/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>5565

<merit

>Codeword for letting Niggers and Cat Ladies be in office.

>judging people on skill is code for letting people with no skill have power

Nigger what. If anything, judging people on merit is implicitly pro-ethnostate–ancap is nigger famine, can you imagine Curious George and his side chicks surviving more than a day or two without federal gibsmedats?

>>5584

Absolutely correct, you don't even need to call it fascism, just traditionalist values. The market favors low time-preference behavior, and high-trust communities are more desirable than the alternative. As Hoppe says, ancap isn't going to be some gay-ass society of open borders, it will be a series of gated communities.

>>5585

i hop(p)e

>>5584

Except the free market is not based on rationality, it's based on selling your vices as virtues. Free market is code for impunity of predatory business.

You have no basis for it other than this sacrificial evolutionist doctrine that good products can only come from the blood of "loser" entrepreneurs (fathers, so you are necessarily impacting an entire household) who fail. It's akin to human sacrifice and it has no historical basis of this being beneficial to the average household.

I think corporatism and autarky have shown themselves to be much more stable and favored by the populace, like in General Park's Korea and today's Iran respectively, than some weird Christian Dennis Prager idiocy that has no examples in history and the few governments that try this always get subverted by these usury giants like in the US.

Oligarchs always have the tendency to dominate because they define themselves by their temporal power when the average people are familymen. When there is no overarching power to stop these damned kikes (the Monarch), they will dominate.

>>5651

>Except the free market is not based on rationality, it's based on selling your vices as virtues.

Care to lay out the logical process that ends with this conclusion? You're just making a declaration about how you feel the the market works—not even that, just the end result of how you feel the market works—in a way that satisfies common sense, but there's no conceptual process behind it. You're not laying out the path the market takes from "I give you this for that, also don't trespass or I kill you" to "selling your vices as virtues." If you can do that, especially in terms of incentives, ordinal values, time-preference, and other economic concepts, your argument is more credible. We can and do use these concepts to show what actually happens is quite different from what you think happens. "Selling your vices as virtues" isn't at all practical in a free market because the free market actively discourages you to adopt any kind of vice. It's high time-preference, unproductive behavior which only hurts you in the long run, and even if you're not a rational person you still respond to those incentives, because a man still has to eat, and he can't keep a job if he shows up to work late with a hangover and leaves early to go clubbing.

Also, I'm quickly losing patience with this "lel people aren't rational" meme and attempts to use it to disprove economics. No, people aren't robots with unerring logic, but that's not what is meant by rational in this case. No matter how emotional they are, people are rational actors because they are conscious beings, that are accountable for their own actions and will make informed choices based on their circumstances. Homo Economicus isn't real, and economists know that, so they don't assume he exists when doing economics. As much as they decry the idea, it seems to me detractors of free enterprise invoke it far more often than economists.

I'm sure your mental image of hardworking white men as blood sacrifices for the Darwinian money god is very harrowing, and probably pulls at quite a few heartstrings, but it's not actually an argument, nor is it reflective of reality, so there's really nothing to address in it.

>has no historical basis of this being beneficial to the average household.

Seriously? I don't really care for arguing from history or example one way or the other, but you have no ground to stand on here. Free enterprise is solely responsible for every increase in quality of life that you enjoy, and the technology from the which it originates. Not some five year plan, not the welfare state, not fashy developmentalisn, just entrepreneurs doing what they do best. I'm sure you have a rebuttal to this, probably based on the "evils" of the Industrial Revolution, or robber barons, or unions, or what have you. I'll wait until you respond, then provide a more specific answer.

Corporatism hasn't existed long enough in any definite form to be called stable. Even if it has, "stable" is such a vague term that this means nothing unless you explicitly define what you mean, what it implies, how it's implemented, and why it's beneficial. Also, you've fallen prey to the old broken window fallacy— concentrating on the seen and ignoring the unseen. Even if you defijiyubejy prove that some regime or another became "stable" through corporatism, you're ignoring what didn't happen. If you had a completely free market instead of interventionism, you would have had even more of that stability, with increased quality of life besides.

As for being supported by the populace, you should know by now that democracy is nothing but trash. Whether your pipe dream is a good idea or not is completely unrelated to how popular it happens to be.

Dennis Prager is a retarded neocon, not a libertarian, so I have no idea why you see fit to bring him up. If you think he's in the slightest way related to anything we're talking about here, you don't know nearly as much about the subject of hand as you think you do.

>Oligarchs

Basic game theory proves you wrong, namely the Prisoner's Dilemma. No cartel is ever stable in the free market, because the individual payoffs for any one person breaking collusion are so high. Cartels only come into being when a central government influences the cartel, and changes payoffs such that colluding is the desirable option, eg by imprisoning anyone who deviates.

>usury

I'm getting sick and tired I of dealing with this argument so I'll leave this one to someone else.

>>5651

Your whole post is code for "I don't know anything about economics besides the word "usury", so I'll assume it's all a zero-sum game".

The "losers" in a free-market are not punished for failure, they are simply not rewarded for being incompetent, they do not benefit from not helping anyone else benefit (if your father is an alcoholic, then why must my father support your family?). In a free-market you don't have to be the best of the best, you only have to be competent enough in one area of life to benefit from the extremely low prices from competition that you find in all other areas of the economy. eg: You can run your little coffee shop in your little town if that's what you want, it might not be the best coffee shop or even a very profitable one, but you do love growing your own beans and brewing your special blend of coffee and chatting with the customers, and even though it could do a lot better if you actually tried, you care more about spending time with your family than going against the fierce competition at the top of the unregulated economy where no company or megacorp gets government help to remain in the top 10 or even top 100 forever, and besides, whatever profits you do get from your humble coffee shop are more than enough to pay for the pitiful expenses of life in an ultra free-market economy.

tbh I don't know how you guys can pretend to pull off the whole tough guy act saying "the weak should fear the strong", when you're really a bunch of pansies who are psychologically traumatized by words like "competition" or anything that implies a threat or a challenge, and instead you think "the strong" should owe you something, and in return you, the cucked weaklings, would be obedient bugmen who do everything they're told.

>>5832

Most EULA kikery is based on the existence of intellectual property. Without government fiat the market will never acknowledge intellectual property—because it isn't property at all. IP has no scarcity, therefore it isn't excludable, therefore it isn't property. Also, most EULAs as they are constructed today wouldn't be enforceable contracts as we understand libertarian contract theory. As Rothbard shows in the below article, the only contracts which are enforceable are those whose violation would result in theft are enforceable in court, because you cannot alienate your future will.

https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts

As for Google specifically, realize that their near-monopoly happened in spite of market forces, not because of them. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other large companies receive various levels of support and kickbacks from the feds to maintain their monopoly. These can take the form of exclusive contracts, or alphabet soup outsourcing their datamining to these companies and buying what they collect, or plain-old regulatory capture through the FCC.

So as we can see, the market does not in fact promote this "self destructive behavior". The behavior is promoted by the federal government creating market distortions, and were these distortions to disappear, the behavior would as well.

>>5837

>Another important point: in our title-transfer model, a person should be able to sell not only the full title of ownership to property, but also part of that property, retaining the rest for himself or others to whom he grants or sells that part of the title. Thus, as we have seen above, common-law copyright is justified as the author or publisher selling all rights to his property except the right to resell it. Similarly valid and enforceable would be restrictive covenants to property in which, for example, a developer sells all the rights to a house and land to a purchaser, except for the right to build a house over a certain height or of other than a certain design.

Rothbard himself in the article you linked doesn't dispute the legal validity of intellectual property. English patent law was a critical component of the agricultural revolution, which lead to the industrial revolution. Is the moncap position that the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race? I am not necessarily opposed to this position, but it blatantly contradicts the moncap proposal of a king whose goal is to maximize the profitability of the state.

>>5848

>doesn't dispute the legal validity of intellectual property.

He didn't dispute the legal validity of one very specific kind of property, you mean. And even Rothbardian ideas on copyright do not restrict making digital copies of things, because the previous owner has no jurisdiction over the copy, only of the original product. And while there are some points of debate on copyright within libertarian circles, patents are one form of IP that nearly all libertarians reject, even the pot-smoking retards in the LP. English patent law was not a critical component of any part of the industrial revolution, the innovations created were. Because patent law does not spur innovation (if anything it reduces the incentive to innovate, as companies can sit on the laurels of their patent rights instead of developing something new), it cannot be credited with technical advancement.