/liberty/ - Liberty

>>96949

>devolve

>implying it inst a more jewish version of it already

>>96949

It's not, it's just retarded leftists thinking history is linear and communism is destined to replace "capitalism" because reasons. What exactly is capitalism and why and how did it replace "feudalism" and why are these some economic models they don't have to know, it only gets in the way.

>>96951

It's got a long way to go until it reaches the degeneracy and jewishness of neetsoc.

It would probably devolve into Mad Max

>>96970

Rich people with private armies can't take over sections of land or buy property, keep people on the property and enslave people?

>>96992

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

>>96993

>(((Mises))).org

>>96994

Are you fucking kidding me? The Mises institute is one of the few respectable organizations out there in academia after the shit show other groups made during the last election. The Mises institute is actually recognized in the field of economics still and its members are invited to actually talk with university students. Eat shit.

>>96995

This.

>>96994

>hurr, I can't argue so I just put echoes around anything I can't understand

You're a fucking retard. The Mises Institute is recognized as a useful, respectable organization like the Christfag said, and all of its members are economically literate people who know their shit Jeffrey Tucker isn't a member anymore. And unlike other right-wing organizations, when an Institute fellow debates someone, or debunks an argument, they actually seek out experts and leaders in their respective field to criticize, instead of blue-haired nobodies that couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.

>>96949

Every man a King, what a wonderful system. I wonder how that's possible, though. I guess the executives are robots or AI, the private armies are robots or nonpersons (xenomorphs, autonomous guns, missiles) and the working class plebs are burger flipping robots. Or did you think that "Capitalist" meant something other than "someone who thinks you can trade things for currency"?

>>96995

>>97001

>getting mad at (((Mises)))

Come on. You can't argue with (((thing))), it's just a meaningless smear. Get mad that people are so stupid they're essentially just saying "lol cuck lmao" but don't feel like you need to defend the lack of jewishness of something just because they can hit '(' and ')' on their keyboard.

>>96999 (impressive, very nice)

>Outside of tribes, most humans organize hierarchically

I do believe you mean the opposite. Tribes are generally strictly hierarchical whereas most social organizations aren't. There is no hierarchical organization in an ancap society.

>>97003

>I have a feeling you are referring to things like clubs

Even clubs tend to have officer positions, and outside the official hierarchy have an unofficial pecking order by seniority/experience. Humans are orderly creatures, and their organizations near always have some kind of top-down structure to them.

>>97002

>There is no hierarchical organization in an ancap society.

What the other Confederate-anon said, there's plenty of hierarchy to be found outside of the state. No rulers doesn't mean no rules, and it certainly doesn't mean no authority.

>>97049

Hey there objectivist cuckold. Still shilling for democracy, i see?

>>97049

>in exchange giving them yields from their crops and working a certain amount of days on the lords land

But we have money and feudalism has to do with land. I don't see how a government will magically prevent farmers from being murdered anyways. If anything the government is more of a threat because there is a risk of gun control.

>>97051

No argument and you cant really call anyone else a cuckhold, especially when Im advocating for living under a system of self determination and freedom while you are shilling to be a slave to a corporation.

>>97052

> I don't see how a government will magically prevent farmers from being murdered anyways

Farmer Joe and Farmer Bob are having a dispute on where the boundaries of their land is and accusations of stealing livestock. How do they resolve this?

With a government, they take this matter to the courts who review all evidence and give out their findings to settle the dispute. Without the state, the only recourse is through attacking each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVxhzOMAA-g

>There is a possiblity that a government could take away guns, therefore, the very idea of having any state is undesirable

completely fault logic. Especially if you live in a republic whos constitution garuntees gun ownership

>>97056

>Farmer Joe and Farmer Bob are having a dispute on where the boundaries of their land is and accusations of stealing livestock. How do they resolve this?

>With a government, they take this matter to the courts who review all evidence and give out their findings to settle the dispute. Without the state, the only recourse is through attacking each other

There are private courts that resolve disputes.

>completely fault logic. Especially if you live in a republic whos constitution garuntees gun ownership

*Ahem* the USA

Gun rights and free speech get infringed upon all the time

>>97058

Private courts arent a thing and wont ever be a thing.

Private jurisdiction is literally something born out of feudalism fam

>Gun rights and free speech get infringed upon all the time

by corporations, with the constitution being the only thing that protects those ideas.

>>96949

I'll just leave it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWrFTFxGbk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTFIBXtqCgQ

>>97061

>Im too stupid to articulate my own argument, or to at least understand others arguments and boil them down to their basic points, so you have to go and read these articles now

Post trashed

>>97061

>I'm starting to think you don't actually know what a corporation is or what it does

Kind of like how you dont know what capitalism, a free market, or liberalism is.

>>97049

>poisoning the well

Feel free to provide an argument anytime

>>97069

>>97067

No argument. This is why ancaps always will be an irrelevant meme group for teenyboppers. Its not a false sense of superiority either, Im objectivly more knowledgeable on this topic than you guys are based on the blatant fact that I understand the basic concepts around these ideas, while you have no response other than needlessly angry "NUH UH!" responses, and the fact that you cant even articulate your own response and have to just make appeals to authority and post links to articles as responses.

If you dont want to be treated like shitposters, then stop behaving like shitposters.

>>96993

That's gotta be the most retarded thing I've ever read. It does not address warlords taking over.

>All people will fund competing police forces

Doesn't make sense

>Large companies won't use violence because muh free market

Doesn't make any sense.

The article provides no reason why companies wouldn't attack each other using violence with subtlety or loudly.

It jumps to random conclusions. There's literally no reason a large company wouldn't use violence against competition.

>b-but if everyone knows they'll stop buying their products

1. Union busting is a thing. They can do violence very subtle.

2. Companies like Facebook would still be a monopoly in a free market because people don't think rationally when signing nor do they care about freedom of speech. Facebook would still be Facebook. The company has tremendous social reach. Now you may be asking how it's relavent. If Facebook uses violence against a competitor: will anyone care enough to stop using the platform? No. What if Facebook does violence without anyone even finding out?

>>97094

>The article provides no reason why companies wouldn't attack each other using violence with subtlety or loudly.

It provides several. Take a few deep breaths and read again.

>muh Facebook

Facebook and Google got to where they are through extensive government favoritism, not the market. They sell the data they collect to alphabet soup, they get regulatory favoritism from the FCC and other agencies, and they have exclusive contracts with various state agencies as well. Point to a monopoly, any monopoly, and I will show a product of state interference.

>>97098

>It provides several. Take a few deep breaths and read again

I've read it 3 times.

>Facebook and Google got to where they are through extensive government favoritism, not the market. They sell the data they collect to alphabet soup, they get regulatory favoritism from the FCC and other agencies, and they have exclusive contracts with various state agencies as well. Point to a monopoly, any monopoly, and I will show a product of state interference

That's all just theory. Here's a way natural monopolies can and do exist

>Natural monopolies exist, and they will exist without any government in place. People are not rational actors. Lolbertarians are universally autistic, and every thing they believe in is pure theory.

Facebook would still be facebook in the total absence of government. It would still be the primary social media platform with the most normie reach. Platforms like this rise to their position because they have a quality of social momentum. It doesn't matter that other competitors exist, more freedom respecting competitors, people are not rationally evaluating their potential choices when they decide to use facebook. None of that is ever a factor in the equation.

When these companies arrive at their position of a natural monopoly they become a public forum. To censor a public forum is every bit an infringement on the first amendment as banning political protests on the streets of a privately owned township. This is something the supreme court has already heard and ruled against.

>>97102

what anime is this?

>>97049

>AnCaps are mostly just edgy kids who are completely ignorant of both economics and history.

Got data on that? No? Then stuff it.

>A free market NEEDS a state in order to regulate and protect it.

Weird how property rights and markets predate the nation-state.

>This is why literally every real Liberal+capitalist thinker has always argued that the state serves a vital function, while discarding ancaps as delusional LARPers

Assertions asserted assertively.

>If you want a better idea of how feudalism was formed, and how ancap will simply lead to the exact same thing, read this.

Weird that feudalism collapsed with the wearing away of the law of Entail, which meant that landholders finally were allowed to sell their land. It's almost as though feudalism relied on economic restrictions preventing market forces from operating properly.

>>97265

>Weird how property rights and markets predate the nation-state.

They dont.

You also completely misunderstood the fact that I was pointing out that without a state to protect yeomen from raiders, feudal systems of protection formed. And that this is simply the natural evolution of how a society will function if you simply erase the state. The whole point of the argument is that ancap will lead to feudalism, and Im saying it will while you nor anyone else has any counter argument

>>97460

Way to dodge the point about land sales being legally restricted. Lords weren't allowed to sell their land. As soon as they could, they did, and the feudal landholdings broke up. Since a free market in land breaks up feudalism, the idea that it inevitably produces feudalism is ludicrous on its face.

>>97460

>They dont.

What are polycentric law societies?