Worker-run businesses

Again, as opposed to "non-working"? Cooperatives are a threat to nobody in any way. As far as the State cares they pay taxes and they're never a relevant competitor to traditional business.

>People who drop out are robbing me of my workforce.

I've yet to hear anyone but government officials and some employers who set up companies expecting cheap labor complain about there not being "enough" workforce. There always is, just not at the price they want it at.

>>87545

>Agorism, Market Anarchism, even the crafts movements

Not sure why these are considered left. Neither forbids nor discourages hierarchy or private property.

>Agorists will be the ones buying and selling on your private property without your permission.

To do commerce they need a platform (market stall or some other kind of infrastructure either physical or virtual). If they own that infrastructure, then it is their private property. If they are using someone else’s property, they are deliberately causing damage to that property.

>>87552

>If you spot someone on your property you can physically remove him through violent means,

Only if they pose a violent threat. or are committing violence. Response to force should never exceed the initiation of force.

>>87558

>It IS, however, an example of an entity creating monopoly through force without the official assistance of the state.

Cartels are assisted by the very illegalization of the market that they control. Certain paramilitary groups that operate drug trafficking like the Contras got direct state funding. Even The state of Great Britain operated as a dominant distributor in the opium market.

>>87693

>Cooperatives are a threat to nobody in any way.

…and yet, there are people on this board advocating murdering people to prevent them.

>government officials and some employers who set up companies expecting cheap labor

I assume its these guys, and that wages will fall to zero after the helicopters.

>>87702

>It's either a property right violation, or it isn't

This does not contradict my statement.

>There can be no excessive force applied

listen @ 8:12 to embedded video. Only the required amount of force is necessary to physically remove that person from your property. Anything exceeding that amount of force is aggression.

>>87706

>Only the required amount of force is necessary to physically remove

You do not have to prove that a trespasser refused to leave immediately, or care about his well being in any way.

>>87703

>and yet, there are people on this board advocating murdering people to prevent them.

Ancaps are absolutely fine with any of your ideas as long as they only involve the people who wish to participate. It's the redistribution of property that communists advocate is what ancaps will oppose violently. If you want to create a green commune, christian settlement or satanic tribe, you are free to do so, as long as you don't try to force anything onto other people or their property.

There is a general distrust for all kinds of leftists, usual commies or naizs for obvious reasons, and ancoms and other presumably compatible with ancapistan movements for the reason that they too often turn violent when faced with inefficiency of their order.

Helicopter memes are really mostly just memes, its unlikely that anyone would try to hunt you down unless you start causing some trouble, like, property damage, stealing or calling people to do so.

>>87708

>the redistribution of property that communists advocate

Social Democracy =/= communism.

For that matter, Marxism and Marxism-Leninism generally aren't. Marx, for instance, got booted out of the first after he started purging leftists, mostly because they were bitching at him that socialism is not, in fact, when the government does stuff.

Syndicalism is generally coming for your absentee workplace, but this is totally compatible with Rothbardian theory surrounding ill-gotten property and the state regime - he even wrote a long rant about a nepotistic king.

>Helicopter memes are really mostly just memes

Not for all of you. MOST of the posters on this board come from the "no" zone in the sticky.

>>87708

>when faced with inefficiency of their order.

Employee-owned companies outperform purely capitalist proprietorships.

https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/stocks-from-employee-owned-companies-outperform-s-p-ac375706124b

..and fully worker-controlled firms are sizeably less likely to fail during startup.

https://www.grocer.coop/articles/why-some-co-ops-fail

This economic trend continues; for instance, the powerhouse of the EU is Germany, a codetermination state in which workers own half the company. The wall really did come down. The largest single market owner is at least nominally mutualist socialist (a giant red Vanguard, lol), socialist firms (also mutualist) comprise a large chunk of the world's largest banks, etc.

The latter is basic economics; if it weren't for spam and a handful of retards, you'd notice that the ECP debates apply primarily to the capitalist mode of de-facto monarchy - a single central planner.

They're not the inefficient ones… and that's why your board is overrun by folks obsessed with murdering people; you just can't compete in an unrigged market. It just is…

>>87709

>Social Democracy =/= communism.

They differ simply in the amount of redistribution, as well as focus on different things to redistribute. The results of it come slower, but the impact of it remains the same.

>mostly because they were bitching at him that socialism is not, in fact, when the government does stuff

Calling government "people" does not change the fact that stuff will be done by government.

>Not for all of you. MOST of the posters on this board come from the "no" zone in the sticky.

This sticky sucks and BO is a huhe cuck. Ancoms coming here are no more pleasant to interact with than nazis or communists.

>Employee-owned companies outperform purely capitalist proprietorships.

First, "purely capitalist" allows collective ownership, so these companies are totally fine in ancapistan. What i was trying to say is not that they are ineffective and so won't be allowed, but that communists generally hold no respect for others' property, especially when faced with scarce resources. If they are effective, which i doubt though, as it might be a matter of size of the companies compared, with being bigger meaning less competent, peter principle and stuff, but if they are, then they are free to prove it in free market. It's the same problem as with guilds or unions - they are granted monopoly by the state, but if they did not, they would be free to organize they way they want, as without state's coercive force they cannot prevent competition and markets from emerging.

>>87711

2nd part meant for >>87710

>>87711

>This sticky sucks and BO is a huhe cuck.

>communists generally hold no respect for others' property

<o.O

>>87713

>This sticky sucks and BO is a huhe cuck.

BO welcomes leftists that use this board for shitposting and really dump down the quality of content in here. I bet most posters here have a saved "ther's a place where you can do 1 line OP all day".

>communists generally hold no respect for others' property

"Seize the means of production" meme is popular among all leftists, afaik.

>>87714

>"Seize the means of production" meme is popular among all leftists, afaik.

It's also a tenet of classical liberalism.

Outside of classical liberalism, though, it's mostly syndicalists. And I have to admit, neither I nor Rothbard mind…

>BO welcomes leftists that use this board for shitposting and really dump down the quality of content in here.

…and so you'll seize it?

I hate to tell you, but leftists are not doing MOST of the craptastic posts. And meanwhile, you(?) wrote that defending the top of the authoritarian axis only. Scroll back a little, read again.

Wow Rightists hate free speech, what a shocker!

>>87720

BO is gay nigger who is mishandling sub =/= I will steal it from him

>>87717

BO is niggerfaggot for mishandling sub =/= I will steal it from him

>>87717

>It's also a tenet of classical liberalism.

Prove it.

>Rothbard

I see rothbard not much more of a libertarian than ayn rand. Both did mostly moralfaggotry stuff with little actual theory. No surprise they do not mind some socialist polices to be implemented.

>Wow Rightists hate free speech

<encouraging shitposting is hating free speech

Look who's talking, leftypol

>>87717

>I hate to tell you, but leftists are not doing MOST of the craptastic posts.

I guess leftists determine quality of a post by how pro-leftist they are.

>And meanwhile, you(?) wrote that defending the top of the authoritarian axis only.

I wrote that ancoms are as unpleasant to talk with as commies and nazis, if not more. I never said that it makes latter any better.

>Scroll back a little, read again.

I guess you should follow your advices more often yourself.

>>87728

>I guess leftists determine quality of a post by how pro-leftist they are.

Well, you actually typed that sentence.