/liberty/ - Liberty

>Why does the majority vote for people who promise them free shit?

>why do children exit state-run schools with an irrational love of the state?

Because we never had capitalism in human history. This is the first fucking time and people believe we achieved all this prosperty thanks to the science and progress. I was one of them. I even got my bias confirmed for a long time, since I studied philosophy at uni (in Italy) and that's how they explain prosperity. One day Galileo and Bacone woke up and invented science and so everything became science and progress. Not a single word on how the fuck you can make science if you can't have private property to experiment and then start producing shit based on available resources.

But that's not it.

People who get a degree in economics also don't know shit about economics. Just by listening to podcasts I probably have more hours of economics on me than the average graduate. All the people I've met that studied economics, they don't give a shit about it. I don't know how it's possible, but it is. Nobody knows shit about the austrian school, the chicago school. Sometimes, some faggot knows who's Keynes or has heard of Krugman. When they teach macroeconomics, they always make the example of the lake, where one guy gets a lot of fish and the other none, causing also fish exinction and implying that we need State regulation (no words on having the lake owned by someone who then decide who can fish and who can't).

Honestly I could write all night about why we're in the shit: the jews, State-funded education, lack of hierarchies, race, women voting, crony-capitalism, the State giving away loan and privileges, closed professions, etc etc

In the end none of it matters. The simple explanation is that capitalism has been a great gift from the Western Civilization, but it's not something that humanity can hold on to and mantain long term. It never happened, it never will.

Yes, we should try to make a last stand, but it's gonna be difficult. My only hope is that while I was naturally inclined towards liberty, I never understood the economics behind it as well as I do now. If I can change, so can other people.

All platitudes

Steps against free markets are always incremental, when they even happen. We live in a time of great prosperity and freedom in the West, especially the US, even though we would be much more pure and wealthy in a freer alternate universe.

>Why can't capitalism defend itself ideologically?

It can, it's called the mises institute. There's not a more robust position. It sounds like you're really referencing the political situation.

>>98547

>why do children exit state-run schools with an irrational love of the state?

I feel like the whole "public schools bad" meme ignores that people will believe what they want to believe. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. That's why even institutions like MIT or the University of Pennsylvania put out people like Krugman or Chomsky. Even one of /pol/'s waifus, William Pierce (Rice University Alumni), was a national socialist rocket enthusiast who hated libertarians. It's not to say there aren't issues with the US public school system, as there are many.

>>98545

This has all happened before and American exceptionalism is bullshit.

It's natural for societies to have ups and downs. Right now the US is in a degenerate, deconstructionist phase. It might collapse or it might come out the other end but we'll never know until it happens.

>Reason #1

Libertarians are full of excuses. Shit like: "the majority will always be stupid", "children always believed in bearded men who hand out free shit", "it will all fix itself eventually", etc… It's pathetic, and whoever does this should get his shit set straight or stop embarassing us by calling himself libertarian.

>Reason #2

Libertarians think it's enough to just be "right". You can't magically change the world by holding the correct political beliefs and ignoring everyone who doesn't believe them, if you're serious about changing the world then you will develop some kind of populist rhetoric that works well, you will become proactive and put the leftists on the defensive, instead being reactive and waiting to be attacked first.

>Reason #3

Libertarians are too autistic. We don't realize that most people don't respond well to long lectures and intelligent speeches about things like how the minimum wage hurts the working class, they respond to emotions, memes, things that they can relate to and easily digestable red pills. This is why we're seen as redditors, we do this partly because we're stroking our own egos, thinking that someone is impressed by our wealth of knowledge. We must get off our high horses, understand that most people are highly irrational and they have other psychological triggers that must be appealed to, we must explain shit like we're explaining it to niggers and five year olds.

>Reason #4

Libertarians are too tolerant. How many of us entertain commie bullshit from "friends", coworkers, and other leftists that we know? This board is also a great example. I mean, holy shit, what do we need property rights for? You call yourself a libertarian, but you want all libertarian forums to be about "free speech", "the free market of ideas" and letting commies shitpost everywhere because that's supposed to be the "libertarian" thing to do? That's the liberal thing to do, the "libertarian" thing to do is to a) Give everyone property rights so that b) They can maintain their own property and try to raise its market value. Despite being advocates of a free market, we are ironically the only ideological group too far up in our own asses to understand that.

>>98575

>i feel like

>your rights (and lives) end where my feelings begin

>i feel like

>i feel like

And why do you think that matters?

>>98545

gynocracy ;(

>>98550

>never happened

Wrong, it has and is always happening, only it is always hampered by the state in some degree, one way or another.

>>98580

>reason 2

This is why I can't stand politics. It always boils down to who can dance the best for the retarded normalfaggots. I'd rather die an exile than reduce myself to participating in that circus.

>>98575

>These handful of outliers mean the overall trend is irrelevant

There's a reason whenever you bring up libertarian ideas to normies they almost robotically respond with the same handful of whatabouts:

>but who will build the roads?

>but what about monopolies?

>but what about price gouging?

etc etc. It's because they've been programmed in the same institutions. Yes, there are some people who buck the trend but that doesn't mean the trend doesn't exist.

>>98621

it shouldn't feel like a chore, it should be as effortless as breathing. Leftists, no matter how introverted some of them may be, are so passionate about destroying everything good and holy that it happens automatically for them, they are actually being the change they want to see in the world. If their desire to see everything burn is stronger than your desire to protect what you love, then they will win and you will lose.

>>98581

Did I ever ask for anything for government to do anything? Just an opinion about details certain faggots like you miss

>>98631

>If they were an outlier than these institutions would produce far more libertarians than they actually do

…what? I'm saying these institutions don't produce liberty-minded people.

>>98635

>>>8bitMUSH

>>98635

>>>/8chan/

Progressives and conservatives want power, liberals don't, which is why liberals will always lose a struggle for power. Liberals want freedom, so you need to figure out how to get people to rally around this; luckily, progressives and conservatives do so when they overreach, but… that's a backup plan at best.

>>98724

>liberals

>>>/reddit/

>>98725

You're American, aren't ya', kiddo.

>>98580

>easily digestable

>red pills

Pick one. The entire point of the "red pill" is that it's the hard, brutal truth that the vast majority refuse in favor of the pleasant, coddling "blue pill", you fucking idiot. There is no such thing as an "easily digestable" red pill.

>we

>we

>we

>we

>we

>join my collective and let us tell you what to think so WE can use you as grist for our mill

Fuck. You. In. The. Neck.

>>98712

Unironically this. When these niggers graduate and get their first paying job, they quickly become at least conservative if not mildly libertarian upon realizing 1/3rd of your income is taken by the government when you aren't making minimum wage and the next hike will fuck you over. The only ones who continue to be socialist at this point are either outliers or never got a proper job in their industry that pays decent.

>>98726

At least precede it with the word classical anon.

>>98884

I have some sympathy for tankies tbh. Tankies actually take the time to learn about economics as opposed to centrists like Fascists or NazBols. Centrists piss me off more than radicals.

>>98884

You became a communist at the time because these schools like the idea of creating useful idiots that blame something other than them for the debt and financial malaise they've directly caused by using federal grants and loans as a springboard for tuition increases

https://boards.4channel.org/biz/thread/12908285

>>98887

Why the fuck are you linking to cuckchan? GTFO with that shit we don't need that on our board.

>>98884

>I went to a private school and was very leftist/tankie when I graduated

So you're an entitled little shit living off your parent's dime, and that experience led you to believe that everyone could have free stuff without consequence? Congratulations, you're the spitting image of Marx.

>all correlation is biconditional

You're really not in a position to call other people low-IQ.

>>98545

>The younger generation is now majority commie

Because that's hip and cool, few are really invested in it, even fewer have it in them to become ideologues. Would they really stay interventionists or communists if they had capitalism as an alternative? I doubt it. They remain as they are because there is a full-on blackout of compelling capitalist topoi in academics and the media. The capitalists that do reach prominence are men like Nozick or Milton Friedman, who are frankly boring. Almost no one has heard of von Mises, but the ones that have either admire him and his system, or they feel threatened by him. Threatened why? Because he's the strongest opposition they could possibly face, and they know it. They are right to do so. Commies may have a majority now, but that majority would quickly defect if it were faced with von Mises, or similarly convincing and inspiring persons.

>>98884

>That's why i shifted to more moderate political beliefs, I grew up.

Lol faggot. I understand why you'd become more moderate in your methods, but in yoru beliefs?

>>98885

>I have some sympathy for tankies tbh. Tankies actually take the time to learn about economics as opposed to centrists like Fascists or NazBols.

Kek, what tankies learn isn't economics, it's nonsense. Just as they don't learn history, they learn narratives.

>>98895

>So you're an entitled little shit living off your parent's dime, and that experience led you to believe that everyone could have free stuff without consequence? Congratulations, you're the spitting image of Marx.

Kek, this, so much.

>>98580

>Libertarians are full of excuses.

They are only excuses if they're wrong, which you haven't established.

>"it will all fix itself eventually"

Who ever said that? And what even is the context?

>Libertarians think it's enough to just be "right".

We don't. We may not have a yearly summit where we suck each other off, but that doesn't mean we sit around doing nothing.

I will conceed that being right is important to me, even aside from strategic considerations. If I knew that a free society would be impossible to implement in practice, or that I couldn't do anything for it, I'd still be ancap. At least then I won't have to explain to Christ why I supported state-enforced homosexuality.

>[pop]

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>Reason #1

Libertarians are full of excuses. Shit like: "the majority will always be stupid", "children always believed in bearded men who hand out free shit", "it will all fix itself eventually", etc… It's pathetic, and whoever does this should get his shit set straight or stop embarassing us by calling himself libertarian.

>Reason #2

Libertarians think it's enough to just be "right". You can't magically change the world by holding the correct political beliefs and ignoring everyone who doesn't believe them, if you're serious about changing the world then you will develop some kind of populist rhetoric that works well, you will become proactive and put the leftists on the defensive, instead being reactive and waiting to be attacked first.

>Reason #3

>Libertarians are too autistic. Blah blah memes blah blah no one reads ur books lol

In my experience, libertarians are not only more knowledgeable and intellectual than everyone else in the political sphere besides right-wing Christians (who tend to know more history and theology but are often ignorant of economics), they also meme better than anyone on the left. The left doesn't meme well at all, it only has an edge on us as far as propaganda goes because it is ruthless (not an advantage I'd want) and because it is already in charge of an immense number of resources, more than we can dream of having in anything but the long-term. I'd say the Nazis, as retarded as they are, can also meme extremely well, that I give them.

Anyway, you underestimate the importance of intellectual arguments. People like me are only won over with them, and we also tend to become the most loyal supporters of any ideology. Saying that we don't need books because only very few people are convinced through them is akin to saying an army only needs guns but no strategy because there are just very few generals. The generals, in our case, being men like Hoppe or Woods, who are the very stuff that the memes are made of.

>>98545

Because the thing most people call "capitalism" is just as indefensible as the thing most people call "communism." It's really just a choice between whether you want a planned economy in your oppressive totalitarian state. Kids these days see that things aren't working out for us, but don't realize that freedom is an option, because they've been told that stateless society is a pipe dream that could only ever work in a fantasy land where everyone is good and builds roads for free out of the kindness of their hearts and no one ever murders anyone.

Monopolization. Try and open up a store near a Walmart and you'll see why.

>>99568

That not every kid with a lemonade stand can compete with Walmart does not mean Walmart has a monopoly. Is it the only chain of grocery stores in America? No? Then it has no monopoly.

>>98545

>why can't capitalism defend itself ideologically

Have you ever heard the phrase "you don't know what you have until you lose it"? It's very similar to "you don't know what you're losing until you realize what you have".

Capitalism can, has and will continue to defend itself. You can't blame capitalism for your general ignorance.

As for why it's not more popular, because collectivism is easier. It's a lot easier to be wrong and comfortable in a bubble of groupthink and fee-fee insurance than take the minimal effort to be right and take ownership over your life.

The last three generations of westerners have been increasingly soft, pathetically soft in fact. Generation "Zyklon" is all bullshit, most of them get spooked by their own shadows.

>the younger generation is majorly commies

Propaganda. I'd strongly suggest you study the long-term infiltration of western institutions by Soviet-sponsored communists and the ways in which they've spread anti-western, anti-liberal and anti-capitalist sentiment.

>neo-bolshevik uprising

Not gonna happen. The future is pure Corporatism, an unholy merger of a Pseudo-Socialist state to keep a braindead mass complicit in the whims and private interest groups to enjoy the privileges of being able to sit above that all and gorge themselves on our suffering.

Corporatism is the founding principle behind Red Socialism, Fascism and Neoliberalism and these are the three main ideologies most people follow these days.

>>98554

And for the majority of the population that "prosperity" will keep rising all at the cost of the essence of a free, fair and democratic society.

Wealth isn't everything, and judging the state of countries by how fat their people can get is one of the biggest mistakes we've made so far.

It divorced us from our ideological roots and made us value worldly comforts more than traditions and ideas.

>>99598

>free, fair and democratic

>democratic

You had me until there

>>99621

I was out when I saw "soft". It reminded me of that terrible historical determinism meme "Strong Men -> Good Times -> Weak Men -> Bad Times -> Strong Men" that normalfags and poltards seem to love so much.

>>98884

>I went to a private school and was very leftist/tankie when I graduated. If you think 'private schools

You were a leftist because you were a sheltered faggot that went to a private school. I have never met a working class person enthusiastic about communism.

I find the subject between ancaps and ancoms interesting. From what I can tell it basically boils down to means of production, do people own property themselves it or does the State own it?

For that reason alone I find anarcho-communism an oxymoron.

For me, it's simple, I like to grow my own food. When it's time to harvest I consider it my property, which means I'm an "ancap" and a "capitalist" while I just consider it common sense and human fucking nature.

Anyone taking my shit, especially the State, is unacceptable for me.

The goal should always be freedom, liberty, and neither "the left" nor "the right" seem to understand how freedom works -> by being independent individuals, they're all stuck in their collectivist garbage.

Not sure where I'm even going with this, but I felt like ranting, so I'll just leave this here :)

>>99769

maybe it is because working class people are usually stupid?

calling it capitalism is a problem.. that's a slur that marx came up with

we should just call it free markets and property TREATIES because even property rights when it comes to land isnt a true negative right

>>99979

Good point. What do you suggest? A good catchy name that doesnt have words with negative loads, which is the case with anarchism as well tbh.

>>99973

Or maybe it is because they actually have life experience of being independent and not depending on handouts like you leftist fucks.

independent as much as pissible ofc

>>99984

anarchism is edgey so it appeals to internet edgelords which is why ancapism is a thing now

but for economics i think just freemarket and/or property-treaties/ownership is fine

>>99984

and the reason rothbard chose anarcho capitalism is speicifcally because it took two slurs and made it gud.. it's tongue and cheek and refers to a duality like maryln manson

i was speaking about economics mostly.. it's cringy when we brag about capitalism because it's like bragging about being a "nigger"

it's really jjust free markets + ownership and land treaties

Free Market Anarchists certainly sounds a lot better than anarcho-capitalists, I'm still open for suggestions, but otherwise I'll just start using something like that lol.

still has the anarchist in it tho

>>100001

>Free Market Anarchists

not bad tbqh

now the flag looks like a bumble bee and yellow has the connotation of being yellow bellied asian

>>100014

Lol, I've never been a flagfag, even just labeling myself i'm allergic to.

I guess Free Market Voluntaryism might even be better. Won't find any commie antifa fuckboys then :)

>>100023

ooh youre a rebel anon <3

Instead of analyzing why capitalism is currently losing in the U.S., maybe it is better to analyze why it was winning before, or why it won the debate during the Corn Laws, or why Sweden managed to turn away from it after the 70s, why Cowperthwaite managed to change Hong Kong, or the crux of it all…Why Chile managed to turn away from it(helicopter rotors hum silently in the distance).

>>100214

The only one speaking sense. So long as the right eschews violence and the left embraces it, the lemmings in the middle will do what they can to avoid conflict. Same reason why people happily criticise christianity and ignore islam's offences.

>>100308

at some point you just hope there is more and more tech so you can just be free for yourself

we're all too selfish to help eachother out and none of us want to be leaders OR followers

we are all gammas

and until one of us can get powerful enough to defeat statism on his or her own we are doomed

Posting this since it seems relevant.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-31/defence-free-markets

>>100735

>no one defents socialism

untrue

>>99598

>you don't know what you have until you lose it

Sounds like a fancy way of saying you don't know what you got till it's gone.

Honestly, I know some people are saying we're going through a repeat of the Weimar Republic but I don't know how much of that is overhyped.

>>100308

establishment libertarians in those think tanks and funded are not libertarians, they are disgruntled capitalist extremists who are totally one sided, because they often oppose CP, for example. there are no billionaire libertarians who hire or put money into people who aren't shills. that's why libertarians have gotten nowhere. most of 'em are extremist capitalist shills who have tricked everyone into giving them the money and not true libertarians.

>>100308

>>100317

>>100320

>>100771

>>100999 (nice trips)

Libertarian black pill?

>>101020

>Libertarian black pill

This is exactly the kind of shit we don't need.

>>99594

>That not every kid with a lemonade stand can compete with Walmart does not mean Walmart has a monopoly.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-children-fined-lemonade-stands/

It's technically a narrow oligopoly, but you've successfully answered the "why does no one like or respect" us question in the OP by direct demonstration.

>>101033

I highly doubt that lemonade stands cannot outcompete Walmart only because they are fined into oblivion, anon. As much as an ancap as I am, I don't think that "has a lemonade stand" would be enough to bring Walmart down if only the mean police force didn't protect it from them.

>It's technically a narrow oligopoly, but you've successfully answered the "why does no one like or respect" us question in the OP by direct demonstration.

There's a time for sentimentalism and simple, emotionally charged arguments, but it's not during technical economic discussions. If libertarianism is to succeed, we have to instill this idea into people. In our current, emotionally charged environment, libertarians are set up for failure. You cannot compete with the Nazis GIVING JOBS to STEVE instead of MOHAMMAD, or with the Demsocs telling you that EVERYONE DESERVES A LIVING WAGE. Yes, we have TAXATION IS THEFT, but unlike the Nazis and Socialists, we at least require good economic argumentation for our Intelligentsia, and for the rest to respect the economics.

I hope I got you right, not like I had much to go with. 8chan is not a good format for quips.

>>101048

>I highly doubt that lemonade stands cannot outcompete Walmart only because they are fined into oblivion, anon

Of course, the fact that they ARE obliterated by police action makes your "doubt" a completely moot point.

>There's a time for sentimentalism and simple, emotionally charged arguments, but it's not during technical economic discussions.

No, I'm pretty sure THE COPS RUNNING YOUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM AT GUNPOINT intersects with you just handwaving this bullshit away and spewing random meme ideology to explain very, very well why no one likes you, gives a crap about anything you say, or takes you seriously. If you throw in knocking down random straw men alongside just handwaving the shit that actually happens, I'd say that's at least 99% of it, and possibly more.

Meanwhile, well, wake me when both walmart and the lemonade stand rise or fall INDEPENDENTLY of each other.

>I hope I got you right, not like I had much to go with. 8chan is not a good format for quips.

I'm saying the serious structural problems are with your community, not your professed ideology. At most, 5% of the populace are borderline-retarded low-functioning sociopaths, so that is your PEAK retention as long as you go down this path.

People want free stuff and need an authoritarian hand to protect private property.

>>98580

Reason 1 is ridiculous as the right wing has always been full of "excuses"

We've tried populist rhetoric and it has only gone so far. if anything, all things ever break down to is rheotric and "Awww…. Trump betrayed us" spirals when he enacted every promise he could in a free state.

Reason 3 is ridiculous. If a population is too ignorant for it's own defense, then we should become liberal socialists and enslave the lower classes under a mafia style leftist state.

Libertarians will hear out the opposition, but as far as I know, they are bullish conservatives who will push, and if they're not, there's always room in the nattering old church lady cuck caucus. Liberals "free market of ideas" and obsession of free speech, unless it doesn't suit their interests, is naive and how Libertarianism(TM) turned into a joke of autistic cartoonist macros in the first place.

Finally, actual communists, socialists, and marxists happen to be more respectable than your average liberal/leftist/ ant Alt Right bug man You know where they stand, they wear there colors proudly, and you can ultimately have a conversation with them. They have an agenda. Guys in it for the memes are demogaugic fodder for disingenuous bad actors whom both the Libertarians and the communist loath. The left call them reactionary counterrevolutionary, and the right call them the mob. The honorable right and the communists can agree on facts, while disagreeing on goals and solutions. Partisans who pick a side know better, which is why there is always an establishment and those who follow or get out of the way. The idea of Used car salesmen of electoral politics, and how they're corrupt, is a feature of mass democracy and how it produces inferior compromise results for dirty dumb centrist scum to enable rodents play politics causing more issues than they resolve.

>>101069

If you need a meme ideology to court the center, your pissing in an ocean trying to turn the water yellow. You are not allowed inside the left, populists are not allowed inside the left, the establishment in most systems are insulated on an invitation only basis and even so you tow a party line.

Meme ideology is for 3rd worldist thinking that elects banana republics and dictatorships that run out of other people's money who are either enslaved or constantly scammed out of their wealth.

>>101075

>The reason the left always "wins" is because capitalist prosperity manufactures conditions for bug men to prosper without predators or selective pressures.

>When they realize they cannot survive without making the public pay for stuff and invading once private spaces

These two statements seem to contradict each other. The second one tacitly admits that, as long as you can't bill your inadequacy to the public, and as long as you can't invade private spaces, capitalism will create the selective pressures necessary to keep the bugmen present to a minimum.

>>101073

Not quite sure who you're replying to. It LOOKS like the arrows are someone else, but can't tell who you're responding to.

>>98545

Just because people are dumb and eaisly led astray by communist subversion doesn't mean capitalism is invalid or has lost truth.

>>98545

spoliers = garbage

Why do slaves hate pedos? It's because they hate whites and don't want them to be happy/reproduce?

We haven't lost the ideological battle. What we have lost is the political will to pursue policy and allow demagogues the freedom of speech to cry out histrionic lies above truth.

Whenever we have been allowed to function through the militarization of the capitalist right to Physically Remove democrats and communists, our economic and political theories have done the greatest amount of good for everyone as fairly as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTP9DevI3mQ

>>101125

because they are brainwashed by gynocracy perhaps

>>101048

>I highly doubt that lemonade stands cannot outcompete Walmart only because they are fined into oblivion, anon. As much as an ancap as I am, I don't think that "has a lemonade stand" would be enough to bring Walmart down if only the mean police force didn't protect it from them.

you dont have to "bring walmart down" in order to exist.. contrary to popular belief the free market is not a zero sum game and for example if you go to mexico there are thousands of bodegas adjacent to big box corporate stores

>>98545

Dont think it's really about winning or losing most idealogies usually get amalgamated into an abomination somewhere between ideas due to memetic diversity and compromise. I'm really fine cohabitating with non capitalists cause a onesided echo chamber succydiccy image board is kinda gay though I like people coming up to me and disagreeing with me as long as its on topic idgaf really

>>101560

>I'm really fine cohabitating with non capitalists

Everyone says this until they actually cohabitate with the commie scum.

>>101562

Eh I don't mean actually cohabitate with them IRL. I mean it in the context of an imageboard. I'm all for throwing tyrannical commies off of helicopters but I like having an ideological gladitorial arena to brandish my thoughts and memes on. If I wanted a circlejerk I woulda just gone to reddit or facebook kek

>>101567

Eh just ignore it then not like you cant still discuss stuff with other ancaps. Theres as much commie scum here as right wing authoritarian facsists calling themselves libertarian anyways. So illiterate ancoms arent too much of a big deal to me.

>>101567

Not to mention if I remember correctly this isnt even an ancap board its just anarchy or libertarian in general so other interpretations of liberties seem to go against the boards purposes

>other interpretations of liberties seem to go against the boards purposes

Dont seem to sorry

>>101571

Lol k sory for por punc*tution and you take this imageboard shit to seriously go make *an ancap board if it really bugs you ^cause iirc this isnt an ancap board….:";;;

>>101571

>le murdoch murdoch cartoon

post immediately trashed

>>100308

Very much agreed. You can argue perfectly on these anonymous boards and some self-appointed scholar will bring up the very same criticisms the very next day, as though they were his idea, and will be just as impervious to reason as the last guy. There's an overpowering sense that the internet rhetoric is a waste of time, because it is.

The key isn't education or internet arguments: it's marketing. We've got to sell liberty, like for money. We've got to sell people things that undermine the state, and keep the politics out of the advertising. When people do it because it's cheap, convenient, and safe, they'll invent justifications after the fact for why what they're doing is the right thing. All we really care about is that they do it, and that's much easier than trying to change their beliefs.

Besides, I find rhetoric to be much more effective in person. I've found that I can actually convert people slowly over time if I have the chance to make them feel listened to and show them how their concerns are much better addressed through liberty than through the state.

>>100317

I've got ideas but still lack the technical skills to implement them. Hopefully the technology I'm trying to build will make economic civil disobedience convenient, financially attractive, and fairly safe.

>>103058

Your idea sounds interesting. Could you go more into it?

>>103058

I agree, trying to convince people on the other side to change their beliefs is much more difficult. However, internet arguments are as much about the bystanders as they are about the person you're arguing with.

>>103514

The thing is, arguments that appeal to the lowest common denominator will also apply to more intellectual bystanders.

We should fish with a net, and not a rod. Good strategy always beats good tactics.

>>103510

That is why I think we should always screencap good arguments, whether they are ours or from others. A good thread can easily be made into a good meme.

>>103519

I completely agree, we should all start doing this from now on.

>>98580

>Autistic

Better than a rich faggot with 666 pronouns.

The majority is stupid but I don't believe the rest of that hogwash

Go bomb a university if you want real change.

Also being tolerant of anything is gay

>>98587

somewhat true. women's nature to be peace loving, degenerate cretins is why true progress can't happen.

>>103611

yes women want peace even though they imported milions of illiterate savages to europe who are disrupting peace

>>103748

Competing priorities. They do want peace, but they also want to virtue signal on twitter about how good people they are, and want lots of masculine, young men in their countries to inflate the value of their roastbeef.

>>103748

They like to pretend they're helping people by voting to subsidize them with money that isn't their own

>>103781

What's with this closet cuck fetishist mindset of assuming all women just want to get SANDED by migrants? A far more reasonable explanation is that the virtue signaling cat ladies have displaced maternal sympathy onto muh poor, needy refugees.

>>103782

how do we change it?

>>103783

>What's with this closet cuck fetishist mindset of assuming all women just want to get SANDED by migrants?

We're going off-topic, but you're deluded if you think that isn't part of why they're so gung-ho about letting in hordes of alpha, young men.

>>101072

I dunno maybe because it's more socially acceptable to wear Che shirts than Pinochet shirts?

>>103783

I don't assume anything except women make shit decisions when not under the guidance of a man

>>101188

Pretty sound answer

>>101027

Isn't that just Nick Land?

>>103791

>penniless third-worlder dune coons

>can't succeed in home shithole so they come running West, hands out

>alpha

These are your words and your obsession, not mine.

>>103819

>Every time we've had a chance for a capitalist revolution and to actually establish freedom from the State's interference in the economy and other human affairs, our movements became normalized and "our leaders" became the next politicians.

There's an episode of Kino's Journey where one of the countries she visits bans books. It turns out that the 'punishment' for those who are caught running underground book publishing is that they have to be the censors and bureaucrats who enforce the law to ban books. At first, they jump at the 'chance' to be the ones to enforce it, but within a year they always become corrupted by that power and end up being just as terrible a censor as the rest.

>>103821

>At first, they jump at the 'chance' to be the ones to enforce it, but within a year they always become corrupted by that power and end up being just as terrible a censor as the rest.

Reminds me of a story about Zhuangzi:

>King Wei of Chu, having heard of the ability of Chuang Chau, sent messengers with large gifts to bring him to his court, and promising also that he would make him his chief minister. Chuang-Tze, however, only laughed and said to them, "A thousand ounces of silver are a great gain to me; and to be a high noble and minister is a most honorable position. But have you not seen the victim-ox for the border sacrifice? It is carefully fed for several years, and robed with rich embroidery that it may be fit to enter the Grand Temple. When the time comes for it to do so, it would prefer to be a little pig, but it can not get to be so. Go away quickly, and do not soil me with your presence. I had rather amuse and enjoy myself in the midst of a filthy ditch than be subject to the rules and restrictions in the court of a sovereign. I have determined never to take office, but prefer the enjoyment of my own free will."

The lesson I take from this is to never be so arrogant as to think you can be the one to handle power. Power corrupts all. The only way to win is to not play.

>>103819

Good input anon, I have yet to check out the video though.

>Thing is, "auction off the national parks, give McNukes to mercenaries, and remove the undesirables from private property" will always be edgier than "what we have now but /ourguys/ are in power, no interest rates, and maybe less crime,"

Our strategy should be quite simple: as an ancap, you need to hone the ability to boil down extremely hard concepts into short impactful sentences. Picture it this way: The second you start explaining anything, you already lost. Never explain shit to normalfags unless they specifically ask you to, and never try to convince people, because that only puts their defences up, since deep down these people know how susceptible they really are.

Do you ever wonder why there's so many boomerpilled centrists out there? Most people simply don't know what's right or wrong, and they are terrified of deciding. The fact is (according to Jungian depth psychology) that only about 10% of the population is made up of rational "thinkers" and these are the sort of people who are mostly likely to become libertarians, 40% is made up of normalfags who are very skeptical and follow only the rest of the herd or those who are more confident than they are, and the rest is made up of people who either turn the personal into the political or follow what their emotions dictate. Most people are simply not rational, objective thinkers, it is not their role as human beings to "think", it is our role to do the heavy-lifting for them and to break it down into something easy for them to handle. If we are unable to this the movement will be taken over by the passive liberal cucks who ARE willing to do it, just like how things are right now.

If you're a typical normalfag and someone is explaining free markets to you, it's the same as someone dropping a 100kg boulder into your arms, most people are not willing to do that kind of of intellectual weightlifting, it's scary for them because they feel like it's so complicated that no one may ever really know what's right or wrong, after all, people spend 4 years at universities studying this shit, and even after all that, they wonder if it's really worth knowing all that.

>>103822

Nice story.

>The lesson I take from this is to never be so arrogant as to think you can be the one to handle power. Power corrupts all. The only way to win is to not play.

How do you feel about voting?

>>103838

You're consistent.

>>103838

Voting is a valid self-defense mechanism. You can't seriously trust anyone you vote for, but you can predict with reasonable confidence who will tax you more, and who will violate your freedom to associate most often. Therefore, in order to buy yourself additional time to prepare for pursuing politics by other means you can expend a minimal amount of effort to vote for the least bad option.

>>103502

Something like OpenBazaar (a peer-to-peer blockchain-based marketplace) but specifically for insurance. There are a number of features I'd like to implement, but the idea is that anybody can insure anything, and the state can't regulate it, can't tax it, and can't even prove who's using it.

>>103819

That video is damn good. After the 2016 election I realized it was a mistake to vote for Johnson. McAffee would've been better since he is ballsy and owns how ballsy he is.

>>103841

I sort of feel like this regarding local elections. National elections your vote doesn't matter that much. But on the local level that stuff affects me directly. So voting on the local level would be preferable.

>>103858

I thought the whales owned how ballsy he was?

>National elections your vote doesn't matter that much.

Policy-wise perhaps not so much, but just as important as policy is the influence that the government has on a culture. The Oval Office's most potent weapon is its status as a bully pulpit. BLM wouldn't have gained an appreciable amount of influence on the national level were it not for Obreezy's rhetoric in the wake of Trayvon Martin and similar incidents. Universal healthcare wouldn't be as prominent an issue on the national stage, either. Despite losing control of of Congress relatively early in his tenure, he managed to shift the Overton window a fair ways leftward through the bully pulpit. Even if he can't pass a single policy, the President retains a powerful tool in his ability to instantly have the entire media place microphones and cameras in front of him, whenever he wishes.

To that end, even if you think policy is is irrelevant, who sits in the Oval Office is significant. I'd much rather the influencer of culture be an unabashedly forthright businessman telling Americans they need to be great, stand up for their own success, and so on, over some socialist dinosaur constantly telling us our biggest problems are money and white people.

>>98550

It'd be good if we could just shut the fuck up and stop polarizing. Absolute capitalism with no regulations just leads to monopolies and less freedom, pure state socialism just outright kills freedom, the answer? State run companies within the free market, and a choice on what you pay your taxes towards, therefore allowing the people to control the budget. That's my shitty 2 cents anyway.

>>103905

You're never going to not be polarize in a mass democracy. The more power the state has the more inevitable polarization becomes, as the federal government becomes that much more bigger a prize to win.

>Absolute capitalism with no regulations just leads to monopolies and less freedom

That's objectively wrong, but this isn't the thread to have that argument. Most of the catalog is filled with elaborations as to why it's wrong.

>State run companies within the free market

That's what we have now and it's a shithole.

>and a choice on what you pay your taxes towards, therefore allowing the people to control the budget.

First, it's wishful thinking to believe that "the people" ever have power in a democracy. They are vote and tax cattle, and the incentives of democracy are such that this is all they will ever be. Second, if you really want "the people" to choose how they spend their money, you'd take out the coercive and highly inefficient middleman of the state and allow them to spend their own money directly. You can know, by choosing what products to buy and what not to buy. If you don't believe they're capable of doing it this, then you don't actually want "the people" to have control over the their own lives. If you don't actually value "the people" spending their own money how they see fit, then the whole premise behind allowing them to decide on line items in the budget is rendered irrelevant.

>>103908

>First, it's wishful thinking to believe that "the people" ever have power in a democracy.

You make a good point, I'mma go sit in the corner and think for a bit.

>>103908

>that much more bigger

My apologies for typing like a retard.

>>103850

That was exactly the idea. IRS insurance would be so lucrative and powerful. Plus DEA and ATF insurance. Plus, since it's peer-funded, it's basically an investment account outside of the government's reach. It could form a financial backbone fit a whole new services market. Provide ways for insurers to hire liability limitation professionals, and eventually people can hire private security forces to protect themselves from the state, though that won't come for a while.

>>103822

>The lesson I take from this is to never be so arrogant as to think you can be the one to handle power. Power corrupts all.

I take it as those who seek power tend to be already be corrupt rather than those who take power become corrupt.