/liberty/ - Liberty

>>91872

is this skyrim anime for real? i want to believe

>>91894

Skyrim is for fags, this is Warhammer anime.

>it has rape

Literally Ancap: The Anime

Being a goblin violates the NAP

>>92055

pmt Goblins don't recognize property rights,

>>92056

Goblins represent the non-whites.

>>92064

I tought they where the ancaps

>>92098

Goblins are violent NPCs, so they're more like antifa. I don't think ancaps could ever agree on enough to even form that kind of gang.

If you watch the first episode of Sword Art Online, they make a little joke where all these MMO players get their avatars changed to reflect how they look IRL. All the cute girls and hot dudes turn into fat nerds. Those are the ancaps.

>>92102

But I always pick some old gray haired guy. Female avatars usually have really annoying groaning and moaning when hit. I'd play as a friendly merchant, but no game lets me make a nose sufficiently long.

>>/vg/

>>92132

I always pick attractive females as avatars. Not fat, but I do post at /liberty/. Ancaps would probably be the merchants and pmc-officers that care more about earning those sweet shekels over completing the game.

>>92267

Goes here:>>91828

>>92264

If a game has a merchant class I'm playing it. Old MMOs did.

>>92267

>you can't have Capitalism without property rights enforced by state.

except in polycentric law societies

now back to /leftypol/ with you

>bad meme animu

>>92264

>is a proud leftypol poster/goon

Lay off the degenerate vidya games.

>>92272

Ancaps are just middle to upper middle class goobers who fall into edgyness but think outright neo-nazism is too mainstream, so they worship Pinochet instead. None of them know dick about business to actually be a businessman or merchant and most have more than likely have never held a job/had to support themselves.

>>92292

>Ancaps are just middle to upper middle class goobers

Unlike commies, I suppose, who are all proper working class men? In fact, most ideologues are from the middle or upper middle class, you won't find many great philosophers in a shoe factory. But we don't claim to represent a "class consciousness", unlike most left-wing ideologies.

>who fall into edgyness but think outright neo-nazism is too mainstream, so they worship Pinochet instead.

Or maybe we are reacting to the totally-not-edgy communists, SJW's and neocons who tell us daily that we must be punished for being class enemies/white men/terrorists?

>None of them know dick about business to actually be a businessman or merchant

Which kinda destroys the idea that we are acting out of our "class interest", if you ask me, but let's just ignore that lmao.

>and most have more than likely have never held a job/had to support themselves.

In my experience, ancaps are actually among the least likely to be NEET's. I cannot remember one ancap, in fact, who is just sitting on his ass all day.

>>92292

I make below minimum wage and still manage to save. Not one member of my whole family tree is anywhere near middle class. The difference between a Fascist and an AnCap is that one memes at you because you screech every single time about it, but doesn't actually intend to initiate aggression first. You seem to be projecting.

>>92299

Nice OC. There's only one place you could have learned that Bob Murphy does karaoke.

>>92293

>>92298

Goblins lmao. He was spot on about you edgetards.

>>92299

Human. You have no idea how little do you need to man up to become a fascist.

>>92300

karaoke at the Contra Krugman cruise?

>>92272

More like raiders in games and slaves irl (as soon as the goverment is kill).

Ancaps wanting to trade jewish goverment for (((big corporations))) and thinking they will be CEOs instead of slaves is hilarous, it's the captalist equivalent of /leftypol/ thinking they will be card-carrying commissars instead of slaves.

If it becomes a corporate wet dreams, ancucks would be slaves. If it more like post-apocaliptic violent scenario, ancucvks would still be slaves. libertardians npcs are no different than the average one, both literally want to be slaves even if they don't admit.

>>92530

>Ancaps wanting to trade jewish goverment for (((big corporations))) and thinking they will be CEOs instead of slaves is hilarous, it's the captalist equivalent of /leftypol/ thinking they will be card-carrying commissars instead of slaves.

I don't want to be a CEO. I just want to keep more than half of my paycheck, not be bothered by tax receipts, and not be forced to subsidize a class of entitled welfare queens. Oh, and teach my kids at home or a reputable private school, not in some public school filled with the kids of petty criminals, manned by liberal teachers who are underpaid and frankly not interested in what happens to their class.

You know, it used to be the case that one working man could support his entire family. Then the state introduced labor regulations and welfare, and somehow, that is not the case anymore.

>muh wage slavery

Supply and demand also apply to wage labor, this is economics 101, no matter how hard the Marxists tell you otherwise.

>If it becomes a corporate wet dreams, ancucks would be slaves. If it more like post-apocaliptic violent scenario, ancucvks would still be slaves. libertardians npcs are no different than the average one, both literally want to be slaves even if they don't admit.

>SLAVES SLAVES SLAVES

>>92531

Corporationsare bastard children of the state. Ancapistan would be full of small business, one-man businesses when possible, because competition within a business is softer and less consequential than between separate businesses. I think you're confusing us with the Randians.

>>92267

You have no clue what fascism is. You just heard your dudeweed buddies use it negatively.

>>92533

Corporations wouldn't disappear in their entirety, as there are some inherent advantages to a limited-liabilty entity to which you are not directly connected, but they would be a lot less prominent and a lot less common than they are now.

I dunno, autistic androgynes who are strangers to the human world sounds more like the elf character in that show.

>>91828

>goblins

>>91828

>>92064

Nah Goblins are muzzies

>>92272

irl all caps are rich kids before ancap-revolution and slaves after ancap-revolution.

>>95723

kys

>>92293

Youre just proving my point. Youre goobers who dont fall into the mainstream, so you revert back to edgyness and start vomiting out support for all these dumb ideas which you know nothing about.

>>92299

You can say this, but all ancaps are always going on about Hoppe, dont realize that a state is literally needed for a market economy in order to enforce property rights and business deals, and that others like Objectavist arent ancaps at all.

It just comes across as you getting mad at the faggots LARPing as commies in your school and you wanting to piss them off without donning a swastika since that would get you expelled.

>>95770

>a state is literally needed for a market economy

People keep saying this, but I've yet to see anyone successfully explain how an institution entirely dependent on mass extortion is necessary for the existence of property.

>>95778

Because you need a referee to keep order in the game and make sure everyone plays by the rules, otherwise everyone would just cheat. Even ancaps unconsciously admit to this with their NAP shit, which is just a list of suggestions and basically "sklaven morality" for the less powerful ones, unless you have a police force to enforce those rules.

Whats to stop McDonalds from just firebombing any small competitor or stealing their recipes or sending in gangs to fuck up their restaurants?

>>95770

>state is literally needed for a market economy in order to enforce property rights

Looks like someone needs to be educated in phallocentric law societies.

>>95781

>Because you need a referee

You still haven't justified why the arbitrator needs to be a coercive state or why the market can't produce arbitrators, which is somewhat difficult to do when there exists a very large and healthy arbitration market. To use your sportball analogy, "a referee must exist" does not imply "the only way a referee can operate is by giving him a pistol to kneecap anyone he thinks has made a foul."

>Whats to stop McDonalds from just firebombing any small competitor or stealing their recipes or sending in gangs to fuck up their restaurants?

https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

>>95786

>You still haven't justified why the arbitrator needs to be a coercive state

Its isnt, its a representative republic where the people choose representatives to establish and maintain laws they agree upon through open debate. Unless you are coming at this through some 14 year old "fuck you dad" mentality when any sort of authority is coercive or a cop telling you that you cant spray paint all over someone elses property is a fascist.

>"the only way a referee can operate is by giving him a pistol to kneecap anyone he thinks has made a foul."

literally not even close to this and this isnt even what referees do so I dont know what this failed analogy is supposed to even mean.

>posting an article instead of just responding to me with your own opinion or summarizing the basic core idea of the article

>>95787

>its a representative republic

Which is a coercive state. If you think otherwise, try not paying your taxes and seeing what happens. Or see what happens to whomever attempts to secede from the voluntary republic. You're also not really in a position to call others 14-year-olds when you still appear to be struggling with capitalization and apostrophe placement. The fact that your ideas on how republics work can be picked straight out of a high school Civics textbook only adds to this irony further. Most politicians win their popularity contest by the barest of majorities, and Congress as a whole rarely has an approval rating above 20%, hardly "laws they agree upon."

>so I dont know what this failed analogy is supposed to even mean.

I'll give you a hint: One singular entity has been given the privilege to initiate force on whomever it wishes, while also both writing the laws and interpreting them.

>bitching and moaning about the article instead of spending five minutes reading it

I don't need to respond with my own opinion because I don't need to reinvent the wheel. I've had this same conversation, or a variation of it, a dozen times over with as many different people. I see no point in repeating myself when Bob Murphy gets the point across much more cogently, and with less effort on my part. I'm simply making the most efficient use of the resources I have available.

>>95786

>why the arbitrator needs to be a coercive state

Because the party that loses the arbitration is not going to just submit, you giant fucking idiot. They will likely fight back with violence the moment it doesn't go their way. Which means the judge has to have enough violence at his command to essentially make him a "coercive state".

>why the market can't produce arbitrators

Because a neutral, nonviolent private arbitrator only works when the stakes are ridiculously low. That's why small claims court is a thing.

When the matter is something of huge value, or something people are emotionally invested in (rape, muder etc), it's not going to be settled by a fucking private arbitrator.

>>95787

>Unless you are coming at this through some 14 year old "fuck you dad" mentality when any sort of authority is coercive or a cop telling you that you cant spray paint all over someone elses property is a fascist.

He is, basically.

>Or see what happens to whomever attempts to secede from the voluntary republic

Sovereignity - complete control and ownership of a body over itself. Only if no one else has influence or control over you, can you say you're sovereign.

For someone born in a republic this would mean:

Step 1: Pay parents, grandparents and ancestors in perpetuity for bringing him to life and raising him to be self sufficient. Pay all public services for simply being available for use, even if you didn't use them.

Step 2: Stake out a territory and be capable of protecting your property and yourself from all comers, even if an entire state shows up at your door you need to be able to protect it.

Step 3: Never use other peoples property or land without paying for the privilege.

If you can fulfill all three, you are free to secede from the republic, if not, fuck off.

>Bob Murphy gets the point across

No he fucking doesn't. His conclusion, translated: "if people don't hurt others because a someone threatens to hurt them if they hurt others - that means they won't hurt anyone if there's no one to threaten to hurt them if they hurt others." Which makes no sense, it's a broken tautology, he's saying "if fire burns, then a lack of fire also burns". Fucking what?

Look at this sentence:

>First, let us reflect that a large standing army, ready to crush minority dissenters, is not an unambiguously desirable feature of government.

He doesn't have an argument there, he just says "let us reflect that I'm right". He makes a statement without any evidence or argument, and such statements can be countered with a simple kindergarten utterance - Nuh uh! He assumes "minority dissenters" are virtuous by simply being the minority. Of course minorities can't be bad! It's not like 400,000 gang members in a country of 300,000,000 can be bad! It's not like bands of pirates and highwaymen could be evil! It is unambiguously desirable to have a standing army crushing minority dissenters, because most of the time minority dissenters are violent sons of bitches.

This "bob murphy" then proceeds to embarrass himself by not knowing how states arose in the first place and claiming some ridiculous fictional myth about a "contract".

>>95801

>et us reflect that a large standing army, ready to crush minority dissenters, is not an unambiguously desirable feature of government.

This is also stupid as fuck since armies are specifically to fight against any foreign aggressor and not to put down any "peasant revolt" like he seems to imply. Thats why things like the police exist. Ever wonder why theres things like riot police? Why they use non lethal and crowd control weapons like clubs, tear gas, water cannons, and bean bag guns?

And like you said, he just automatically assumes that any "minority" group that the police would use their force to crush are obviously some noble crusaders for truth and he never even considers the fact that they could be violent criminals.

>>95802

Consider his implied argument:

1. Minority dissenters are by definition good.

2. The majority is by definition evil oppressors.

Then how the fuck could libertarianism work??? Seriously, even if states were abolished, how would a minority of good people survive in a morass of evil tyrants?

And then he goes on to say "the majority of people are really good that's why we don't need states". Well if the majority of people are good, and the majority live peacefully within the state, then those who dissent and oppose the peaceful good majority must be both violent and evil.

That's why I call it a broken tautology. If darkness is different from light, that means darkness is the same as light. He says two opposite things and pretends they prove the other is true.

>>95804

I think this is because ancaps are so cut off from the origins of liberalism/the age of reason that they arent even any sort of liberal anymore. Im fully convinced this contradiction exist because they dont have any real idea what they are talking about so they dont get why they are saying such contradictory things. Ayn Rand constantly shat on ancaps as retards, yet they hold her up as some hero of theirs. I dont think they even grasp the idea that in a republic, an objective set of laws is at the top of the pyramid of power rather than a king or some god or other dogma.

>>95806

>believing that state will remain minimal

>reasonable

>>95806

> Ayn Rand constantly shat on ancaps as retards, yet they hold her up as some hero of theirs

She gets a mention once in a while. Not exactly a hero status. She never "shat" either. The best she could pull off was a cursing here and there and no argumentation to back it.

How new are you?

>>95825

this sort of typical shitposting child tier response is a direct reflection on what a complete joke ancaps are. Just stop being a pussy and become alt right or whatever.

>>95826

Nothing is bigger than randian ninesense that can't be called anything beyond illiterate shitposting anyway so you're only insulting yourself, subhuman.

>>95826

>Ur shitposting

nice argument bruh

>Randian

>calls someone pussy

>calls a philosophy a joke

You're funny, i'll give you that

>>95829

>>95830

These still arent any responses and is just further illustration of the sort of person that would be an "ancap" is.

Ancaps are conspiratorial, often crypto-nazis, anti american, and hold completely inconsistent in their beliefs, with contradictions held together with faulty logic.

>>95822

>you must remain vigilant as a citizen to ensure those in power arent doing any shady shit, and if they are, you vote them out.

Seems inefficient to constantly monitor and physically remove one's oppressor and replace with another oppressor. Why not decentralize the state or better yet remove the middle man altogether and engage in mutually beneficial transactions?

>>95801

>Because the party that loses the arbitration is not going to just submit, you giant fucking idiot. They will likely fight back with violence the moment it doesn't go their way

Both parties agree ahead of time on a neutral arbitrator before the arbitration commences. Any perceived disservice or unfairness can harm an arbitrator’s reputation. Violence by one party is unlikely as other parties may not wish to deal business with them and may be hindered by IPOs.

When the matter is something of huge value, or something people are emotionally invested in (rape, muder etc), it's not going to be settled by a fucking private arbitrator.

Any proof of this assertion?

>If people don't hurt others because a someone threatens to hurt them if they hurt others - that means they won't hurt anyone if there's no one to threaten to hurt them if they hurt others."

How about providing a quote instead of a questionable paraphrasing? Murray makes the point that private defense agencies (and people in general) have an economic incentive not to cause violence because of budget/personnel constraints, detraction of customers, more favorable expenditures in non-violent ventures.

>>95802

>This is also stupid as fuck since armies are specifically to fight against any foreign aggressor and not to put down any "peasant revolt" like he seems to imply.

If armies were meant to specifically fight foreign aggressors, then why were they used in the Whiskey Rebellion?

>he just automatically assumes that any "minority" group that the police would use their force to crush are obviously some noble crusaders for truth and he never even considers the fact that they could be violent criminals.

Can you provide any quotes to prove this assertion?

>Consider his implied argument:

>1. Minority dissenters are by definition good.

>2. The majority is by definition evil oppressors.

Where did he imply that? Can you provide any quotes to prove this assertion?