/liberty/ - Liberty

>>91911

Freedom comes with power, but power comes with money. Let people earn their money, don't steal it away with taxes, don't prevent them with regulations and other shit, and your people will be objectively more powerful than some nigger in a shithole third-world country like Kenya or wherever the markets aren't free.

This is why all these commie rats, neetsocs, and politicians want to control money so much, because they aren't interested in the well being of their people, they are only interested in their own personal power. The kind of power that doesn't come with money isn't really "freedom" since you are still bound to your responsibilities. Even if you are Vladimir Putin, you can't sniff cocaine off a hooker's ass in public, because your currency isn't money but the respect of others.

Enslaving others is incompatible with material wealth. It is not a matter of freedom, the two are mutually exclusive. Which is more important is up to every individual to decide.

>>91911

>Freedom is the ability to do what one wills

Freedom is the ability to act and make decisions independently from others.

>one cannot do what one wills without power

Sure

>the idea of freedom is inseparable from that of power

Not necessary, power is power, freedom is freedom. Power can help achieve freedom but it's not the measure of freedom per se. One can be more powerful but less free because less powerful one's freedom is less restricted by other's power.

>Freedom can only arise from the slavery of others

Complete non sequitur after all this. What kind of stupid does one have to be to say such stupid things without going leftists' "you oppress me by having this piece of bread"?

>>91920

>Enslaving others is incompatible with material wealth. It is not a matter of freedom, the two are mutually exclusive.

Fucking what, retard? Is slavery unprofitable? Are slaves not a valuable resource? Does owning a slave make one less free? Jesus christ, has some brainlet redditor nest been terminated, what are all they doing here?

>>91923

>Freedom is the ability to act and make decisions independently from others.

No, I can be permitted to act and make decisions over a tiny parcel of land, and unable to involve myself in the larger social structure, being hemmed in on all sides by the larger possessions and legal rights of others. My original definition was the simplest and most correct.

>"you oppress me by having this piece of bread"

If I am restrained, by the law, from consuming a piece of bread, then I am made less free in that capacity. This is simply a fact. I am not claiming that by owning bread you unjustly oppress me; only that my freedom is at war with yours.

>>91945

>I don't have freedom because I can't violate the rights of others

In essence, you're saying that you don't support freedom. Yeah, you're in favor of your own freedom, but that's a truism–no one is in favor of restricting his own freedom, so that's not a meaningful description of any kind of philosophy. If you don't value the freedom of others you can't say that you value freedom.

>>91923

Having slaves only looks profitable when everyone is forced to pay to keep them inside, as in the case of jail, to recover them, as in traditional slavery, and/or prevent better goods from being made and exchanged, as in monopoly.

>>91963

Slavery has many faces, it can be forced labor, imprisonment, organ farming, prostitution or citizenship. Not all of them are unprofitable even today, others can be profitable due to different market they're in like those in X century.

>>91911

The first 3 premises seem reasonable but the conclusion is a non-sequitur. Power is just the ability to convert will into action. This does not imply the enslavement of others.

>>91911

Totally false conclusion, OP. How do we define freedom? If I move from one square on the ground to a new square, without restriction, I was "free" to move. Yet, nobody was enslaved because of my actions. You could argue that I was free to move because of my government, but who does my government enslave if I am free to move?

>>91973

>>91983

He might be right if we said absolute freedom can only arise from the slavery of others.

>>91994

It implies that other people's private property ownership reduces my freedom, which is just correct.

>>92034

Land and goods are always scarce resources, regardless of the economic system you are under. Even in a “Marxist Paradise”, some goods would still be scarce, meaning someone’s freedom would be “oppressed.” Your argument is shit.

>>92038

He means that ancaps do not offer him absolute and universal freedom. This leftist still ignores that any other system offers even less of it and none would make him an omnipotent god. If anything, ancoms would rob him and the only system that would offer something close is a variety of fascism, though only if he's the dictator which is not going to happen and he'd lose in the long run even if he managed to get there.

Basically, his argument is not about any organization but "you don't allow me stuff so you don't care about freedom" to which the only thing that can be said is that we care about freedom of multiple people in the most effective and convenient way and everything he posted is not a statement but a simple bait.

>>92061

I want total freedom to rape your mom, but i cannot because she consented.

>>92070

wew lad

>>92070

You cannot because she is no longer in existence

Are you too scared to live without cops and judges and politicians?

>>92041

>>92038

You're both retards for thinking I'm a Marxist.

I support whatever system gives me power.

>>92236

Then you'll make a great marxist, though what are you doing here, faggot?

>>92236

Marxism has consistently been the mechanism through which egotists get their rocks off, so you'll fit right in with them.

>>92243

There's also traditionalism.

>>91911

>Freedom is the ability to do what one wills

Wrong. That is the definition of it that came up after the concept of freedom became eroded. I believe it was Voltaire who did so. Before him, it was regarded as obvious that freedom is the ability to do what you want with what is rightfully yours. So to steal was not seen as an expression of freedom to begin with, as the object of your theft was never yours to begin with. Likewise, flying to the moon by flapping your arms was not seen as an exercise of your freedom, as your arms did not confer the ability of flight to you. The historical conception of freedom, then, was far closer to the idea of negative freedom that most libertarians run with, whereas positive freedom is something entirely different, namely power.

>>91911

Is Nietzschean worldview compatible with libertarianism?

>>92305

There's nothing explicit preventing it. However, I think it can be argued that nihilism would become much less prevalent in a privatized society, as without the oppressive force of feminism and state-sponsored degeneracy bearing down on them, men would be far less inclined to turn to nihilism.

>>92307

I really didn't like Nietzsche, but I have also only read Thus Spoke Zarathrustra, which I was told is a bad place to start with him and not even his best book.

>>92338

>There was nothing said about nihilism, retard, the thread was about egoism.

The post he replied too was about Nietzsche, who was dealing with nihilism. So, it was relevant to the topic. With less nihilism around us, Nietzsche will probably become less relevant.

>>92342

>was about Nietzsche

No it was not. OP is a faggot and posted him when trying to act edgy even though he didn't advocate for nihilism, quite the opposite, despite what normalfags think.

>>92345

>No it was not.

Here is what I wrote:

>The post he replied too was about Nietzsche

Here is the post that >>92333 replied to:

>>92305

>Is Nietzschean worldview compatible with libertarianism?

>OP is a faggot and posted him when trying to act edgy even though he didn't advocate for nihilism, quite the opposite, despite what normalfags think.

I am aware of that, but not really impressed with it. Nietzsche was trying desperately to find a way out of the nihilism of his time, but if you ask me, he only succeeded at creating more of it, at the end of the day.

>>92352

k

>Nietzsche was trying desperately to find a way out of the nihilism of his time

If he did, he'd just go drinking. It's not hard. He was trying to understand things he couldn't know for sure but he couldn't disprove the conclusion so he either had to accept it or embrace it and he chose the latter. I think it's the only choice for sufficiently advanced thinker to live a happy life without succumbing to ignorance.

>>92342

nietzsche was butthurt about nihlism outcompeting his ideas in market of ideas

>>92342

>With less nihilism around us

t. guy who lives in a bubble

>>92333

>without the oppressive force of feminism and state-sponsored degeneracy bearing down on them

These are symptoms of nihilism.

>>92460

>These are symptoms of nihilism.

t. guy who lives in a bubble