/liberty/ - Liberty

what happens to your property when you die and you have no kids

how would the NAP work if no one obeyed it or believed in it

>>98016

It goes wherever you will it to

>>98017

The question doesn't make sense

>>98016

Assuming you also have no siblings, nephews, cousins, or second cousins either, and assuming you've made no provisions in your will? It would likely fall to a McCourt to decide who the executor of the will would be among the various claimants. And even for shut-in NEETs there will be claimants–people don't turn up their nose at the opportunity for free stuff. So let's say Anon Y. Mousse, anime tiddies connoisseur extraordinaire, dies unmarried and childless. His extended family forgot he existed awhile back and don't try to make any claim to his estate. After the guy he played in CS:GO servers with and the pizza delivery guy, his only source of social interaction, realize he's dead, they realize they both want a piece of those sweet programmer NEETBux, and go to the McCourt, turning down Burger Kangz arbitration due to the long line, to make their cases. Each argues why he was the only source of companionship Anon had in his miserable life and the closest thing he had to a friend. The McJudge listens to each argument, charges a nominal fee of 14.88 BTC, and rules that CSGO is the executor, granting him 55% of his choice of Anon's assets, with the remainder going to pizza guy.

wouldn't companies draining resources from undeveloped countries cause an influx of migration to first world countries?

>>98025

Companies don't "drain resources" from third world countries. If anything, the flow is in the opposite direction, as the low startup cost of business in poorer countries causes capital to flow from wealthier economies into poorer ones. If for whatever reason you see an "influx of migration" anyways (perhaps if said country is a socialist shithole with no potential for capital growth), the answer is the same one it always is in these cases: any attempt to migrate fails rather quickly when the entrant is refused and told to get the fuck off my property.

>>98038

so no public property in ancap?

Scenario: a man is found dead outdoors somewhere. He can't be identified. In usual fashion, the local ambulance picks him up and EMS tries to resuscitate, no good. His organs are harvest-able and could save the life of another man at the hospital.

Does it infringe on any property rights to move forward with the harvesting? We don't know if he willed against it, or if he has family that would protest for some burial ceremony reasons.

The root question is, does your claim to your body end in death, and should it be considered a found item for anyone to claim?

>>98062

I would think that goes without saying.

>>98070

Ancap doesn't have a top-down legal monoculture, so obvioulsy different locales would have different solutions to the problem.

>The root question is, does your claim to your body end in death, and should it be considered a found item for anyone to claim?

I would rule that ownership of the body goes to either the chief executor in the will, or to the next of kin of none is named. If there isn't a way to establish ownership, like in your scenario, then it's considered unowned property and subject to the rules of emborderment. This changes of course if the true owner can be found, in which case he retakes custody of the body. For example, if the next of kin comes into the morgue the day after the organ-harvesting happens, and have proof that they are next of kin, they would retake ownership of the body, and the hospital would probably be obligated to give them monetary compensation for the lost organs if the next-of-kin asked for it.

>>98070

I'm not an expert, but I think it depends on the local rules and laws of the territory that the body was found on.

Maybe he was found in a place that considers dead bodies no one's property by default, or maybe the property would belong to the family first and foremost.

>>98072

why should the hospital give reparations?

>>98073

I'm meaning to ask how it ought to be in a libertarian society

>>98074

>I'm meaning to ask how it ought to be in a libertarian society

There isn't one correct answer here. If you don't want to get raped after death, try not to die on a necrophiliac's lawn, if you don't want to be cremated, try to not die in a Muslim neighbourhood.

Whoever finds your body will probably want to know what is stated in your will, because if they sell all your organs and the owner of the dead body will come to collect it, the person could sue you for damaging his property.

>>98074

>why should the hospital give reparations?

Because it's the next-of-kin's property. Those organs belonged to him, and, although they did so in good faith, they gave away his property without permission. Since it's not practical or ethical to extract the organs out of the person in whom they ended up, providing monetary compensation for the lost property is a reasonable alternative.

>>98081

Isn't there a statute of limitations on such a circumstance?

If I find a consumable product, the proper owner who lost it can't be found, and I use it up, why is their misfortune any burden on me?

Transferring organs is a time sensitive matter and such a policy would discourage the use of available organs by the hospitals, meaning more deaths.

>>98018

>The question doesn't make sense

The question was that in a society where some people reject the NAP how is it dealt with?

>>98094

People who reject the rules of the system are still tried under the rules of the system, just like now.

>AnCaps coup the goverment and declare the state abolished

>Workers now stripped of all concessions immediately rise up

<Do you

<A. Concede to their demands

>AnCapitalism collapses as this results in the reformation of a state or regulatory entity

<B. Repress the strikers

>end up killing / maiming / imprisoning your entire workforce and/or consumer base and the economy collapses

What do you do?

>>98100

we don't coup the government and leave a lawless void

>>98100

>workers

What workers? Assuming we're talking about the west, most of the population is bourgoisie of some kind.

Stop trying to transpose 19th century socioeconomic conditions to the modern age.

>>98108

>Most of the population is bourgoisie in the west

What do you mean?

Do you imply that the vast majority of the population don't sell their labor for wages?

>>98100

>Workers now stripped of all concessions immediately rise up

Who? Stripped of what? Rise up against whom?

>>98116

>Who?

Workers

>Stripped of what

Concessions given to them by the capitalist class Minimum wages state mandated education and healthcare workplace safety legislation etc

>Against whom

Against capitalism / whichever power fills the power vacuum

>>98118

>Minimum wages

Minimum wages actually hurt wages more

>state mandated education

<indoctrination means educated

>healthcare

government regulation drives up healthcare costs in the US

>workplace safety

employers want to look out for their workers and accidents can ways happen even with spooks like workplace safety regulations. An employer can't kill off all his employees

>>98118

>Minimum wages

Not a concession but mandated barrier of entry into the workforce

>education and healthcare

Already provided free or at affordable prices from fraternal societies and the market

>workplace safety legislation

third-party safety standards are provided by the market

Robert Murphy's arguments aren't cutting it for me. He never addressed the point. He doesn't satisfy for me that warlords wouldn't take over. Why wouldn't one company fund their own mercenaries and attack a competitor? The companies can even do it so know one will know like McDonald's paying some thugs (so it can't trace back to McDonald's) to attack burger king. Why wouldn't private militaries attack each other? What if a gang of bandits got together, started small taking money from people they killed, seize the property of the people they killed, then hire a private military to further assist them.

>>98149

Even if you assume it's 100% impossible for the act to be traced back to McDonald's (how does everyone in the world know that Russian troops were in Crimea if they had no insignia?), the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Sending mercenaries to attack each other is much more expensive than just making a better product, and the ramifications of such an act (even if secret, it can't be secret forever) would have immediate consequences for McDonald's. Not only would distributors and suppliers blacklist them, their insurance rates would skyrocket, as they've just proven themselves to be extremely high-risk clients. Banks would be less likely to provide them loans, for a similar reason. And unlike the government, that other roving gang of thieves, a criminal gang has no aura of legitimacy around it, which might cause people to hesitate in acting against it the way they might a rogue government, and unlike a government, such a criminal gang wouldn't have the infrastructure in place to start their protection racket, and would have to start from scratch. Finally, one other thing:

>What if a gang of bandits got together, started small taking money from people they killed, seize the property of the people they killed, then hire a private military to further assist them.

I think it's very telling that the worst possible criticism of free enterprise people think of is essentially, "what if a government forms."

>>98151

Damn okay. What if the rich banded together and attempted to form a police state

>>98177

>buy bitcoin while it's still cheap

kind of late on this one aren't you?

>>98257

*relatively cheap (compared to what it was)

>>98086

>Isn't there a statute of limitations on such a circumstance?

Why would there be? Theft doesn't stop being theft with the passage of time. There is a practical statute of limitations in that the more time passes, the more difficult it is to prove that a theft occurred, and it is also more difficult to prove that if a threat occurred, you are in fact the rightful owner.

>Transferring organs is a time sensitive matter and such a policy would discourage the use of available organs by the hospitals, meaning more deaths.

Keep in mind we're talking about a very niche, very uncommon occurrence–someone dies, can't be identified, is used for organ transplant, and is then positively identified only after the transplant is finalized. It's a very unusual circumstance, and I doubt it would happen often enough to substantially affect hospital policy. And even in those rare cases where it does happen, it doesn't discourage the use of those organs, it just induces a hospital to pay for something that they received for free. As they probably pay for a good chunk of their organs already (since organ market is a thing in ancapistan), it would fit into the existing policy rather seamlessly.

Is bitcoin cash superior to bitcoin?

>>98373

I'm not a yuge cryptofag, but I believe the only technical difference between the two is that Bitcoin Cash was designed to hold a larger number of transactions in its ledger. Which one is "superior" will depend on what you actually want to use crypto for.

One of the most common arguments I hear against free market capitalism is: what about consumerism? how do you usually respond?1

>>98395

Consumerism is a product of fetishizing consumption and "demand-side" economics. The man responsible for these ideas dominating policy isn't an Austrian school, Chicago school, or any other free-market economist, but everyone's favorite interventionist: John Maynard Keynes. Free-market economists like the Austrians in fact promote the opposite of consumerism by stressing the importance of saving for economic growth, spurring on investment, and emphasizing the benefits of maintaining a low time-preference. Hell, if you want further proof of this, just look at the most negative stereotypes of "bad" capitalists out there–characters like Ebenezer Scrooge aren't depicted as being conspicuous consumers, they're depicted as being miserly, compulsive savers.

Really, consumerism is fundamentally a socialist trait; the green-eyed socialists are the ones who are always concerned with what material goods they have compared to others, how is it they transfer a greater quantity of consumerist goods to the largest number of people through food stamps and similar programs, how can they induce men to buy more consumerist goods through giving them makework jobs.

why do free market advocates seem to think that mega mergers wouldn't happen and that the biggest companies wouldn't just buy out the small ones?

>>98499

>why are free market advocates educated in diseconmies of scale

FTFY

in a free market with no patents wouldn't innovation be hampered? If some company can just reproduce a drug with ease and charge a lower price right after a company puts it out. Why even enter the market?

>>98118

>Workers

That's not a useful category in capitalist societies, even Bill Gates is a "worker" he didn't trip and fall into seventy billion dollars.

"Worker" is a useful category in very corrupt feudal societies, where some people actually don't work for their survival and are hereditarily born into it no matter what they do.

>Concessions given to them by the capitalist class Minimum wages state mandated education and healthcare workplace safety legislation etc

This isn't even a sentence, what the fuck is wrong with you.

>>98597

Innovation wouldn't be hampered, in fact it will be encouraged. Rather than resting on the laurels of a patent-secured monopoly for 20 years, companies would have to constantly innovate to stay competitive; the market devours the indolent.

People will continue to enter the market for several reasons. First, nobody's time-preference is zero; you can't wait indefinitely for somebody else to innovate so you can copy them, so you have to have your own R&D. Second, there are many ways to get market power besides holding a patent. Being the first innovator, and/or the one who holds a distinctive trademark, are far more important for maintaining sales in the long run after a patent has expired. You can see this in Advil continuing to sell ibuprofen for a higher price than generic substitutes, or Trijicon continuing to be the only manufacturer of dual-illuminated scopes despite the patent running out 10 years ago. Alternatively, you can compete on quality rather than just innovation–if your original product is of better craftsmanship, and has a better warranty, than the imitators, customers will be more inclined to continue patronizing you. Third, having a strong R&D department is beneficial in and of itself, regardless of the sales you make. If, thanks to your reputation for R&D, your company is expected to make some innovation in the future, the present day value of your company will increase, making it more attractive to potential investors (or stockholders if your stock is on the open market).

>If some company can just reproduce a drug with ease and charge a lower price right after a company puts it out

This happens already. If I walk into CVS, Rite-Aid, or some other pharmacy, I can find them selling generic versions of ibuprofen and a slew of other drugs for less than the brand name version. These products are identical in every practical way, so why haven't the discount imitators put the large company that once held the patent out of business?

>>98606

2nd infografic is in disagreement with biology of humans

in humans men dont take care of offspring, it is women's job to make male stay with her and give her resources and give resources to their child. but man is not obliged to do these things

>>98659

So? NAP is in disagreement with biology of humans. If you want to argue from biological essentialism you are on the wrong board although I would agree with a lot of what you have to say

>>98606

Is that you, the "implied contract" shill?

Majesty 2 is a great game. It teaches women about borders and mutts about taxes

>>98713

Does the BO even post here? I haven't seen any regular posters who have the same writing style as the sticky.

>>98714

I think nobody explained to him about the whole calculation problem thing.

>>98715

He occasionally uses the gadsden flag, but he is around, just doesn't post much with his BO persona. I irregularly check claims so we don't get some reddit-tier control freak in charge like what happened to /fit/.

>>98728

>spoiler

Are you me?

One of the most common argument I see many Keynesian advocates use in support for government intervention in the market place is blaming the failure of the free market for spiraling the economy into a great recession. What do libertarians believe caused such a financial crisis to happen to leave millions of people unemployed?

>>98401

>The man responsible for these ideas dominating policy isn't an Austrian school, Chicago school, or any other free-market economist, but everyone's favorite interventionist: John Maynard Keynes

Keynes teaches that spending means growth. But when I was reading Human Action, Mises said that consumers spending money in other sectors because free trade and automation it would create jobs and make the economy grow. So you're saying the Austrians teach that saving means growth even though mises said the opposite

>>98728

You mean you're constantly checking claims, hoping to be the pope of /liberty/.

>>98882

>Mises said that consumers spending money in other sectors because free trade and automation it would create jobs and make the economy grow. So you're saying the Austrians teach that saving means growth even though mises said the opposite

What are you talking about? Mises spends most of Human Action praising entrepreneurs, and the way in which their predictive efforts, motivated by the potential for profit, is what causes the economy to function, as they divert modes of production from less efficient roles to more efficient ones. Nor does that specific example you bring up constitute as an argument based on consumerism. Free trade and automation spur economic growth by decreasing costs. It is the burden of entrepreneurs to exploit those reduced costs, and increase production in the most profitable sector. You even mentioned "creating jobs" yourself–who is it that creates those jobs, by hiring people? Presuming it occurs in the market and not as a state handout, increasing employment is the very opposite of consumerism, for it emphasizes the growth of product capital (in this case human capital) rather than fetishizing spending.

>>98926

>Nor does that specific example you bring up constitute as an argument based on consumerism

It literally says it on the Mises wiki too

> any savings in labor costs must be either passed on to consumers (who then have extra money to spend or save, either of which produces more jobs)

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Automation

to me it seems like it does advocate for consumerism.

>>98927

You see how it says "either" in your quote, and how in the very next sentence the article goes on to describe the benefits to the producer? And you see how, in your quote, saving is mentioned as well as spending, instead of focusing exclusively on spending the way a Keynesian would? Nice quotemine, and I like how you first mentioned Human Action, then switched to using Mises Wiki—consistency is for chumps, right?

Even ignoring all that, what exactly is your point? That if anyone highlights any kind of benefit to the consumer, anywhere, at any point in time, they become guilty of "consumerism"? That's just stupid. Consumerism is focusing on consumption and spending at the expense of everything else, and neither Human Action nor the article you posted are guilty of that. Even that portion of the article that does show benefits to the consumer can't do so without emphasizing the role of the producer—it is only because of the firm's efforts to cut costs that the consumer sees a benefit. A consumerist would make no distinction between a reduction in cost from automation and a direct subsidy paid to the consumers. Are you actually this obtuse, or do you take some form of enjoyment from this pilpul?

>>98922

Even if the BO doesn't login for two weeks and the board becomes up for grabs. It will also be fucking weeks before anyone responds to your claim emails, and the BO will probably login within that time.

what does libertarianism do to stop the people who make it impossible to implement?

>>99023

in theory helicopters, in practice it wouldn't be very libertarian so we make an appeal to the good characters of the people

>>99025

> in practice it wouldn't be very libertarian

Nonsense. If someone threatens you with a gun, you don't have to wait until he pulls the trigger and the bullet has left the barrel before you retaliate; the mere act of pulling the gun and threatening you is provocation enough for you to act against him. By the same token, if a person or persons loudly and repeatedly announce their intentions to use the state as a cudgel against you, to use it to rob you of your wealth and livelihood, you are completely within your rights to prevent them from doing so. Throwing commies out of helicopters isn't aggression, it's self-defense.

>>99026

I know you're right, but at the same time I know we're pussies and we don't have the military power to defend ourselves, so I just delude myself into thinking that being pacifists is a choice

>>99025

It's a violation of the *Non-Aggression* Principal

>>99027

This. We can't even get rid of commies off of our own fucking board.

>>99037

commies on the board are good. They let us improve our arguments and maybe someone will change his mind.

>>99037

That's because this board has certain principles. It isn't non-existent moderation that means we get raided, that lies in the nature of small boards. That we have some retards spamming lies and slander once every while, that is for the reasons >>99041 said, and because we decided against quality control by the admins years ago, as we saw how this turned out for /pol/ and /leftypol/. We don't enforce ideological purism, but that is why we never had a problem with mods throwing half the users of the site under the bus every six months. You may not see the benefits of the policy, but you would definitely notice the drawbacks if it was gone.

libertarians complain about government lobbying. but wouldn't companoes just lobby private police forces?

>>99047

They wouldn't lobby them, they'd directly pay them for their services. Lobbying is only when one party holds a monopoly on force. If you privatize policing, there's no concentration of authority.

>>99047

Lobbying is only effective because a) you only need to bribe one guy that has a monopoly of force b) your bribe is only measured against the salary of one pencil-pusher instead of against the gross profits of an entire security agency c) people assign a certain kind of mysticism to state police and state officials which shields them from criticism. In a system of free enterprise, bribing one court or one police agency means absolutely nothing, because every single other actor in the market would immediately cease to see the bribed agency as legitimate and take their business elsewhere. It's easy to have the courts on your side when there's one District Court for the entire city which has authority over everyone; capturing dozens or hundreds of different courts, each of which only has authority over those consumers who deign to purchase their services, is much more difficult. Finally, state institutions are treated differently by people than private ones. No one is under any illusion of Wal-Mart being a "servant of the people" or any such nonsense. If Wal-Mart provides a valuable service to them consumers make use of it, and if it doesn't they will immediately and without mercy condemn its incompetence, both with their voices and with their wallets. No one would apologize on their behalf and say Wal-Mart is doing the best that they can, and certainly no one would suggest that they could solve the problem, if only they were given more money through a budget increase. One the courts are privatized, the attitude will be the same. Even discounting competition, even discounting the sheer impracticality of such bribes, the fact that no one except the clients have any reason to give a shit what the courts say means any bribe will be completely toothless.

>>99050

> you only need to bribe one guy that has a monopoly of force

so a business can bribe the property owner in a private city and make it so no other businesses can form?

>>99056

What do you mean "the" property owner? There would be hundreds, possibly thousands of different plots and property-owners in a city.

Nevertheless, let's assume for the moment your criticism is a plausible occurrence. What you, and anyone else making similar objects, are asking is "what if a single entity forcibly seizes monopoly control of a region, and uses its newfound power to plunder and kill?" In other words, the harshest criticism of the natural order that anyone can think of is, "what if a government forms?" That alone serves to heavily bolster the free market position.

>>99056

Yes. If one guy owned the entire city, he could ban other businesses from opening in his city. No one would want to live in that city though since it means others can own entire cities on the cheap and compete with him. No rational man with enough intelligence, luck, and guts to be capable of owning an entire fucking city, would willingly do this.

>>99058

No one would know that hes being bribed

>>99057

>"what if a government forms?" is the harshest criticism

nope this is

> Without a govt, you have no judicial system. Without a judicial system you have no property rights or laws. Without property rights and laws you have no commerce or investment. Without commerce or investment, you have no economy.

If you want to move the judicial system over to the private sector, to avoid this problem, then you haven't actually created a stateless society. You still have institutions preforming the role of govt., as such they will be susceptible to the same corruption as public officials were. There is no reason to believe your judge for hire wouldn't be corrupted, and placed on the payroll of the highest bidder (banks).

>>99062

> Without a govt, you have no judicial system.

You realize private arbitration exists, and is prevalent even in the current system, right? In fact, private arbitration is used far more often than the state courts, and most cases don't even make it to a judge. There's no part of the process of dispute resolution that necessitates it being funded through tax. The rest of your chain of logic is based on this false assumption and as such may be ignored.

>There is no reason to believe your judge for hire wouldn't be corrupted

https://mises.org/library/possibility-private-law

There are plenty. The reasons you don't see corruption in every other sector of the economy apply as well to the market for security.

>>99072

I want to be able to walk across the street to work instead of having to drive to the industrial sector of my city, so yes, zoning laws are bad. If someone wants to live next to the factory or warehouse or what have you they work at, that's their business. If a farm wants the slaughterhouse next door to them, that's their god-given fucking right. If you don't want to live next to that factory or office building or whatever, then you have the option to move away from that shit to some suburb where the houses aren't going to be dirt cheap since you're paying for the luxury of not living next to a power substation or factory or whatever.

>>99072

>yeah we'll just have private companies do what the govt does best

>fanatical claims

You're not very bright, are you?

>>99072

>Complains that cities won't look nice without zoning laws

>Uses a form of architecture predominantly used by authoritarian governments as an example

What did he mean by this?

>>99062

You do realize part of the reason banks have so much power these days is because of central banking?

>>99081

>>205556378 (You)

And the federal reserve was created because bankers where leveraging money out of thin air. The secret service was actually created to prevent this fraud, over 30% of the capital in the US at that point was completely fraudulent. When larger firms bought up these smaller firms, known as "wildcat banks", they unknowingly purchased fraudulent banks that merely lied about the amount of reserves they were borrowing against and lending out to unsuspecting citizens. When capital was called in, these got exposed and larger firms, which were over-leveraged due to these fake banks, collapsed as well. This created contagions and bank runs. So in short, eliminating a central bank would not eliminate bank fraud.

>>99086

I never asserted that eliminating a central bank would eliminate bank fraud. But it would certainly disincentivize it.

>>99087

Bank fraud is what gives banks so much money

wouldn't companies just outsource or import labor?

>>99098

Comparative advantage my dude. You can't outsource everything, and without government gibs (either direct like transfer payments or indirect, as in public schools) to subsidize it importing low quality shitskins is more trouble than it's worth.

>>99086

>over 30% of the capital in the US at that point was completely fraudulent.

source?

let's say two companies dominate a market and decide to collude. they can do that pretty easily. if someone else wanted to enter the market how would they perform the R&D necessary when they are years behind in research? how could they enter the market and be an actual threat to the cartel.

>>100298

Why are the companies colluding at all, when game theory and the prisoner's dilemma suggest that both players will almost immediately break the collusion? Cartels are inherently unstable entities, there's a reason they aren't seen in the market outside of state-controlled markets.

But, setting all that aside for the moment: What exactly do you mean by "the R&D necessary?" What market is this, and what level of R&D is needed for another market to compete? There aren't any patent laws in the free market, which means that, if nothing else, the competitive fringe would be able to imitate the dominant firm's products, then use a comparatively small amount of R&D to differentiate its version of the product, either through quality improvement or through catering to a slightly different niche of the market. It can take advantage of the large firm's inertia and impersonality, and market itself as a boutique firm much more responsive where customer service and customer flexibility are concerned. They could develop a relatively small and cheap R&D branch, then lease their R&D department to other smaller competitors in the market for a nominal fee. Even if we assume that your not quite realistic collusion scenario were accurate, there exist innumerable methods of competition for the smaller firms. Not least of the reasons this is the case is that there are various advantages which only small firms have, as well as various disadvantages that only large firms have.

>>100298

You can’t even get two salespeople working for the same company to keep from undercutting each other. What makes you think two companies will work together? And if they do, that a third will definitely stay out of the market?

>>100298

>if someone else wanted to enter the market how would they perform the R&D necessary when they are years behind in research?

Okay, first of all, let me point out that this is an assumption, nothing more. There is no iron law that when two companies collude, their R&D advances so quickly that no competitor could possibly catch up. Startup firms frequently have superior technology as their gimmick, and that would be the case even more often if you didn't have patent laws prohibiting technological innovation just because you happen to use a patented design of screw in your newest machine.

Besides, you don't need new competitors to break up a cartel. It's aesthetically pleasing if some underdog company comes in and roughs up the stagnant market, true, but that is not necessarily better than one of the two companies simply breaking the cartel agreement, not from the standpoint of economics. As soon as one company becomes a burden to the other, the cartel will break up. That can be the case when one of the two companies is forced to share its newest research with its lazy cartel partner, for example, or when, for any reason, it notices that it can make more money by undercutting the cartel agreement. This is what happened quite frequently historically.

Your main issue here, as I can see it, is that you look at large companies as behemoths dominating the market, not as genuine actors subject to all the laws and dictates of the marketplace. That's a very common way of thinking, but it isn't correct.

>>98072

>Ancap doesn't have a top-down legal monoculture, so obvioulsy different locales would have different solutions to the problem.

Thank you for this. I'm sick of everyone trying to model the whole world according to "a universal (anarchist) plan" that has to work everywhere and everytime.

People were able to live without complicated polticial and economic models just fine, but for some reason every single risk and potentially negative outcome must be mapped out and must have a waterproof "solution" for it.

If I wanted to depend on a system perfectly worked out for "my best interest" I wouldn't be a damn anarchist ffs lol.

>>100406

>Do you guys believe the atrocities committed by the Nazis are true

I don't know about the other folks here, but I do believe the holocaust was real.

>>100406

I don't believe Auschwitz had a swimming pool, movie theater, and full-service massage center if that's what you're asking. Nor will I spend hours shoving pictures of wooden doors and back-of-the-napkin arithmetic into your face. I do think it was blown out of proportion by Allied propaganda as history is written by the victors, and we know from the Entente in WWI that the English and Americans aren't above a little demonizing propaganda to justify their wars. I also wouldn't be surprised if that propaganda involved fudging the numbers a bit, intentionally or otherwise. Postwar germany offered a monetary reparation for Holocaust survivors, any economist could tell you that incentive would cause a lot of brand new holocaust survivors to suddenly start popping up. We also already know that several ancillary parts of the holocaust were fabricated, namely: the soap, the lampshades, the masturbation machines, and the Holocoaster.

All that being said, one thing is clear. Regardless of whether or not the depiction of the Holocaust is accurate, a certain group have been milking that sucker dry for guilt and prestige. This remains a true statement whether or not the event actually occurred as described.

>>100392

Most people can't understand decentralization because basically all they know is top-down, centralized "organization", it's pretty sad if you think about it.

>>100440

I've looked into denial. After some research i realized it probably happened

>>100440

A better question would be to what extent is the official narrative of the Holocaust to be believed. Some "revisionists" question the death toll or question the methods employed (was malnutrition and typhus the primary causes of death or was it the gas chambers).

>>100406

Most of it is probably made up. The claims don't make sense logistically and looking at the design plans for the concentration camps it they don't appear to have been built to be used as 'death camps' – for example, in Auschwitz the camp workers would have to carry the dead bodies from the 'gas chamber' up a flight of stairs to get them to the cremation ovens – plus the fact that there simply wasn't enough ovens to cremate all of the people who were supposedly gassed in the camps. And even if they were, what happened to the skeletons and ashes? Why can't we find any mass graves containing the bones of 11 million corpses? The official explanation seems to be that the Nazis used a set of elaborate bone-crushing machines (conveniently, the machines themselves were never found), but this would still leave bone shards, and make the logistics of the killing of 11 million people even more unfeasible.

Added to this the fact that Nazi officials were tortured in order to obtain confessions for the Nuremberg trials. Rulolf Hoess even signed a confession in English, a language that he didn't speak: https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/

Then we have the host of ridiculous claims that most people here are familiar with; roller-coasters that launched Jews into ovens, electric floors, Jew soap, masturbation machines, etc. This alone doesn't prove anything but it does show that the people pushing the Holocaust narrative have a history of baldfaced lying.

>>100720

…yes? Why wouldn't you be able to? I'm really not sure what you're asking here.

yo how do I embed youtube videos?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1IVZpk_rVo[/youtube]

>>100738

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1IVZpk_rVo[/embed]

>>100738

>>100739

>>>/test/

under private healthcare if someone gets hit by a car how is it ensured they get to the nearest cheapest hospital

>>100796

It's in the mutual interest of insurance firms to allow other firms to use their ER facilities, then settle the cost for the short-term rent after the fact. Given that such firms would already have standardization agreements in place with one another, they would likely agree beforehand to allow this kind of short-term rent.

How do you practically prevent a monopoly of force from taking place in a given geographical territory? And doesn't libertarianism claim that monopolies aren't inherently bad?

Also, how do you even defend such a place from CIA niggers who were sent there with stolen money (taxes) to infiltrate and subvert your ancap society?

>>100826

people would unsubscribe from private defence agency that breaks nap

>>100826

>How do you practically prevent a monopoly of force from taking place in a given geographical territory? And doesn't libertarianism claim that monopolies aren't inherently bad?

I think you are confusing legal monopoly of force and factual monopoly of force. You can have one without the other, a nation with a legal monopoly of force but a million gangsters acting against this legal fiction every day, and a society in which everyone has the full right to defend himself but only one entity has the means to do so.

Let's just say, it would be hard for a PMC to disarm all its subscribers, as it would have no legal leverage to do so under a Rothbardian framework. It would not be impossible for it to be tyrannical, but very, very unlikely.

>Also, how do you even defend such a place from CIA niggers who were sent there with stolen money (taxes) to infiltrate and subvert your ancap society?

That is a general problem, you can just as well ask how a nation state would defend itself against subversion by an anarchocapitalist secret service. You don't necessarily need a state to spy on people, infiltrate institutions, and ultimately subvert them, private entities are entirely capable of doing so, Scientology being a prime example, but there are many others.

Whether an espionage attempt works out depends on a lot of accidental factors, like an attempt at military conquest. It could be that the CIA is unmotivated, internally divided, and has fewer resources than a middle-sized company in Ancapistan. Then whatever it's gonna try will not work out. It will be akin to the secret service of Zimbabwe trying to infiltrate the USA, comical rather than threatening. Or, the CIA could be highly motivated and on a crusade, and in that case, there is no stopping it no matter what you do, whether you're Ancapistan or Soviet Russia.

My response to the military-question is quite similar, as I said above. There is no such thing as a simple formula on whether a military campaign will be successful. The Taborites destroyed the Holy Roman Empire on the battlefield because they were crazy enough to spontaneously invent guns (in the late Middle Ages!), the Nazis defeated France despite having half its number of tanks by being the first power to make use of the full potential of tanks. The next paradigm change in military history could be a technology that renders ICBM's inoperable, or that could reliably shoot down any plane or drone from thousands of miles away. What would the result be? The US would lose its military hegemony, practically overnight. It's the nature of a paradigm change that it overhauls the rules, and this is why we cannot write a formula on how well Ancapistan will perform on matters like espionage or military defense.

>>100837

Thanks for clearing that up. Is there something I could read about this in more detail?

>>100913

Hoppe's collection of essays, The Myth of National Defense, is probably the best resource that goes into detail on the private production of security. If you don't want a deep dive but a more casual overview, the Mises institute has a variety of published articles on the subject.

How do you prove that intrinsic, natural rights exist?

>>101004

They're self-evident in the fact that what we call natural rights and autonomy are things which everyone prefers to have for himself; even those who seek to restrict freedom never seek to restrict their own freedom. Evidently, the desire for natural rights is something that is a fundamental property of the human condition.

>but don't some people want to be restricted?

Yes, but people would object if you tried to restrict them in a way beyond their preferred method, and absent coercion it's a restriction they would have naturally sought out themselves, and therefore voluntary. Obeying the word of God is obviously a restriction, but a Catholic would certainly object if you forbade him from following the word of God, or if you told him he must follow the word of Allah or Vishnu instead. Anti-gunners would object if you told them they must carry a gun every day. And so on.

Beyond that, it may be shown that to argue against natural rights and in favor of a system of aggression is logically incoherent, through Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics:

>Hoppe states that because both parties in a debate propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation presupposes various norms including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed norms of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (a performative contradiction). Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction. Thus, Hoppe argues that arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.

Hoppe states that his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for deontological libertarian ethics. Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument. Argumentation ethics draws on ideas from Jürgen Habermas's and Karl-Otto Apel's discourse ethics, from Misesian praxeology and from the political philosophy of Murray Rothbard.

>Hoppe first notes that when two parties are in conflict with one another, they can choose to resolve the conflict by engaging in violence, or engaging in argumentation. In the event that they choose to engage in argumentation, Hoppe asserts that the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict. He therefore concludes that non-violence is an underlying norm (Grundnorm) of argumentation that is accepted by both parties.

>Hoppe states that because both parties propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation must presuppose certain norms, including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed propositions of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (this is called a performative contradiction). Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction.

>>101005

But isn't a right essentially an obligation to treat or not to treat a party in a certain way? I can see how it can be argued that every human would prefer the freedom to follow through on their desires, but how do you come to the conclusion that we are obliged to grant them that freedom?

>to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction.

This is only true if the proposition is that violence should always be used to resolve conflicts.

>>101011

>But isn't a right essentially an obligation to treat or not to treat a party in a certain way?

No. Rights don't imply any positive obligations, and they are not "granted" to people. You don't need to do anything for a man to grant him freedom, quite the opposite: you ignore him. In order for a man to have his natural rights, those around him must simply fail to violate them, by failing to aggress against him. You don't seem to object to the fact that these rights are natural, i.e. that the preference to not have their rights violated is extant in every man (whether placed there by God or by nature I leave up to you). Your question seems to be, then, why a man would want to respect another's rights if he does not benefit from doing so. The answer is that it is in fact beneficial to him to respect the rights of others, as well. It has been established that the desire to have one's natural right's respected is universal among man. It follows then that men will seek to interact only with those people that don't violate their natural rights. Rights-violaters are naturally excluded from these congregations of rights-respecters; if they attempt to interact with them, they are either blocked (through blacklists and physical security, i.e. locks, walls and guns), or killed in incidents of self-defense. To avoid such incidents, people are compelled to respect the rights of others. In essence, this is just an expanded form of the Golden Rule: treat others the way you wish to be treated.

>This is only true if the proposition is that violence should always be used to resolve conflicts.

No, it's true whenever anybody attempts to argue in favor of violence. Because one of the tacit assumptions when one engages in debate is that the parties will not engage in aggression (otherwise it wouldn't be a debate, by definition), it is logically incoherent to use debate to advocate for violence, because you are contradicting the first principles of debate. It doesn't matter if the contradiction happens some of the time or all of the time, it's still a contradiction. It is logically incoherent to act under an assumption of nonaggression while advocating aggression, just as it is logically incoherent for a man to declare, "I am at this moment dead."

>>101018

>You don't seem to object to the fact that these rights are natural, i.e. that the preference to not have their rights violated is extant in every man

I suppose I am having trouble understanding what exactly rights are. This statement seems to imply that a right is equal to a negative preference – a preference for others not to do something. Is this correct?

>The answer is that it is in fact beneficial to him to respect the rights of others, as well

But what about situations in which someone can violate someone's rights without getting caught or punished? What about societies in which the violation of rights is tolerated or even encouraged? Additionally I have trouble believing that an intrinsic quality is to be upheld solely through extrinsic means. If being treated well by my peers is really the only reason to respect others rights, it seems to me that those rights do not in fact reside intrinsically in other people but instead are just a set of rules invented by my peers to facilitate cooperation.

>it is logically incoherent to use debate to advocate for violence, because you are contradicting the first principles of debate.

Well, the established purpose of a debate is determining the truth. Conflicts can have purposes other than determination of the truth. For example, if I am mugged, I do not care about the truth at all. In this conflict, either survival or protecting my possessions can be seen as the purpose, for me at least. Or let's say even that I am not the victim but the mugger. In the conflict that I have initiated, determining the truth about something is irrelevant for me; my goal is material gain.

Unless I argue in the debate that conflicts of every nature should be resolved with violence, I do not see any logical contradiction in asserting that violence is warranted in certain types of conflicts.

>>101028

>This statement seems to imply that a right is equal to a negative preference

That's essentially correct. Natural rights are understood as the right not to have things imposed on you. The right to life is not the right to live forever, it's the right to not be killed. The right to liberty is not the right to do whatever you want, it's the right not to have your actions restricted. The right to property is not a license to steal and plunder, it's a right not to be stolen from.

>But what about situations in which someone can violate someone's rights without getting caught or punished?

That's where the initial premises about rights being something natural–something the creator has given to all mankind–comes in, and why any purely consequentialist argument in favor of rights breaks down. Yes, there are situations in which it's conceivable that rights are violated–either a serial killer that's really good at hiding the evidence, or a someone who uses his stellar reputation to deflect accusations of wrongdoing, or simple bad luck. This doesn't change the fact that the person being aggressed against still very much objects to the violation, and it doesn't change the fact that the violation happens. It does not follow that because rules can be broken, that rules don't exist at all.

>Additionally I have trouble believing that an intrinsic quality is to be upheld solely through extrinsic means.

Why? Your health is an intrinsic quality, it can only be upheld through extrinsic means, i.e. living in a good environment and taking in food. It doesn't follow from this that health does not exist, or that health originates externally from you.

>What about societies in which the violation of rights is tolerated or even encouraged?

Does everyone involved, including the person whose rights are "violated", agree to what is taking place, and, should they stop agreeing, are they able to stop participating? If the answer to both of those questions is "yes", then there's no violation taking place, because all actions being taken are voluntary, ergo no force is being committed. Otherwise, see the answer above. The fact that the majority happen to encourage a rights violation does not change the fact that the minority's rights are being violated.

>Well, the established purpose of a debate is determining the truth.

That's far too strong a statement to make. Debates about policy have little to do with what is and is not true, nor do debates about where to have dinner. A debate which concerns matters of truth, but is argued using purely emotional arguments from either side, will not determine the truth. The only universal property of debates is that they are a method of resolving disputes, specifically a method of resolving disputes through persuasion rather than through force. Arguing about where to eat dinner is an alternative to one man knocking the other man out and dragging him to the preferred restaurant. Debate is necessarily built on the precept of nonaggression. Because debate is necessarily built on the precept of nonaggression, any two individuals who engage in debate tacitly agree not to aggress against one another–and if that agreement is broken by one of them committing violence, it ceases to be a debate. We can say then that the "norms" of debate include nonaggression–by choosing to debate instead of to fight, the two parties have rejected aggression. The action of debate, therefore, implies nonaggression. If while performing the action of debate you attempt to say that using force is legitimate, you have contradicted yourself–your actions say that you have rejected force as legitimate, while your words purport the exact opposite. You are attempting to adopt two conflicting sets of norms at the same time. This is logically incoherent.

>>101030

>That's essentially correct. Natural rights are understood as the right not to have things imposed on you. The right to life is not the right to live forever, it's the right to not be killed. The right to liberty is not the right to do whatever you want, it's the right not to have your actions restricted. The right to property is not a license to steal and plunder, it's a right not to be stolen from.

How is it determined when a preference is simply a preference and not a right? Does someone with social anxiety, for example, have a right to not be talked to? If I dislike rap music can I rightfully claim that my rights are being violated if I happen to hear rap music in, say, an advertisement?

>It does not follow that because rules can be broken, that rules don't exist at all.

No, but without the ability to be consistently enforced rules don't have much of a meaning. Rights become less a thing that everyone should respect and more an optional choice for those who prefer not to take risks.

>Your health is an intrinsic quality, it can only be upheld through extrinsic means

What I mean is the effects arise extrinsically. If I fail to maintain my health I can tell that this is definitely something that is by its nature bad since the negative effects appear intrinsically, as a direct result of my action of ill-maintenance.

If, on the other hand, I am punished as a result of violating the rights of another person, it would be more accurate to say that this negative outcome, punishment, occurred because I upset other people. The rights that I violated themselves did not create this negative effect, a third party did. It can certainly be shown that the rights violation had a negative effect for the victim, but why should I care about that when it itself does not effect me?

>The fact that the majority happen to encourage a rights violation does not change the fact that the minority's rights are being violated.

Is this violation of rights necessarily a bad thing for those in the majority though? Assuming that they aren't punished for it eventually. Essentially what I'm getting at is: why should a party respect another party's rights when they have the ability to violate them without receiving retribution for it?

>by choosing to debate instead of to fight, the two parties have rejected aggression

But only for that specific dispute. You will agree that disputes of different natures exist, yes? A dispute that revolves around determining some concrete fact, such as, say, a trial to determine the guilt of a party, will be argued very differently than a debate over a matter of preference such as whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. If a lawyer gets involved in the latter argument and uses appeals to emotion to attempt to sway his audience, it does not mean that he is positing that appeals to emotion should always be used to resolve disputes. If he believed this he would be a very bad lawyer; but neither is he acting illogically in using appeals to emotion in this dispute. It is a dispute of a different nature, and therefore it's logical for him to use different methods on conflict resolution.

>>101034

Generally they can't really "default." They just sell new bonds to pay the old bonds and the show goes on. It takes a major event for a sovereign nation to default, and a state is basically a sovereign nation with even less bargaining power.

>>101032

>How is it determined when a preference is simply a preference and not a right?

Rights are determined wholly by property–you have the right to make use of your property (which includes your body) in any way you see fit that does not impinge on the right of another.

>Does someone with social anxiety, for example, have a right to not be talked to?

Yes and no. You can't tape over the mouth of someone because you don't wish for them to talk to you, but you're more than free to kick them out of your home.

>I happen to hear rap music in, say, an advertisement?

You consented to hearing the music when you purchased the cable subscription it came with. If you no longer like the cable subscription you can cancel it, and if you cancel it the cable company can't force it on you. You can also call the cable company and ask them not to play the nig tunes anymore or you won't by their product. But they aren't obligated to listen to you, as you can't infringe on their rights. It's a very internally consistent idea: you (and everyone else) have a right to property. You may do anything you wish with your property, on your property, so long as it does not infringe on another's property.

>No, but without the ability to be consistently enforced rules don't have much of a meaning. Rights become less a thing that everyone should respect and more an optional choice for those who prefer not to take risks.

Meaningless semantics play. Rights still exist as something intrinsic to mankind regardless of enforcement ability. Whether or not they are "meaningful," rights clearly and indisputably exist. Although it happens that the emergent properties of economics make enforcement of said rights not only comparatively easy but beneficial for all parties involved. Therefore, even if you insist on this consequentialist relativism, the distinction becomes a moot point anyways.

>What I mean is the effects arise extrinsically. If I fail to maintain my health I can tell that this is definitely something that is by its nature bad since the negative effects appear intrinsically, as a direct result of my action of ill-maintenance.

Those effects still arise extrinsically in that they originate from outside of you, in the form of bacteria entering your body. You don't give a well-defined, internally consistent definition for the terms intrinsic and extrinsic, so it isn't particularly meaningful when you try and distinguish between them.

>Is this violation of rights necessarily a bad thing for those in the majority though?

An irrelevant question. Even if we imagine the implausible world where rights violations don't have consequences (they very clearly do), rights still exist regardless.

>But only for that specific dispute.

Irrelevant. One cannot logically operate under two different norms simultaneously, by the definition of norms, and that is what you do when you attempt to argue in favor of aggression. Your lawyer example is a false equivalence as it describes separate scenarios, with separate norms, rather than the adoption of conflicting norms within the same scenario.

>>101037

Alright, I will accept that intrinsic rights exist as you have defined them. But I still don't understand what the implications of this are. How is the existence of intrinsic rights relevant in how I should determine my behavior? Your already given reason that we should respect rights because it tends to influence others to respect our own rights does not seem sufficient to me; all this suggests is that we should try and garner favor with our peers, and that respecting others rights is simply a tool for achieving this aim. If this tool fails or if a better tool presents itself there is no longer any reason to continue using it.

>Your lawyer example is a false equivalence as it describes separate scenarios, with separate norms, rather than the adoption of conflicting norms within the same scenario.

But why isn't it possible to argue in favor of violence in one type of scenario while maintaining that violence is not preferable in scenarios that differ in some way? Why do these two separate classes of scenarios need to share the same norm? The lawyer was able to use separate norms for separate scenarios, wasn't he?

>>101040

>But I still don't understand what the implications of this are.

The implications are twofold. Once that we've established that rights are natural and intrinsic, and that men seek to have their rights not be violated, we may use this to infer how men will act in given scenarios, and this allows to perform economics (this is essentially a restatement of Mises' Action Axion). A little more economics will lead us from the initial premise to the conclusion that rights-respecting societies are not only desirable for the inhabitants, they tend to be more economically productive and thus desirable from a material sense as well.

>and that respecting others rights is simply a tool for achieving this aim.

What other implication do you want? It doesn't seem like you're particularly moved by the ethical implications of natural rights, and the following thereof, so the self-interest angle is the only one applicable to you. In answer to the threat of a better tool coming along, the economic laws which we derive from the Action Axiom rather definitively prove that respecting property rights leads to the healthiest economies, and the best material outcome for those involved. If a priori arguments don't convince you, history suggests this as well: the European societies which adopted some concept of property rights and the value of individual autonomy were far and away the most successful groups, whereas the ooga-boogas in Africa who followed might-makes-right warlordism never progressed in any meaningful way.

>Why do these two separate classes of scenarios need to share the same norm?

Because they aren't two separate scenarios, they are one scenario. The one scenario is advocating for violence while within the norm of a debate. It is not the possibility of violence existing outside of the debate, it is the very act of advocating for violence, in any context, while within a debate that causes the contradiction. Advocating for violence while within a debate is in violation of the norms of the debate by trying to introduce a contradictory norm. Holding contradictory norms is logically incoherent.

>>101056

I agree that organization which respect their own member's rights are generally more successful, for the reasons already given. I was under the impression that claiming that all men have rights implied that all men have an obligation to respect those rights, even if they are not members of the same organization or even allies. Is there any reason for believing that we should respect the rights of these third parties who are not allied to us if the threat of retribution is negligible?

>The one scenario is advocating for violence while within the norm of a debate.

You mean like threatening to harm the person you're debating with? Yes, I agree that's fallacious. This wouldn't apply to advocating for violence outside of the debate, like arguing that it's warranted to kill someone who is attacking you, right? The hypothetical norm that is being discussed is does not apply to the debate itself since the situation in which it is to be used is not debates.

>>101060

>Is there any reason for believing that we should respect the rights of these third parties who are not allied to us if the threat of retribution is negligible?

Besides the obvious ethical ones? No. If you want to be a piece of shit, you have no moral compass, and you're reasonably certain you can get away with being a piece of shit chances are you'll do it. Acknowledging natural rights and a system based on the idea of natural rights will still result in some failures occurring here and there. No one claimed ancap is a utopia.

>You mean like threatening to harm the person you're debating with?

No, I mean any advocacy for any kind of violence within the framework of a debate. Whenever you engage in argumentation or debate, you implicitly adopt the principle that aggression is not legitimate. If at any point in the process of debate, you make the declaration "In some cases, unprovoked aggression is warranted," or some variant of that declaration, you have contradicted that principle. Debate presupposes nonaggression as a paradigm, therefore one cannot logically use debate to justify aggression.

>>101061

>Whenever you engage in argumentation or debate, you implicitly adopt the principle that aggression is not legitimate.

What exactly do you mean by 'legitimate'? And could you please walk me through exactly how this principal is implicitly accepted?

>In the event that they choose to engage in argumentation, Hoppe asserts that the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict.

There's a very big difference between accepting that argumentation is the best way to resolve one specific conflict and accepting that argumentation is the best way to resolve every single conflict. I cannot see any way how the second statement logically follows from the first.

>>101062

>I cannot see any way how the second statement logically follows from the first.

It's a requirement for internal consistency, and internal consistency is a prerequisite for any coherent worldview. One cannot accept the norm that violence is not a legitimate way to settle disputes (a norm which is present in any debate), while also under that norm argue that violence is even conditionally legitimate. To arbitrarily choose to follow that norm in some instances but not others is not internally consistent, and therefore logically incoherent. The only internally consistent positions are private-property libertarianism, or might-makes-right Chad Warlordism. All alternatives are contradictory in some fashion.

At what point does government regulation become burdensome enough that private property rights can be considered to not really exist?

>>101148

>One cannot accept the norm that violence is not a legitimate way to settle disputes (a norm which is present in any debate),

You've yet to demonstrate why it's necessary to believe that violence is universally illegitimate in order to engage in debate.

>To arbitrarily choose to follow that norm in some instances but not others is not internally consistent, and therefore logically incoherent

Implying that choosing not to follow the norm in a non-arbitrary way would be internally consistent?

>>101192

Depends how orthodox a view you take. Strictly speaking, any regulation or restriction on non-coercive actions implies that private property rights do not truly exist in the economy, because the moment you start inserting conditionals into the NAP it stops being internally consistent, and thus loses validity as a first principle. If you want to take a less legalistic view of the matter, you could try and observe the real constraints that are imposed on the everyday lives of people living in the locality. If the constraints on property rights are firmly beyond the range of actions a person would have been willing to perform anyways, it can be said that he is still pretty free, all things considered–even though restrictions exist, they aren't binding because they haven't changed how one goes about his life. If the restrictions in place regularly and severely impede the range of non-coercive actions one is able to take, one may be said not to be free.

>>101197

It's necessary because in order for norms to be norms, they need to be adhered to unconditionally–otherwise, it isn't a norm at all, and the only norm you can be said to be following is might-makes-right. If they are picked up or dropped at convenience they cease to be norms, and without operative norms your worldview ceases to be internally consistent. If you can't see why logic demands worldviews need to be internally consistent, then we're both wasting each other's time here.

>>101066

That's a good one, saved.

>>101222

I'll accept everything that you said. However, I cannot understand how the norm in question, declaring violence itself as illegitimate, necessarily needs to be adopted by an individual in order for that individual to engage in argumentation.

>>101231

>necessarily needs to be adopted by an individual in order for that individual to engage in argumentation.

Because that's a necessary precept of argumentation–argumentation is the process of resolving conflicts through means other than aggressive violence. Using argumentation therefore presupposes a norm of nonaggression.

>>101234

But choosing to use argumentation rather than aggression to resolve a conflict does not by itself prove that any party has adopted the belief that aggression itself is always illegitimate.

Norms need not be applied universally. They must be applied consistently, yes, but consistent != universal. For example, let's say that I hold the belief that it is ethically legitimate to kill certain types of animals for meat. I may delineate these animals by listing traits of animals that are acceptable to kill; animals incapable of rational thought, animals which I have a valid claim of ownership over, etc. Does this mean that I must therefore hold the belief that killing animals for their meat is always legitimate, even if they are a rational animal like a human or an animal that another person owns? I don't think so. The norm does not need to be applied universally, only consistently.

I don't think I'm being crazy here, other Libertarians have also brought up flaws with Hoppe's argument:

https://mises.org/library/hans-hermann-hoppes-argumentation-ethic-critique

>>101235

I know of Murphy's criticism of Hoppe. All of his counterpoints to argumentation ethics hinge on the assumption that Hoppe was declaring not that argumentation presupposed nonaggression, but that argumentation presupposed self-ownership. He then goes on to show that argumentation does not presuppose self-ownership, but in the beginning of his article he does concede that, if argumentation did presuppose self-ownership, there would be a performative contradiction in someone presupposing self-ownership arguing against it.

>

But choosing to use argumentation rather than aggression to resolve a conflict does not by itself prove that any party has adopted the belief that aggression itself is always illegitimate.

But that isn't what's being argued. Hoppe's claim is not that choosing to use argumentation in an instance requires use of it in all future instances. Rather, he is claiming that one cannot argue in favor of aggression within the confines of the norms presupposed by argumentation. You are correct in that a consistent norm need not be universal. However, norms do need to be universal within the confines where they apply. If one of my operative norms is, "Don't kill men while in church," then of course it need not apply when I'm outside of church. But, if it is given that I am inside a church, then the norm "don't kill men while in church" becomes de facto universal, and so long as I am in church, it's indistinguishable from the norm, "don't kill men." Likewise, it is of course conceivable that a man may choose to agree to abide by the precepts of argumentation within an argument, then ignore them once outside the argument. However, as long as he is within an argument, he is bound by the norms of the argument, and cannot violate them without contradicting himself. Thus, as long as one is within an argument, one cannot advocate for things in contradiction to the norms of the argument without contradicting oneself. Advocating for aggression, even if the action itself takes place outside of the argument, is still in contradiction of argumentation norms because said advocacy occurs within the constraints of an argument. Using argumentation to advocate for aggressive acts is as self-contradictory as intimidating someone into pacificism.

>>101238

>…norms do need to be universal within the confines where they apply. If one of my operative norms is, "Don't kill men while in church," then of course it need not apply when I'm outside of church. But, if it is given that I am inside a church, then the norm "don't kill men while in church" becomes de facto universal, and so long as I am in church, it's indistinguishable from the norm, "don't kill men."

This is the part of the argument I cannot wrap my head around. It seems to me that the conclusion that advocating for violence in argument is contradictory hinges on this assertion that localized norm can be considered equal to a universal norm so long as it is being examined in a situation where the localized norm is applicable. So the localized norm, "don't commit aggression while in an argument" is considered equal to "don't commit aggression" for all intents and purposes while in an argument. If this were true, then advocating for violence outside of the argument would be equivalent to advocating for violence inside of the argument which would be advocating for going against the accepted norm (does advocating for breaking the norm itself break the norm, by the way? I'm not sure we've established that it does).

But the thing is, we've already accepted that the actual act that is being advocated, violence outside the argument, does not actually go against the accepted norm. Having an argument and then the next day shooting someone in the head is not itself contradictory. For this reason I cannot believe that localized norms really can be considered entirely equal to universal ones while inside the localized situation. To use the church example, it would be like saying that if I sat in church and planned to kill someone while outside of church, it would violate my norm of not killing people in a church (or at lease establish intent to violate my norm) – even though I have not actually killed anyone inside a church. This does not make sense to me.

>>101258

The thing that I don't think you're emphasizing enough is that advocating for an act is itself an act, separate from the act which is being advocated. The only other way of explaining it I can think of is this:

Taking it as a given that engaging in debate implies a norm nonaggression, advocating for aggression within the framework of debate implies you believe all or part of the nonaggression norm to be invalid. But, by the very act of engaging in argumentation, you also imply that you do think it's valid, since argumentation requires that you accept this norm. So which one is it? Do you consider it a valid norm, and enjoy the benefits of argumentation, thus rejecting your calls for aggression? Or do you reject the norm, and with it reject argumentation in favor of solving things through aggression? If you think the norm is invalid, why are you engaging in argumentation at all? If you think the norm is valid, why do you call for it to be broken? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There are also difficulties with a conditional application of the norm because the implication of such a conditional statement is that "I only follow this norm when it is convenient for me." And the implication of that is that you follow a greater norm of might-makes-right. And if you follow a norm of might-makes-right, why are you engaging in argumentation in the first place? Non-universal norms may not be contradictory, but making this particular norm non-universal creates contradictions.

Here are some basic questions. Consider them gotchas if you wish to.

What is the relationship between different /liberty/arian ethical principles (non-coercion, right of ownership, others?) and what to do when they contradict eachother?

Is /liberty/arianism dependent on human-defined abstractions like rights literally, objectively existing?

How loudly does my neighbour have to hear music from my property on his property for it to violate his rights? What if I think he's lying about hearing it at all? Suppose he needs to sleep but can't because of the noise, and talking to me didn't work. What is a justified response from him?

>>101271

>What is the relationship between different /liberty/arian ethical principles (non-coercion, right of ownership, others?) and what to do when they contradict eachother?

They don't contradict each other. The two that you mentioned are in fact just two different ways of expressing the same principle: to preserve right of ownership other people cannot be allowed to initiate force on the things you own. If libertarian principles contradicted one another they wouldn't be principles, and they wouldn't be nearly as effective as they are.

>Is /liberty/arianism dependent on human-defined abstractions like rights literally, objectively existing?

Yes, a philosophy based on the preservation of rights needs said rights to exist in order to preserve them. I believe it can be shown that the things which we call rights exist in that they are extant in all men.

>How loudly does my neighbour have to hear music from my property on his property for it to violate his rights?

Take it up with your homeowner's association or the local McCourt. Chances are the HOA will have local ordnances in place that govern the specifics of this sort of thing, giving maximum decibel levels for different hours. In absence of such precedent, a judge will likely rule that the magnitude of the sound your neighbor hears must be noticeably louder than the ambient background noise of the neighborhood. Ancap won't have a monolithic code of statutes that is applicable over all of time and space, so the exact resolution to this dispute is going to depend a lot more on you, your neighbor, whatever insurance companies you are clients of, and the judge you hire as arbitrator than on legal theory.

>>101290

>They don't contradict each other

They do. Whether my initiating violence on you when we are on my property is justified or not depends on which principle takes precedence. In fact, both priciples contradict themselves, so conviniently defining them in terms of one another doesn't help. Either my owning my property and you owning your life/body/self are in conflict or the non-coercion on my property and the non-coercion on you are in conflict. The music example also illustrates this self-contradiction: the principle says that both 1. I can play music as loud as I want and 2. I can't play music as loud as I want. Were there no contradiction, no totally-not-government-court-ltd. would be necessary.

>I believe it can be shown that the things which we call rights exist in that they are extant in all men.

Please do. Does treating the existence of abstractions as a fundament not violate my freedom not to believe in it and living accordingly?

>>101301

>Either my owning my property and you owning your life/body/self are in conflict

We both own our own stuff. Where is the contradiction?

>or the non-coercion on my property and the non-coercion on you are in conflict.

What does this even mean? Is this meant to be in the context of your "loudness" nonsense? If it can be proven in a court that your behavior is harmful to your neighbor or his property (which generally includes health) then you will likely be made to pay amends. There is no conflict here. You have no right to harm others.

>The music example also illustrates this self-contradiction: the principle says that both 1. I can play music as loud as I want and 2. I can't play music as loud as I want.

The principle? Which principle? The NAP? The A in "NAP" is "Aggression" and the N is "Non". The Non-Aggression principle dictates that it's morally fine to do anything that doesn't aggress against anyone else. This is to say, to do no harm is to do no wrong. This is to say that you can play music as loud as you like so long as it harms no one other than yourself (remembering, of course, that property damage is harmful). There is no contradiction. If you still disagree you'll need to define what exactly you're talking about because you're being extremely vague.

>>101301

> Whether my initiating violence on you when we are on my property is justified or not depends on which principle takes precedence

No, it doesn't, for one simple reason: self-defense is not the initiation of violence, it's self-defense against someone else's initiation of violence. There's no contradiction, you've just redefined self-defense as violence to make it appear as if one exists.

>the principle says that both 1. I can play music as loud as I want and 2. I can't play music as loud as I want.

The principle says neither of those things. The principle says, "I can play music as loud as I want on my property." There is no contradiction between "I can play music as loud as I want on my property" and "I cannot play music as loud as I want on another's property."

>Please do.

See >>101005 and start scrolling down.

>>101303

>We both own our own stuff. Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction is that my owning my stuff (the property we're both on in this scenario) and your owning yourself dictate opposite rules on how I can treat you.

>court

Come on. Now there are objective standards to 'harm' which describe how much I'm objectively to 'pay amends'? Just don't call it a state.

>The principle? Which principle?

No clue, tbh. I was just told that there is only one principle. Again, I can play music as loud as I want on my property. Except if it's so loud that it can be heard on your property, but how audible? Is the slightest amount a violation of your rights? Or does it have bother to e certain degree? Who has the authority choose these amounts and the levels of punishment for levels of noise? How is it guaranteed that objectivity and fairness are followed? This is already state-tier shit.

I should add that if you don't support abolishing the state altogether, I don't mean to fuck with you with the 'just don't call it a state' stuff.

>>101305

>No, it doesn't, for one simple reason: self-defense is not the initiation of violence, it's self-defense against someone else's initiation of violence.

I never said 'self-defense'. I said we're on my property, let's say I invited you, and then I suddenly attack you (or maybe you insulted me or something). It isn't self-defense. It's initiation of violence.

>There is no contradiction between "I can play music as loud as I want on my property" and "I cannot play music as loud as I want on another's property."

Hence my not using that example. Sufficiently loud music on my property can be heard on your property. The principle does not and can not prescribe when I go too far, and what is a fair punishment for each level of infringement. And then we get state-tier arbitration except with no semblance of a guarantee of fair representation.

>>101310

>It isn't self-defense. It's initiation of violence.

Someone who initiates violence forfeits any protections the NAP may offer, that's why it's called the nonaggression principle; the moment my guest becomes a trespasser I reserve the right to kill or evict him. Trying to suggest a contradiction when one of the parties has broken the rules you're examining is simply asinine.

>Hence my not using that example.

That's the example that applies, whether you want to use it or not. No part of the NAP implies you can play music "as loud as you want," therefore it's an exercise in futility to try and show a contradiction from that premise.

>The principle does not and can not prescribe when I go too far, and what is a fair punishment for each level of infringement.

So what? The NAP isn't an instruction manual for making every little decision in your life. It's a deontological method for determining whether a rights violation has occurred, no more, no less. There's nothing "state-tier" about choosing an arbitrator on a per-case basis, nor is a code of conduct provided by a voluntarily chosen insurance company. There's nothing stopping you from seeking the advice of legal counsel, either, if you want representation.

>>101319

>the moment my guest becomes a trespasser I reserve the right to kill or evict him.

No further questions.

>>101355

>burger and euro cartoons stagnate in quality due to extensive censorship from Marxists in Hollywood and constant repition of same good goy themes and storylines again and again

>Jap creators exposed to Disney cartoons, learn of good

>create superior substitute good due to lack of self-censorship

>even mediocre substitute goods become immensely popular due to sheer variety compared to domestically-produced goods

>old, big, slow, over-regulated industry declines while younger industry rises

It's the usual economic turnover that occurs as profitable firms replace nonprofitable ones. It seems to have reached some kind of stability now, as Jap cartoons have been around long enough to stagnate a bit and develop their own tropes and repetition (e.g. beach episodes). But, since they're still free from Western censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, they continue to produce a greater variety of cartoons which allows them to remain popular.

>>101357

I appreciate the answer, but "Japanification" is a term being used in blogs recently to describe being mired in multiple "lost decades" with incredibly low rates of real growth to stagnation along with decades of low to negative real interest rates–similar to what has been the case in Japan for over two decades now and is the case in Europe and looks like it will be the case for the U.S..

>>101362

Ah, my bad. In that case, aren't the low-to-negative interest rates the answer? Systematically destroying the incentive to put off gratification in favor of a higher return will destroy most if not all productive behavior in an economy. And once your recession hits, Keynesian fagolas will tell you the answer to your problem is to print more money and make the interest rates even lower, because something something aggregate demand. And unlike the United States, Japan isn't the world reserve currency, meaning they have no ability to export their inflation overseas, so they're hit by the full brunt of inflation and near-zero interest rates instead of only part of it the way the US is. As for why the US appears to be approaching a similar situation, I think that's because the US is no longer certain to be the world reserve currency. More and more countries are going off the petrodollar, more and more countries are buying and selling oil in Euros and yuan. As a result, we've been less able to outsource our inflation to other countries by them taking dollars from us, and we're less able to escape the worst of our massive credit expansion.

>>101371

Is the Euro actually that worthwhile given all the EU shenanigans? The Yuan I get since the Chinese have been buying gold and all that but I can't see the EU lasting more than 10 years at most.

>>101381

>Is the Euro actually that worthwhile given all the EU shenanigans?

Not really, no. Fiat currencies are held together with nothing more than spit and prayer after all, and the Eurozone doesn't have much prayer going its way. At least the US had a fairly substantial productive surplus to whittle away over the years on which it backed the value of its monopoly money, and a fair amount of global prestige/military might in addition to that. The EU has none of those things, and next to zero productive surplus as they've already been whittling it away through social policies. Add in the fact that most of their security production (i.e. national defense) is subsidized by the US,and they're in an even worse position once that goes away.

I personally don't see the yuan as much better in the long run. Buying gold or no, they've been constantly devaluing their currency to subsidize all manner of non-productive investments, like those "ghost cities" you always hear about. I wouldn't count on it being stable forever.

Do you think it will ever reach a point where the left and right in the U.S. look at each other and say, "You know what? It's time to get a divorce," and then finally just go ahead and secede from each other?

>>101402

We tried that already, and the Union turned out to be a very jealous lover. Once people have power, they get very touchy about losing it, especially when the form of that power loss is a large number of people saying the men in charge aren't good enough and leaving. All that being said, I do think the only viable path to liberty is a secession from the current order. But it won't come without a lot of bloodshed as the original government tries to reconquer the seceding party, unless the federal government has gotten so weak that it's unable to stop anything.

>>101371

I thought low-to-negative interest would only influence the credit cycle crediting artificial booms and busts–but that longer-term semi-permanent malaise was a consequence of large government bureaucracies and regulatory capture? Otherwise, you would have expecting interest rate manipulations to have resulted in this outcome long ago.

>>101446

The two factors don't have to be mutually exclusive–entrenched bureaucracy, overregulation, and regulatory capture all contribute to long-term malaise as well. But over repeated periods, consistently low interest rates will do something similar. Low interest rates incentivize consumption and immediate gratification over savings (which drives investment) and delayed gratification. Further, if the economy periodically goes into recession due to the results of the central bank's credit expansion, starting a new business or expanding an existing one becomes riskier, as there's always the chance that your investment will go under in the next recession. This makes economic growth riskier, and if it becomes riskier to expand production it will happen less often. In addition, you can point to low interest rates as an indirect cause of the failure of Japan to recover from their recession. The Japanese government responded to the crisis according to Keynesian theory, and continued to repeatedly attempt to stimulate the economy through various government stimulus packages. These served only to further drain resources from the private sector, and pump them into the unproductive dumpster fire that constitutes a government budget. Instead of being invested into productive activities, money either went into bureaucrat's paychecks, or was spent on failing companies that would not exist were it not for the government–insolvent construction companies to build various public works, or direct bailouts of failing banks.

>Otherwise, you would have expecting interest rate manipulations to have resulted in this outcome long ago.

Isn't that what's happened? There's a lot of growth that could have happened but hasn't, thanks to either manipulated interest rates, or to the government's response to the resultant crash. The fact that the economy has managed to continue trudging forward with a 1-ton weight chained to its ankle doesn't mean the weight isn't there.

Do you think there is a difference between markets and capitalism? I know some left wing market anarchists try to differentiate themselves by saying markets are different from capitalism as a system but I wonder if there's any truth to that.

>>101889

Was just thinking about that today. "Capitalism" is term carrying a lot of historical/sociological baggage, so I would just say you support free markets, or free enterprise if you want to be less abrasive. People who call themselves "market anarchists" are basically left-leaning ancaps who are counter-signaling other ancaps.

>>101922

I personally tell people that I support capitalism, which is the ability to self-organize in the absense of government.

>>101922

>"Capitalism" is term carrying a lot of historical/sociological baggage

I used to think that, which is why I preferred to say "free enterprise," or take a leaf out of Hoppe's book with "natural order." However, have you ever considered that the use of the word capitalism was by design? I think Rothbard intentionally picked two slurs–"anarchist" was a pejorative against certain types of leftist, and "capitalist" was a word used most often by Marxists to decry the right–for the sake of being provocative. He knew that calling to abolish the government and supply all of its functions through the market was a radical claim. So, instead of sugarcoating the term, he made it as radical and as attention-grabbing as possible.

>>98118

>Minimum wages

Prices of everything get cheaper immediately and those of an enterprising bent offer cheaper labour costs to outcompete current ones to get their foot in the door, forcing people to bid lower, forcing costs of things to get cheaper when nobody can afford said item. As a result of this (greatly simplified) example of deflation, the people who benefit most are the ones who can squirrel away their cash the most.

You're presuming people will rise up in unison, when there's people like me more than willing to take a major pay cut if it means a longer term overall gain.

>>101924

I mean, Rothbard is right. the only reason why I would ever call myself an "anarcho-capitalist" is to piss off leftists. I don't want the FBI on me because I use the "A" word, and I think anti-statism and libertarianism are much better suited.

>>101923

capitalism isn't really the absence of government though. I feel like using this descriptor, we alienate our misguided quasi-statist allies as "socialists".

>>101934

The thing about using "libertarianism" is that most people associate that term with the LP. And yes, it sucks balls that degenerate hacks like Gary Johnson have co-opted the term, but when I'm speaking to people, I like to get my point across quickly and clearly. If I say anarcho-capitalist when describing my views, anyone with whom I'm talking has a fairly good idea of what that means and what I believe. If I say I'm a libertarian, I have to immediately qualify that with another explanation, to clarify that my views are completely distinct from the pot-smoking crypto-hippies in the LP.

hgjhghj

>>102019

>How would land disputes be solved in a libertarian society, what happens if one commune / micro-society makes an unreasonable claim to X amount of land?

In ancapistan, land is claimed through a process of emborderment. You homestead land or other unowned property by putting a border around it, either by building a physical fence, or making it distinct from the surrounding unowned land, e.g. if you till the soil into neat, organized rows and plant crops in it, that plot of tilled land is clearly owned property and distinct from the wild, unowned fields surrounding it. Since you need to emborder land before you can claim it, it's not possible for some firstcomer to appear and declare, "everything that I see is now mine," or a similar unreasonable claim. Emborderment is also tied to enforceability: even if you set out planting fenceposts like a madman in an effort to emborder as much property as humanly possible, if you've claimed so much that you can't hope to enforce the borders you've established, it's debatable whether those distant fringes of your property claim is enforceable.

If there is some dispute regarding property (or anything else) between yourself and someone else, you have several options for arbitration. If you're already acquainted with the disputer, the two of you might just decide to pick a mutual acquaintance to arbitrate, and agree to follow his ruling. Or, you would go to a professional arbitrator at the McCourt instead. If you can't agree on one judge, each of you might pick a judge, who together pick a third. Or if you're both clients of security insurance firms, chances are your firm will have a pre-established policy for selecting judges for disputes.

>How would land be divided up in the transition of a country to libertarian?

It depends on a lot of possible factors. Ideally, all stolen goods (government property) would be returned to the rightful owners, but that's almost never practical as it's usually difficult to figure out what the government stole from whom. Rothbard proposed that government buildings and services would pass in ownership to the employees in charge of them—e.g., the general manager of what used to be the local post office would become the owner of that building. It's far from ideal for a wide variety of reasons, but I don't really have a better alternative. In some cases, such as a small region seceding from a larger reason, the government that ruled before the might retain ownership and sell off all of its assets in the seceded region to private individuals.

>What happens if a group of people has formed a new commune that violates the traditions/ethics of other groups in a very extreme way?

You can't aggress against them, but you can retaliate through some very powerful voluntary means: freedom of association. The undesirable individuals can be publicly blacklisted, and the community refuse to hire them, rent to them, sell to them, drive on their roads, enter their stores and homes, and so on. In effect, this banishes the undesirables from your community and forces them to leave for greener pastures.

>>102022

>implying anyone complies with "international law"

>>102022

>This is more of a theoretical question but could someone become fully "unpersoned"?

I suppose it's theoretically possibly for you to earn the ire if every single person on Earth such that not a single one, not even the worst criminal, wants to associate with you. In that instance, you could homestead some unowned land and live a life of seclusion. It is quite limited choice, but if you're so unbearable that nobody on earth wants you around I find it hard to be sympathetic. A more realistic example would be someone that's blacklisted by almost everyone "respectable," but not the nether regions of society. In those cases, you'd see slums and "pirate's republics" of these people form.

>>102022

>Couldn't this lead to aggressive expansion? People building pointless structures just to stake a claim?

In theory sure, but in practice no. Building pointless structures has a cost associated, first and foremost with the cost of building those things and secondly owning assets that are just that, pointless. Hence why a more rational course of action for people is to buy land, build a house on it and then sell that, or perhaps mining the land, etc. And there's of course the question as to whether these pointless structures are sufficient enough to 'stake a claim', etc.

Tl;DR: People trying to own massive quantities of land for the sake of owning that land while a possibility isn't really a profitable course of action and should someone attempt to do so, it will probably just blow up back in their face.

>>102022

Would it be more profitable to build pointless structures and proceed to do nothing with the land or sell the land to someone who anticipates making productive use of it?

What happened during Kansas tea party experiment? What went wrong?

do you guys not care about workers' rights?

>>102205

We believe in the rights of individuals to freely choose for themselves whether or not to accept an employment contract, free of coercion.

>>102205

Nope, I hate workers and make sure to spit on at least 15 blue-collar men every day.

More seriously, worker's rights are just individual property rights–the right to own property, freedom of association, and so forth. There is nothing stopping a theoretical group of workers from forming a union in the free market if they so choose. However, it's unlikely that any such union will last for very long, and even those unions which exist tend to be more detrimental to the well-being of employees than beneficial.

Fundamentally, a union is a cartel. It is several producers of a good conspiring to restrict their output and raise their prices. And like all cartels, they are inherently unstable due to the nature of the incentives they face. While it might be to the worker's collective best interest (assuming for the moment no response from employers) to cartelize, there's no individual incentive to collude–since everyone else is restricting their supply, there's a very strong incentive for just one member of the cartel to reduce his price ever so slightly and to expand his output as much as he possibly can, screwing over the rest of the cartel. Nobody wants to get screwed over, so once one member stops colluding everyone will scramble to stop colluding, and sell their product at market prices. In game theory, this is called the Prisoner's Dilemma, and it's the most significant barrier to collusion in any industry. Because of this reality, labor unions aren't stable, and in the long run they can't continue to exist unless they're propped up by the federal government. But even if the union is able to remain active in spite of this instability, it faces a demand response from businesses. Rather than attempt dealings with the cartel, businessowners will fire everyone and hire a new set of workers. Or, if none are available, they'd simply close the factory down and outsource to another country entirely. So as negotiation tools, unions aren't all that effective in an unrestricted market. Ultimately, businesses either work around them, or are forced to increase the price of their products to account for the increased price of labor–and that's unquestionably bad for the everyday consumer. The labor market is a market like any other, and like all other markets, the price system is the most efficient way and effective way to make both parties better off. Workers are offered a high enough price that they don't make a fuss, as making a fuss complicates things for the business.

>>102205

Fuck workers, and fuck poor people!!!

Now, how do we help big corporations make the lives of the 99.99999% worse, my fellow ancaps?

>>102210

lets privatize everything

Are think thanks inherently bad? I know there's plenty of think tanks for the establishment but we also have some of our own. We got shitty ones like Cato but then I guess you could say the people at FEE count as one? Is it just as bad for our side to use think tanks like the establishment? I feel kind of torn on this because there is one in my home state that I find kind of interesting but I have some subconcious fear they may be controlled opposition.

>>102266

>think thanks

*think tanks.

>>102266

They're not inherently bad anymore than universities are inherently bad. But like universities, they just happen to be very effective tools for controlling policy and discourse, which is why they so often end up as tools of the feds and elite. But in a vacuum, there's nothing wrong with the organization that is a think tank; it's just a consultancy firm.

How did the folks who voted for Article 13 do in the latest EU election?

Uhmmm…so is Youtube better if I view Youtube in foreign countries instead?

>>102584

Youtube is better if you don't use it.

>>102584

If you must watch youtube videos use Invidio.us instead.

>>102584

depends on the country

>>102588

why?

If we ignore nature and the Social Contract what does entitle you to your property?

No libertarian RWer can answer this question properly, property rights are the basis of all your ideology, yet, no matter how much you deny it they depend on nature and the Social Contract, those you hate so much and call communist to those who try to use it justify social policies.

>>102653

> what does entitle you to your property?

property rights

> nature and the Social Contract

it is based on first principles

>>102208

>>98019

>>98108

>>98116

>>102210

The fact that you talk about workers in such an alien dissociated way really shows to me that I was right when I stated that libertarians and anarchists are nothing more than bratty, delusional and spoiled trust-fund kids who consume way too much media, videogames, movies and anime.

>>102654

That video kind off proves my suspictions that libertarian ethics are nothing more than a bunch of nonsensical garbage.

Property has we know it is a concept that originates from 19th political science.

Back in the day nobility was not allowed to sell or divide their land, usury was both a crime and a sin, money was mostly unused and people prefeered to barteer, and contrary to common belief, there was a welfare system, plebeians were forced to pay a 10% of their harvests as a church donation that helped mantain the local poor and give people jobs at workhouses and Church's lands with unfertile soil.

Despite what Rothbard thinks, Keynes is not the creator of the Welfare State, the Church only stopped collecting donations to directly help the local poor of Christian communities until the Second Vatican Council.

But this is not the only thing that is delusional about libertarianism, you also have things like:

>capitalism was never really tried

But also:

>capitalism gave you everything you love

Also:

>capitalism is the most natural economics system

But also:

>real capitalism was never tried

You sure do fill the marketplace of ideas with propaganda and nonsese.

And before you call me a commie, I know that Marxians are the ones who tend to whine the most about feudalism, but I am both center-right Republican and rich, thing is, I am not a psychopath unlike rich ancaps. Yeah, I believe in basic human decency, feel free to call me a cuckservative my dude.

TL;DR: You are not only retarded, but also evil deceivers.

doublepost sage

>>102657

>proves my suspictions that libertarian ethics are nothing more than a bunch of nonsensical garbage.

How does it prove it?

>Despite what Rothbard thinks, Keynes is not the creator of the Welfare State

I don't recall Rothbard mentioning this.

>>102655

>>102657

not an argument

>>102653

Emborderment, also called first use. This is mine because I made it exclusive first, or someone who made it exclusive first sold it to me.

>Property has we know it is a concept that originates from 19th political science.

Wrong. First because you got the date wrong (Locke spoke of property in the 18th century, and his precursors at least a century before the that), second because "talking about property" isn't a prerequisite for property existing, anymore than Newton's equations are a prerequisite to gravity existing. The idea of exclusive goods has existed as long as man has existed, regardless of when the nature of property was explicated within text.

>Back in the day nobility was not allowed to sell or divide their land, usury was both a crime and a sin, money was mostly unused and people prefeered to barteer

You just mixed elements from several distinct historical and cultural periods together and declared them all to be part of ostensibly the same category of "back in the day."

>>102657

>people in the past didn't respect property rights so we shouldn't either

>having a problem with an organization taking your possessions by force makes you an evil psychopath

this is really your best 'argument'?

>>102663

>there is no concept of property and aggresion in Mother Nature, it does not matter who attacks first or who owns something first. You cannot use conservatism or tradition to justify property rights and capitalism

FTFY

>according to ancaps taxation, charities and welfare are theft, but rent, interest, work and things like planned obsolesce and monopolies aren't. They basically want to be Randian Heroes, a.k.a., egoistic douches who society protects and nurishes but they feel like they have 0 responsability towards society after all the people licks their balls, Randian Heroes basically want to smoke pot while bingewatching Rick & Morty in their yatchs.

FTFY

>>102664

>>there is no concept of property and aggresion in Mother Nature

Relevance?

>it does not matter who attacks first or who owns something first

You really believe this? So killing someone and stripping the possessions off their corpse is ethically identical to killing someone in self-defense? And you've implicitly stated that the concept of ownership exists, meaning that property,that which is owned, also must exist.

>according to ancaps taxation, charities and welfare are theft, but rent, interest, work and things like planned obsolesce and monopolies aren't.

What exactly do you think theft is? Explain to me why I am morally obliged to satisfy your needs for free. Two parties coming to an agreement regarding employment or rent is in no way theft.

>>102666

>Explain to me why I am morally obliged to satisfy your needs for free

Let's suppose you are right, explain to me why I am morally obliged to protect your property (either directly or indirectly, it does not matter) and recognise it as yours for free.

Let's suppose that you say:

<because property does exist in the wild

Our current concept of property and agression doesn't. If an animal can improve its genetic fitness and its wellbeing "stealing" other's animals "property", the animal will do so, we are not any diffirent.

<first use

You cannot use history as a justification for property while also saying that history is not important when you discover that humans are a tribalistic specie who subconsciously share some degree of a hive mind, it's called empathy my dude.

Feel free to strawman empathic people as cucks as much as you want. Without empathy civilization is impossible, we would just tear each other appart, libertarians like you are just the leeches who use empathic people in their favour without giving back SHIT.

And don't say "muh charity" when most of you don't give a fuck about charity in the first place and some of you even are against it because you think it promotes dysgenics, degeneracy and ungratefulness.

<survival of the fittest, those are richer are more fit

Those you are able to steal more are also more genetically succesful.

Survival of the fittest can justify ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.

>freedom

Modern neuroscience proves that Free Will does not exist, and this is nothing new, people knew that we are highly influenced by others since (((Freud))).

TL;DR: Your ethics system doesn't even hold water within its very own framework.

>Two parties coming to an agreement regarding employment or rent is in no way theft.

Two parties coming to an agreement regarding citizenship and taxes is in no way theft. If you disagree you are always free to give up all your wealth or to commit suicide.

Your ideology is a angsty teenager joke which does not care about facts, and would rather throug them off helicopters.

Most libertarians spent way too much time in front of a computer in their cozy digital eccho chamber, never questioning their delusional beliefs, watching anime or cartoons and playing RPG, most of you are the ideological equivalent of Quixote and Ignatius J. Reilly (who, funnily enough, were also obsessed about impossible socioeconomic systems).

I am not here to convince you, as your ecchochamber provides you with tons of ammunition to fight any criticism with wishy-washy bullshit arguments, I am here to mock you and to laugh at you because life is way too short to lose time trying to make morons like libertarians show some coherence.

Because no matter how rich and powerful (some of you are just bootlickers) you are you will always be psychopatic leeches.

Go suck it.

>>102668

Do you believe that people own their own bodies?

>>102668

>Modern neuroscience proves that Free Will does not exist, and this is nothing new, people knew that we are highly influenced by others since (((Freud))).

Literally the globohomo version of Sluggish Schizophrenia, opinion discarded.

>>102663

>having a problem with an organization taking your possessions by force makes you an evil psychopath

if youre inherently against that concept, yes, because it means you are willing to risk anarchy, starvation, military invasion etc. merely for muh property

>>102671

Let's say a militia formed in your town tomorrow and they went around holding people up at gunpoint and demanding money and items from them. They claimed that, if they did not receive such goods, they would not be able to sustain their existence and therefore the town would risk all those bad things, military invasion, starvation, etc. Would you be evil for refusing these brigands their demands? Are you ethically obliged to submit to tyranny simply because they have made some appeal to the common good, regardless of the actual necessity for their existence?

>>102672

i said inherently, ie you would refuse any organisation taking your money by force, in any conditions.

>>102673

What is your basis for believing that a violent ruling organization is the best way of preventing starvation and violence?

>>102674

This is phrased badly. Not 'violent', willing to use violence. Supporting taxes doesn't actually lead to more violence. You have deliberately created a false picture.

Second of all, the organisation is not necessarily the 'best way of preventing starvation'. Charities may be the best way. The point is that even if charities are more efficient dollar for dollar, it's better to have a state, as removing the state would not cause all the dollars to go into charity, there would just end up being more homeless and starving people.

>>102669

Loaded question, thus discarded.

>>102675

If an organization uses their willingness to use violence in order to coerce people, it can accurately be classified as the use of violence. The only way unvoluntary taxes can be enforced is through violence.

>Supporting taxes doesn't actually lead to more violence

I did not say that it 'led to more violence', I said that it made the organization that perpetrates this violent. Which it does.

>there would just end up being more homeless and starving people.

It seems that you believe that reduction of the suffering of humanity as a whole should be the highest moral goal. If this is correct, would you be fine with eliminating every single liberty that citizens currently hold if it guaranteed the elimination of such suffering-causing afflictions? Because this is the logical endpoint of utilitarianism.

>>102676

Self-ownership is the basis of the majority of libertarian philosophy. Refusing to discuss it signifies that you are unwilling to even examine the philosophy, and therefore makes you unqualified for discussing or criticizing it.

>>102677

>If an organization uses their willingness to use violence in order to coerce people, it can accurately be classified as the use of violence.

Except no, threatening someone with violence is not the same as being violent.

>It seems that you believe that reduction of the suffering of humanity as a whole should be the highest moral goal. If this is correct, would you be fine with eliminating every single liberty that citizens currently hold if it guaranteed the elimination of such suffering-causing afflictions? Because this is the logical endpoint of utilitarianism.

Reducing liberty would cause afflictions though. Actually, loss of liberty is an affliction.

This is all getting away from the point. My point is that holding the value 'I refuse to pay taxes to any state' means putting your property over the safety, freedom, and 'not starvingness' of millions

Btw, there is an implied threat of force in asserting a property right, but that isn't violent either.

>>102672

>Would you be evil for refusing these brigands their demands? Are you ethically obliged to submit to tyranny simply because they have made some appeal to the common good, regardless of the actual necessity for their existence?

You don't need impossible examples to try to further your political goals, as matter of fact, that example does harm your goal, because businessmen are doing exactly what you are describing in a daily basis and calling it freedom to choice.

>>102678

Does that mean you are against slavery? Are you telling that society or the goverment should arbitrarely restrict my property rights upon others?! Damn what a socialists!

>>102679

What is 'violent'? It is one who uses violence. Threat of violence is guarantee of violence, is use of violence. Additionally, you are naive if you believe that an organization that engages in threats of violence on such a large scale will never be called on to follow through on such threats.

>Actually, loss of liberty is an affliction

Here we are! So, you must recognize that such an organization wielding violence over all its denizens in order to strip them of their possessions must be considered a reduction of liberty. And since there is no way to objectively quantify the moral value of states of being, how can you possibly say that valuing liberty over security is 'evil'?

>>102681

>because businessmen are doing exactly what you are describing in a daily basis

You said exactly. I predict that you are lying. Please point me to your source, and please do not try to fall back on the excuse of hyperbole.

>Are you telling that society or the goverment should arbitrarely restrict my property rights upon others

It is functionally impossible to gain 'ownership' over another person, regardless of what is legal or illegal. That person will always retain highest control over their own self, even with your most advanced brainwashing or lobotomies; these are simply methods to influence the will, which belies a reliance on said will to go along with the whims of those attempting to persuade.

>>102683

>since there is no way to objectively quantify the moral value of states of being, how can you possibly say that valuing liberty over security is 'evil'?

The word was not evil, the word was psychotic. It means your views are unpalatable to the masses and evidence a failure to appreciate and care for your fellow humans. You can cling to them based on allegedly objective moral factors but the whole exercise will prove to be futile once you get a caring for and worrying for your fellow man.

>>102687

Libertarians probably know this, hence their attempt to prove that abolishing the state will not make the people who depend on its programmes worse off, or put anyone at greater risk from invasion / crime.

If you really believed in only the single moral value of liberty, you would be obliged not to care about the consequences.

>>102687

Incorrect, the word evil was used multiple times.

>>102657

>evil deceivers

>>102671

>if youre inherently against that concept, yes

And you've still yet to substantiate the claim that valuing liberty over security is psychotic or evil or whatever you want to call it.

>>102689

<evil deceivers

What you are?

>>102690

You realize that calling people names isn't an argument, yes?

>>102689

first guy wasnt me. i didnt realise it said evil psychopath.

i would only ever use 'evil' in a subjective way, to describe someone who is amoral or lacking in particular moral values

>>102692

and ive made clear my argument why i believe opposing taxes implies a lack of certain moral values

>>102693

You've recognized a differing in moral value assigned to different concepts, but you have also claimed that such differing in moral value

>evidence a failure to appreciate and care for your fellow humans

which is a claim that you have not backed up.

>>102694

figure it out buddy

>>102691

>imagine lacking this much of self-awareness.

What is your opinion of subsidies? Do you hate them or do you actually love them because they benefit the upper classes?

>>102694

<evidence a failure to appreciate and care for your fellow humans

>I need evidence for the existence of empathy

Dude.

>>102700

>I need evidence for the existence of empathy

That is not what was asked. Prove that libertarians lack empathy.

>>102696

How does self-awareness have anything to do with fallacious name-calling?

>>102699

We oppose subsidies. The government cannot produce wealth. It can only take away. When a government gives a corporation or an industry a subsidy, it is not doing so out of its own "pocket" but rather forcefully redistributing wealth (which it mainly acquires through inflation and taxation), regardless of whether or not the market would have or would have not facilitated that exchange of wealth through voluntary actions.

A subsidy may temporarily benefit a specific party in the short term, but in the long term the practice of subsidization can lead to things like malinvestment and stagnating zombie companies that are staying around in spite of the fact that in a free market they should have either been pushed to innovate or died out due to lack of competitiveness. This is often an unseen cost. Welfare has similar effects on corporations and humans.

>>102720

>reread own post

>whether or not the market would have or would have not

>in spite of the fact that

This is what I get for phoneposting.

>>102707

Humans in general at their core lack empathy. This isn't rocket science

>>100406

>Do you guys believe the atrocities committed by the Nazis are true, or was the whole ordeala hoax perpetrated by the allied forces?

Somewhere in between. War crimes were committed under orders from small unit leadership, but they were not the standard procedure. Hitler didn't order Nazis to murder jews, but quite a few German patriots decided to do it anyway. Kind of like the My Lai Massacre. It's not like any General or the US President told those soldiers to gun down women and children, it was a field decision

>>102722

It's like seeing an NPC rattling their script off

<libertarians are immoral

>why?

<you lack morality

>why?

<you're not self aware

>why?

<most people are immoral

>>102725

What do you make of Hitler's table talk, the many accounts and physical remains of ghettoes, the many accounts of how those ghettoes were emptied, the many accounts and remains of the concentration camps, the dramatic difference in jewish and gypsy population numbers before and after the war and the fact that the nazis left piles of paperwork detailing exactly what they were doing and that it was ordered from the top?

>>102728

>the dramatic difference in jewish and gypsy population numbers before and after the war

I've been trying to find population numbers for Jews in European before and after the war and I've yet to find anything that isn't on some holocaust charity's website. Do you have access to an alternate source?

>>102722

Proof?

>>102720

In speaking of subsidies, say a smaller country uses it's subsidies and tarriffs to prop up their own industry when competing against larger foreign companies. If they drop the subsidies and tariffs will the smaller country's industry still be able to eke out a market or will it be overrun by the large foreign company.

>>102729

Pew is always a reliable source for this kind of thing.

I used to have a really nice infographic which used sources from individual countries' census bureaus but my hard drive died a few months ago

>>102750

It simply depends on whether or not the company would have been competitive or have found its own market niche in the absence of a subsidy. Depending on how the company was run, maybe, maybe not. What we do know is that in general and in the long run, subsidies allow companies that would have otherwise been uncompetitive to stay around much longer than they should.

>>102741

look around you and see how people act. why is crime common? (murder, theft, rape, endless drug abuse and partying) why do people go to extraordinary lengths to look out for no. 1? think about it…

>>102728

hardly an NPC, Hobbes knew this and so did Machiavelli. I don't have an issue with Libertarians, this goes for humans in general. including myself.

>>102767

You refuse to substantiate your claim that opposing redistribution by force is immoral.

You provide flimsy justifications like

>property has never really been a thing!

>all people are immoral!

and your latest post

>Hobbes knew this and so did Machiavelli

is an appeal to authority which lacks even a quote that justifies it.

You hold beliefs which you do not understand and become confrontational and call people immoral when they are challenged.

You are an NPC.

>>102767

why is crime common? (murder, theft, rape, endless drug abuse and partying)

Partyiing is not a crime., and I do not see any of the others being committed on a frequent basis.

>why do people go to extraordinary lengths to look out for no. 1?

I rarely see this.

>>102790

>Partyiing is not a crime

So, is noise pollution going to be 100% legal?

>>102791

Partying does not necessarily lead to noise pollution (e.g. LAN parties).

>>98094

>The question was that in a society where some people reject the NAP how is it dealt with?

That was explicitly NOT the question. The question specified "all", not "some".

In the "some" case: you're describing every society ever. The historical record suggests that outcomes vary based on circumstances, especially based on the institutions present in the community.

In the "all" case: Everybody dies. A social species cannot survive a war of all against all. Hobbes was retarded. The population ends and the populations who are at least predominantly peaceful will outlast them, in the Darwinian sense.

>>98100

>>AnCaps coup the goverment and declare the state abolished

Well there's your first problem. AnCap doesn't declare anything: they just produce institutions consistent with their values and don't force anyone to join in. You can have your commune if you like, just as long as you don't steal anything from them to make it.

The premise of your hypothetical is flawed.

>>98114

>Do you imply that the vast majority of the population don't sell their labor for wages?

The economic elites do that too. You're rebelling against retirees now? What did grandma do to you?

Does anyone think that the U.S. federal government is NOT going to declare bankruptcy?

>>102807

MMTers do. The whole premise of their meme voodoo economics is that it's impossible for the federal government to go bankrupt and it's impossible for anyone to stop trusting the currency.

As for everyone else, it depends. Joe normie will acknowledge it's possible, but I doubt he thinks it's imminent or inevitable. People literate in Austrian school Econ generally acknowledge it as inevitable if we stay on this same path, but it could still be decades before we reach that inevitability.

>>102808

Holy cringe

Imagine being the type of person who thinks that a post like this >>102816 is a compelling argument.

>>102817

>hurr durr le Austrian economics knows best

you're a cultist

>>102818

>hurr durr le bearded hobo knows best

>hurr durr le failed artist knows best

Fuck off, cultist.

>>102817

Some posts are just people acknowledging that they've read their posts or reacting. Not everything is an argument.

>>102820

Narcissism. This isn't twitter.

>>102817

>>102823

Imagine losing your shit this easily.

>>102823

You must be fun at parties.

>>102808

>but it could still be decades before we reach that inevitability.

The U.S. federal deficit was greater than $1 trillion last I heard. I don't understand how this can continue much longer.

>>102897

Deficits don't matter because the government can just print more money. Most people don't understand the mechanism behind inflation anyways so if they notice anything they'll blame business owners and capitalism for their reduced purchasing power instead of the government. This will basically continue until it is as the MMTers say: the government effectively owns everything (because it has stolen it) and grants you the privilege of accessing what once was your own wealth via friendly, cuddly social programs.

>>102896

LOL! Have sex incel :)

Does anyone want to share any liberty-minded sites? Not mises.org, because the last time they were producing neat content was about a decade ago. I've basically been stuck on the Liberty Report, and can't really find much else of content that I would consider 'good' anymore.

>>102923

Recently, I've been listening to a libertarian podcast called the Moral Minority. They seem like cool guys though I think they could be more concise when speaking. https://www.spreaker.com/show/the-moral-minority

>>102798

>>102871

>>102854

>>102968

…I think I'm going to stay over at /monarchy/ for a while until this clears up :/.

>>102923

Another good podcast is So To Speak, by Jared Howe. It's not explicitly libertarian, but it tackles geopolitics from an Austrian and realist perspective.

In a figurative Ancapistan:

How many employees is a owner allowed to kill during the process strike busting? All of them? Are corporations and lobbyists allowed to prosecute Labour Unions to start with to avoid such practice using a set of Hoppeain or Pinochetian-minarchist ethics or are they obligged to use rothbardian ethics?

Some interesting reading material:

https://medium.com/@Gustavoschneider1/the-concept-of-pinochetian-minarchism-ab5131af778a

>>102988

This is probably going to get a lot of different answers.

>How many employees is a owner allowed to kill during the process strike busting? All of them?

It depends. Are the employees merely standing on the owner's property and refusing to leave? In that case it may be justifiable to remove them from the property using physical force, but use of lethal force is questionable. Are they attacking other employees to prevent them from getting to work, or initiating the use of force against the employer? That's a different story.

Is worldwide balkanization best for liberty? Like the US balkanizes into smaller countries, China balkanizes, Russia balkanizes and so on. Through the destruction of larger states we get smaller states that could balkanize as well. Is this a good way to achieve freedom?

>>103017

Yes. The less centralization of power in the hands of the state, the better.

>>103017

F U C K Y E S .

How do I install Rise of the Reds? Shit doesn't work probably because its pirated. Fucking cucks

Would the humans prosper more under anarco captalism over the fascism they had?

I feel like there are a lot of 'problems' today that can be solved by just…having a little bit of patience. But instead they just immediately get blamed on the market. Examples:

- Identity politics: trans people have insanely high suicide rates, let alone shittons of medical problems that, and I don't exactly expect a patriarchy-fighting soyboy feminist to be reproducing a whole lot.

- Tech censorship: this is one of those things that I hear a lot about, but don't really feel affected by one bit because of all the alternatives. I guess some people want more, better, and faster content; but if these same people could wait a couple years, I'm pretty sure that will happen on its own.

Likewise for other economic or political problems, I feel like they're going to get solved if one just has a bit of patience instead of immediately throwing out all one's principles out of the window and jumping on the "Ban this, regulate that," bandwagon. Sort of like how Standard Oil didn't have a monopoly, and was already rapidly losing marketshare when it got hit by antitrust legislation.

>>103017

Balkanization or secession is always good for liberty. If the seeding territory is more free (e.g. Texas secedes), freedom minded people can live there and reap the benefits. If the seceding territory is less free (e.g. California secedes), the original territory is now free from the corrupting influence of its population, and will enjoy greater freedom as a result.

>>103049

I agree with you regarding the tech censorship stuff. The alternatives need time to build themselves up.

Children and babies have certain rights because they have the potential to develop into intelligent agents, correct? So if in the future we develop a way to uplift animals to human-level intelligence would we need to treat every single unintelligent animal as though they had rights, like a baby? Also, would it be ethical to treat retards who did not have the potential to develop self-awareness as animals rather than humans?

Related to this, why is it considered unethical to torture animals?

We're already quickly reaching a state of affairs where with 3D printers, you could use a replicator to Star Trek up a gun. As technology progresses, I would see that access to more and more complicated, advanced, and much more 'life-threatening' equipment could be obtained. In other words, it's probably a technological inevitability that someone will be able to 'print a nuke.' Given that, I see a lot of people's objections to McNukes to be not only non-arguments, but really arguments in favor of ancaps. I mean, we have to eventually have some sort of political institutions and ways of affairs for the mass public to have access to such things anythings.

Let's make some predictions, I'll start:

The U.S. is going to go to war with Iran, all the MSM outlets will cheer and say how this ‘vindicates the Trump presidency,’ and everyone’s protests will mean completely nothing and fail to stop anything.

>>103129

A Democratic politicain will complain about our reliance on fossil fuels because one of the oil tankers leaked oil into the ocean as it sunk.

>>103130

https://twitter.com/normmacdonald/status/809637479674281984

>>103129

In Amerimuttland. A Democrat will win the 2020 elections.

>>103129

Don't neocons worry about the debt at all? Seriously, where does Bolton think the money for these foreign adventures come from?

>>103174

Those foreign adventures are the reason they don't worry about debt. If you maintain the petrodollar and remain the international lender of last resort, why worry about debt at all? You can just print more money and export the inflation overseas, by the time anyone feels the effects you're out of office and it's someone else's problem. And so long as you are able to threaten deviations from muh petroshekel by threatening military force against anyone who tries to trade oil for currency other than dollars, you remain lender of last resort.

>>103204

I was thinking of making this story in two versions. In one, it's our typical world, where 3D guns people more popular along with other weaponry, and at each stage the governments of the world try to ban and prohibit them until, like a forest ranger who tries to combat every single forest fire, it reaches this conclusion. In the other, it's ancap world in which various institutions crop up to deal with each evolving threat, and each threat making the world more resilient than the last until it can actually cope with Lars.

>>103090

Using that logic, some gorillas would have rights as well, seeing as they have IQ comparable to some humans. Instead of reducing things to a strictly material basis, you have to realize that we humans are made in the image of God, and that's what sets us apart from animals.

As for the torturing animals thing, it's a very good sign that someone is going to turn out to be a serial killer. They lack empathy and get a kick out of killing things for no purpose.

>>103211

But if a Gorilla's mental faculties were comparable to a human's wouldn't it be accurate to say that it was made in God's image as well and therefore should have the same rights as humans? If it were just physical appearance it would mean that disfigured people shouldn't be thought of as human.

>it's a very good sign that someone is going to turn out to be a serial killer

That doesn't seem like sufficient justification to punish them for it.

>>103212

It's not just about mental capacity, we are made in God's image as human beings. Gorillas are not human, and are therefore not made in the image of God regardless of intelligence. People with deformities are still human since there's more to being a human than just physical appearance.

>>103213

But how do you know that Gorillas aren't made in God's image?

>>103213

>christcucks

>>103217

Because humans are, and gorillas are different than humans. Stop being obtuse.

>>103226

Different in what way? What specific factor are you using to determine whether a being is divine or not?

>>103233

I never said humans are divine either, but if you're so inclined to argue that you've blinded yourself to the obvious differences between a man and a gorilla then I'm done.

>>103234

The only meaningful difference seems to be intelligence, which contradicts what you say here >>103211

Even though I find anarcho-capitalism interesting I have a few hang ups. I don't necessarily want to rely on mercenaries for my defense. If others want to then fine. I just prefer to have my own guns to defend myself.

How would property rights work for rivers and lakes? Say if a river goes through your property do you own that part of the river or the whole thing?

If the rest of the world balkanized would it still be possible to develop advanced technology? Like space travel for example. Could developing space travel still be possible in a world that has been balkanized and consists of tiny countries since space travel was normally state sponsored? I know there could be companies doing it I just wonder if it'll be enough.

Bump

>>102923

I used to listen to the Vin Armani podcast. He was more of an agorist but I found it interesting because of the guests he would bring on. They would show their alternatives to the state and I do like seeing solutions to this kind of stuff. I think he changed up the podcast and doesn't post as much but it's still up on his youtube channel.