/liberty/ - Liberty

>>99573

I think this is just strawmanning out of ignorance from alt right people who dont understand basic sort of John Locke views of liberty.

There is literally nothing within that ideology or worldview that calls for mass migration or open borders or cultural relativism or any sort of "lets all just hold hands!" childish hippie utopian stuff.

Yes, islam is a barbaric and backwards religion and many of that religions beliefs run completely contrary to my views on liberty meaning they are incompatible.

Of course liberty has its limits. Liberty can only be defended as a result of private property rights, not as the end goal, since if you had total freedom you could just rape and murder as you'd see fit. Libertarianism is about private property first and foremost, and the freedom you can have is limited by other's private properties as a consequence of that.

Anything other than that is just statism/authoritarianism, since those who hold the power have more freedom than those who don't.

Liberty is definitionally limited. Liberty, capital L, has always been defined as constraining the actions of all men to those which do not violate property. Never has it meant to remove constraints from men.

thats why libertarians are dumb, just go full anarchism

>>99589

>anarchism

<we believe in freedom for everyone!

<what do you mean you don't want to shovel pigshit? Everyone must do the exact same work, or else!

<what do you mean you made a beautiful painting and want to give it to someone in exchange for them shovelling pigshit instead of you? That's, like, opressive!

<what do you mean you don't even like pork? We voted to have pork! That means everyone wants pork!

<what do you mean you want to go innawoods to live by yourself? Those woods are collective property! We have to vote to see what we do with them!

<REEEE why is everyone leaving my perfect anarchist commune!!!!

>>99596

why are you even using that flag if you don't understand anarchisn???

>>99597

Says the pot to the kettle.

All humans are innately gifted with a freedom of will that has the potential to be infinite. All organizations function by attempting to restrict this freedom for the sake of the impotent and foolish.

>>99597

>>99596

In what way am I misunderstanding it?

I'll let you know that I've actually worked and lived in two communes and visited several others, and my experiences in them were what put me off left wing anarchism.

>>99606

Those were tankies, not anarchists. The problem with "anarchist communes" is that they exist in a capitalist society, meaning that there's a couple of people there who own the property and have both a vested interest and a right to keep other people from shitting it up. That means that they will ALWAYS turn into a dictatorship, although probably one that pays lip service to collective rule.

I'm not saying that property is a bad thing; I'm just saying that it's not anarchism when someone can and will call the cops on you if you insist on doing something they don't like.

>>99608

>Those were tankies, not anarchists.

No.

These were capital A Anarchists both ideologically and in practice.

>The problem with "anarchist communes" is that they exist in a capitalist society, meaning that there's a couple of people there who own the property and have both a vested interest and a right to keep other people from shitting it up.

That may be the case, but if anything that's indicative of their own failure to trascend the human impulse to self-organize into hierarchies and create actual communes.

>That means that they will ALWAYS turn into a dictatorship, although probably one that pays lip service to collective rule.

Funnily enough, that could be used to describe every revolutionary left-wing movement ever.

>I'm not saying that property is a bad thing; I'm just saying that it's not anarchism when someone can and will call the cops on you if you insist on doing something they don't like.

One of the communes I lived in was occupying a plot of land illegally (though it was just a small patch of otherwise unused countryside adjacent to the property). Calling the police would not have entered the minds of the people living there full-time; they don't respect them. But even more importantly, they don't need them.

What I observed in these associations was that power became just as concentrated as in a privately owned company, but the people who held it were the sharpest politicians, not the owners. And when political processes determine everything from how work will be distributed to what food will be grown and cooked, the sharpest politicians have absolute control over everyone else.

>>99610

Oh, I see. You're just an autistic loser that let himself get bullied instead of stepping up. I suppose it makes sense that you're here on the chans.

>>99608

>Those were tankies, not anarchists

<NOT REAL ANARCHISTS REEE

Pathetic

>The problem with "anarchist communes" is that they exist in a capitalist society

>There can be no communism when there are still free people somewhere

>it's not anarchism when someone can and will call the cops on you if you insist on doing something they don't like

I guess i'll be taking all your food and water from now on, and don't you dare to call the cops, they are oppressive!

>>99638

That's not even remotely an argument.

Guys you arent getting OP, hes saying its against NAP to even think non-libertarian thoughts.

>>99608

>Those were tankies, not anarchists.

Hurrrr it werent dun real happened! It was state-anarchism!

>>99646

>Guys you arent getting OP, hes saying its against NAP to even think non-libertarian thoughts.

That is not how I understood him. It was a bit vague and all, though. Beliefs cannot violate anyones property, but acting on those beliefs can. You can also make the case that if you disapprove of such things as non-aggression and private property, you forfeit your rights, but I would not be that strict.

>>99647

Where does action come from? Do you think it's just random seizure movements from people? Your beliefs guide your actions, it's impossible to separate the two, if you're going to punish someone for an action it makes perfect sense to punish them for the belief that led to that action. To desire the end is to desire the means. It's a founding tenet of feudalism, which a lot of ancaps don't seem to get honestly.

>>99652

>Your beliefs guide your actions

Yes.

>it's impossible to separate the two

No, that's retarded. Not all beliefs are intentions, and not all intentions are acted upon.

>>99638

>NOT REAL ANARCHISTS REEE

I was working from the mistaken assumption that they were demanding that he do things according to the way a handful of them wanted things done. Instead, it turns out that he was just sperging over the fact that they cooked food they liked and didn't make a special vegan, gluten-free, soy-based meal just for him.

>and don't you dare to call the cops, they are oppressive!

I've never called the cops in my life. You're welcome to come try to rob me if you think I'm too much of a pussy to shoot you, though. We'll see how it turns out.

>>99573

>If you, as a libertarian, want to invite muslims into your country

Then you bear full personal responsibility for the alien you yourself invited over and accommodated. There are no laws mandating you to tolerate an open invasion and pay for it with your taxes, and the muzzie appeared due to a specific invitation, so the cause of his rampage is evident.

If we go the way that private law concerns protecting private property, compensating for any losses incurred, the one who invited the dangerous alien will compensate for the losses incurred by the alien to the locals, if alien's private property will be insufficient to recompensate. If I were a private judge, I would rule up to enforced servitude or payment in kind, whichever the suffered side prefers, if your personal property outside your body would be insufficient to pay for another raped and beheaded girl or whatever. Selling the offending muslim's organs can compensate only so much.

So long as the newcomer is not a recognized property owner inside the community, he is effectively your pet, and you are responsible for it as much as you do for your pitbull or private nuke or whatever.

Now that I wrote all of this, I think I could actually rule pitbulls and muslims an area liability as much as a private nuke is, because they can "go off" and wreck other people's property inside an area a nuke can scorch or a pitbull run circles and bite asses or a muslim can stroll around shouting "subscribe to Pewdiepie" with a kitchen appliance in his appendage. So possessing one would necessary incur losses of your neighbours' properties' value, hence be a crime in itself unless there is a safe space distance to other people's properties the muzzie would be forbidden to cross. Archaic-Medieval laws against foreigners, hell yeah. Feel free to update and share across your communities.

>>99660

We aren't talking about incidental beliefs, we're talking about beliefs which are at the core to your identity. The only reason these beliefs aren't acted upon in modern society is because of pure chance, or repercussions for acting them out, which wouldn't exist in a libertarian society!

Any belief you built your personality on is equivalent to an action.

>>99712

Also for example 80% of muslims aren't physically violent, but they still contribute to "charities" which fund the 20% that are actually violent. And there's no way in a system of laws to catch them red handed, because of protections granted to charities and because of the fog of international relations. tl;dr they literally break NAP but since you can't prove it to your own standards, you can't act on it.

>>99712

>The only reason these beliefs aren't acted upon in modern society is because of pure chance

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting agency is determined by a roll of the dice? By definition that would mean it isn't agency.

>or repercussions for acting them out, which wouldn't exist in a libertarian society!

First, why are you assuming the repercussions wouldn't exist in the natural order? Removing state subsidies of dysgenic behavior would impose more constraints through repercussions, not less. Second, there are more reasons people may constrain their actions besides fear of repercussions–conflict with a core principle which takes precedence is one (I firmly believe commies should be thrown out of helicopters BUT this particular commie has been peaceful so far so I won't do it yet), simple indolence and laziness is another.

>Any belief you built your personality on is equivalent to an action.

This is definitionally incorrect, whether you use the dictionary definition of an action, or the Misesian definition of a willful act. The former I assume you are familiar with. The latter specifies that an action is consciously taken to bring oneself closer to a desired end, ie a means. One's beliefs do not bring one closer to ends, they are the ends–whereas actions are the means through which ends are achieved. Beliefs are related to action, but they are not action.

Your Muslim example isn't proof of beliefs being actions. You've simply drawn out a scenario analogous to someone hiring a hitman for committing a crime on their behalf, which is unambiguously a criminal act and a violation of the NAP. The Muslim's beliefs are not NAP violations themselves, it is the actions that they take–in this case, hiring Hitmen of Peace to do crime on their behalf–which are criminal acts.

>>99713

Only faggots doublepost.

>>99724

>Ancom

>Tankies

Pick any two.

>>99721

No it just means that some muslims might not have access to bombs, or the means to carry out their attacks, or the courage, or the wherewithal… but they still support the "cause" of social destruction in other ways. Doesn't make them any less of a danger to society than some muslim that's blowing people up.

I'm sorry but their beliefs break NAP and if you defend them you are breaking NAP as well, which means I can kill you if you ever enter my field of action.

Also I refer you to >>99652

>To desire the end is to desire the means.

>To desire the end is to desire the means.

>To desire the end is to desire the means.

>To desire the end is to desire the means.

>To desire the end is to desire the means.

There is no difference between the end and the means, the moment you accept the end you accept the means, and it's as though you've already perpetrated the means.

>>99721

>Only faggots doublepost.

Only niggers deflect.

>>99773

People can and do often change their minds, which is not something you can ignore when discussing human action and libertarian legal theory, it's the same reason Rothbardian contract theory states that one may not prosecute a man for breaking a contract, unless breaking that contract resulted in theft. I was mildly left wing when I was 12, meaning I desired the end of the state, and all of the coercive violence which that implied. Are you going to argue that murdering my past self is justified because I supported the end of the state, and thus was complicit in every violent action performed by every state actor in the country? You are not taking a defensible position, nor one compatible with the idea of human agency. If you're looking for an excuse to chuck commies out of helicopters, there are far less convoluted and far more grounded arguments available.

>>99774

I didn't deflect, niggerfaggot. You will note I responded to the content of your post when I made my reply.

>>99776

>>99712

>>99778

>or repercussions for acting them out, which wouldn't exist in a libertarian society!

Okay, why do you cherrypick from anarchocapitalism if you want to draw the consequences of the theory? Every anarchocapitalist author has claimed there would be such repercussions. Your argument only works if we disregard that fact while still acknowledging the NAP. That is not a fallacy - you can defend the ethical precepts of anarchocapitalism while thinking its sociological assumptions are wrong - but it's still quite odd.

Also, have you talked to Muslims? I know one who was flabberghasted that his peers go to Mecca to walk around a stone. His words. There are many who clearly ignore every precept of the Quran, and I don't think even half of all Muslims do their five daily prayers. They are not any more committed than Christians.

>>99781

>They are not any more committed than Christians.

Just to play devil's advocate, the autist has somewhat of a point here, especially when you consider you have something of a sampling bias (you're speaking to Muslims that live and/or grew up in the West). There are a good few moderate, Westernized kebabs in the West, yes. However, the statistics do show that a far greater proportion of non-extremist Muslims have either support or sympathy for terrorist groups compared to the proportion of non-extremist Christians that support violent or terrorist Christians. Even in "moderate" countries like Turkey, surveys show upwards of 40% of the moderates there supported Al-Qaeda.

>>99573

It’s a mix of appeal to hypocrisy and the Chinese robber fallacy.

Terrorism is bad regardless of who does it. Muh Christians or muh Muslims doesn’t matter that much because while there may be 463 attacks by Muslims, there’s still around a billion and a half Muslims who aren’t terrorists.

>>99778

Beliefs "core to your identity" can and do change as well. People don't spring fully-formed commies from the womb, they need years of molding in the public schools before their worldviews shift.

>>99813

The muslim problem is similar to the jew problem; most don't actually do the dirty work but they don't speak against it either, and some actually encourage it, to the delight of the actual perpetrators of the crimes, who can enjoy from that tribal protection and claim to be a victim when the inevitable backlash happens. You can't say they're outright criminals but you also can't say they're totally innocent either. Of course it doesn't justify some random shooting but you can see why someone would be baited into doing that assuming it wasn't just a false flag which it probably was

>>99854

what dont jews speak against?