/liberty/ - Liberty

All trolling aside, I'm going to take a stab at the question ("Why be ancap?") from a bit of a different angle for those who haven't really thought of it before.

The angle is this: Respecting human rights (essentially the NAP) is intrinsically moral, which contributes to both society in general and ones sense of well-being and self-esteem.

Also, alongside the general principle of like attracts like, it should generally (leaving aside the tendency of libertarians to be more disagreeable and socially awkward than non-libertarians) lead to an increased tendency to attract other ethical people into ones life, which is a good thing.

>>88618

Aggregation of disagreeable but broadly higher functioning and successful people into Libertarianism could imply that Libertarianism is a moral or ethical lens through which even socially retarded people can operate, as a causal link for their adoption of lolbergery rather than a byproduct of it. The correlation has hardly been studied in any quantitative way, or even qualitative, outside of the standard "this is a thing that exists".

Ancap is an exaggerated form of the normal human way of living which is living your own life and not being oppressed or enslaved

>>88619

We've had people pretend to be Libertarians(Kochs and Greenspan) and they are/were very much successful. I'd love to see a "perfect" example of a successful well known Libertarian, but don't believe it's possible to succeed in the same way under a system that conditions and accepts otherwise.

I know Soviet Russia is a bit of an extreme example, but it does make the comparison more vivid. Why would there be any Libertarian examples in an unlibertarian land? It being not as despotic raises the margin of possibility by some incalculable amount, but is it really that much to matter at all?

>>88619

I was thinking more on an individual level, eg. Joe the libertarian treats non-libertarians in a way that suggests he does not want to steal from or dominate them (via government or otherwise), and tries to build up support networks that would take over the need for government to the extent that others adopted them as well. People like and respect Joe. Joe & friends do get along and do better overall than dedicated statists. Etc.

Well, I get the anarcho part (whole) but not the hypocritical extensions of cap or com. Self evident we equally free. Not so self evident that we are dependently free upon each others freedom. Simple ecological understanding necessitates mutual dependence all the way up and down biologically. Idealogical and paradigmatic history the psyco-social same up and down. To attach that hyphenated dualistic garbage of an economic policy onto an inherent state of self evidency is more cickery than the /pol/s imo. Anyway, were free no worries. If you(s) take too much, (we) take away. You(s) give to little, (we) take away.

>>88658

>If you(s) take too much, (we) take away.

What if I produce much on my own?

>You(s) give to little, (we) take away.

What if I produced it on my own?

>>88678

I'm guessing he's using the cultural marxist definition of capitalism, where anything bad that people do in a free society is labelled "capitalism", ignoring that the word literally means the peaceful exchange of goods and services.

The former generations acted under the belief that a shining social prosperity was the beatitude of man, and sacrificed uniformly the citizen to the State. The modern mind believed that the nation existed for the individual, for the guardianship and education of every man. This idea, roughly written in revolutions and national movements, in the mind of the philosopher had far more precision; the individual is the world.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in "Historic Notes of Life and Letters in New England" (1867), published in The Atlantic Monthly (October 1883)…

"Liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being — they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom."

-Mikhail Bakunin, "La Commune de Paris et la notion de l'état" (The Commune of Paris and the notion of the state)