/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

>>185085

Corporate does so much stupid meaningless stuff it's not hard to see a connection between it and the state. Power corrupts because it forces you to think in politically correct terms to keep your power and disconnects you from reality.

>>185085

>Note: We aren't talking about the big bad tech and media companies, those pretty much *are* the state

How convenient for your argument.

>>185182

Explain how the statement is wrong, coward.

>>185201

Whether you like to admit it or not, tech and media companies are private corporations. Therefore, they cannot literally be the state. The fact that they have power does not mean that they are like the state. In fact, they are above the state, and will only use the state as a tool if and when it is needed to do so.

>>185208

Congratulations on being objectively wrong and fundamentally failing to comprehend the discussion. No one cares about your pilpul. No one cares about your propaganda. Get out.

>>185208

>>185182

Opinion weavers and though controllers willingly fund and support an apparatus that initiates the use of force on a regular basis. Corporations use and manipulate the State's coercive powers towards exploiting innocent people,

>Welfare keeps the poor down

>Education keeps everybody stupid

>Anti-discrimination and rabid democracy creates a cold civil war

>Decentralized and readily available pornography throws children as young as 8 into a virtual drug adiction

>Degeneracy and oversocialization are seen as marks of pride as opposed to the social ills that they are.

Also, corporations defy logic. We are to treat them as individuals when they are quit obviously not. (I would punch a corporation in its genitals, unfortunately it has no physical form, yet it still exists in reality.)

You will never be a woman, and Consoom Inc. will never be a human.

>>185210

basato

>>185245

Good post. The government empowers the worst parts of Capitalism. Keeping government and getting rid of Capitalism makes you starve so the solution is…

>>185247

The solution is Third Positionism.

And how would keeping capitalism and weakening/getting rid of the state be a solution?

>>185182

They're funded by the government and heavely contribute to their surveillance programs.

>>185327

Did the Libertarian wild west where every White man had a gun have trouble driving out non-Whites like indians and keeping spics on their side of the border? No, they did it successfully. Deductive reasoning proves it works. So far communism and fascism have failed every time they were tried. To be fair fascism had two superpowers attacking it, but White Libertarianism has an actual history of success at serving White agendas.

>>185434

That white libertarianism partly led to the liberalism we see today.

>>185528

Jews aren't white, Schlomo.

>>185434

Jews invented libertarianism. The “Wild West” was not libertarian. You’re fooling no one.

>>185536

The liberalism/libertarianism of the Wild West and of the entire Anglosphere in general, made it easier for Jews to subvert and exploit us

>>185327

Third positionism is faggotry. The State is a parasitic and coercive institution, and it's dissolution would be a boon upon society.

>>185537

*A Jew* *formalized* libertarian *philosophy*. Predecessors existed for centuries, and individual tenents of libertairanism were understood by many Aryan cultures.

The wild west had property rights and there was very little state coercion, it may not have been purely anarcho-capitalist but it certainly makes you look like a bunch of commies (which, frankly, you are).

>>185744

>national socialism is bad, goyim

>>185745

>you’re a communist because you don’t support ✡anarcho-capitalism✡

You’re bad at your job.

>>185434

Your wild west sure did a great job at keeping kikes out, am I right?

Also it's very intriguing how you yidbertarians never seem to meaningfully talk about banks.

>>185772

>it's very intriguing how you yidbertarians never seem to meaningfully talk about banks.

The useful idiots of ✡communism✡ all believe that they will become members of the oligarchy in a society that forcibly makes everyone else “equal.” ✡Libertarians✡ all believe that they will become the bankers in a society that forcibly reduces all human interaction to economic transaction.

>>185085

This isn't 2013 anymore. You lost this argument. It only works in an homogeneous society.

>>185812

>It only works in an homogeneous society

And then the homogeneous society becomes overrun with shitskins. The reason libertarianism fails is because it lacks nationalism. You cannot be a libertarian and a nationalist at the same time. "Civic Nationalism" is a jewish meme, it's not real nationalism. A nation is a group of people who are ethnically related, it's not an idea.

>>185813

White people generally don't want to be around smelly mean shitskins. When you could chase them out and steal their territory without government retaliation they weren't really a problem. Now that the government is taking away guns and grants immediate citizenship and rights to shitskins born within the border the obvious correct solution is erased from the test, leaving only White flight until as the kikes said themselves "every last White man is chased down." Government has no incentive to coddle and protect you, quite the opposite. They want any race intelligent enough to collectively challenge their authority gone and replaced with a dumb brown slave class. Governments won't go against their own corrupt self-interests and serve us just because "I want them to."

>>185945

So let me get this straight, you believe that by removing a government (that is fully subordinated to private third parties about which you're not commenting) and creating a fully individualistic lawless society exclusively based on selfishly stockpiling wealth, where these bankers and oligarchs that practically run the government are still present and still hold their capital, you wouldn't have such backstabbers holding power and importing illiterate third worlders regardless of their superior capital and most likely ownership of the monopolies of enforcement and media?

How would this type of society protect the environment from industry? I'm not talking about the globalist psyop (((climate change))) but actual environmental crises that are self-evident and don't conveniently demand communism.

>>185746

>OY VEY GOYIM HOW DARE YOU QUESTION NATIONAL SOYCIALISM

>BAD AT YOUR JOB! SHILLSHILLSHILL!

Project harder, fag.

>>185772

>Never seem to meaningfully talk about banks

Because unlike you, we aren't ideologically opposed to banks themselves. Hitler was a zionist shill that only pretended to deal with banking but failed to do anything about FRB, which inevitably resulted in an economic downturn which was masked by the simultaneous (probably deliberate) fall of nigsoc Germany.

>>185812

>Oy, let's shut down all discussion pertaining to libertarianism and then use that as an argument when they try to start more!

Also, we know it works best with homogenous societies. Please do yourself a favour and read hoppe and reece before invading our discussions.

>>185813

>https://www.zerothposition.com/2017/11/17/libertarians-support-ethnic-nationalism/

>Basically all of the rest of zerothposition

>Basically all of lewrockwell.com

>Basically all of Radical Capitalist's stuff

>Much of Hoppe's stuff

>Much of Rothbard's stuff

Please at least learn your opponent's position before attacking them.

>>186247

>Are still present

You don't really know anything about libertarianism if this is your view of it. We don't believe in coercion, that's why we're libertarians.

>>187301

The Reecean Proviso to private property is a natural law argument (which can also be defended using consequentialism) stating that in a "lifeboat scenario" where one person's self-ownership is wieghed against another's right to private property, the former wins (as of course, private property is a corollary of self-ownership).

The practical way to think of this is if you, by no fault of your own, are in a position where appropriating property against the law would save you from death, you may appropriate only as much property as you need.

>By no fault of your own

This means I'm being chased down by a thief looking to steal from me, or maybe somebody has sicced a wolf on me, or perhaps I had been buried alive and managed to get out. finding myself starving near a private apple orchard. The first two scenarios would justify, if I had only two places to run to and both went over private land, to take whichever (I might think) caused me to appropriate the least property (even if this route were more treacherous), The last scenario would justify me taking and eating apples from the orchard without the owner's consent, but only until I am past the point of starvation, and not take any "for the road".

Also, if the property is defended such that in order to reach the property, the person looking to use the proviso is required to violate somebody else's self-ownership, then this would now pit selfwield against selfwield and as such no proviso can be made.

Applying this to encirclement, if an entire covenantal neighbourhood is surrrounded by the proeprty of one man or voluntary organization, they cannot punish (though they may try to prevent) the passage of private individuals through that "border" if it is necessary for their survival due to circumstances outside of their control.

If the covenant community is self-sufficient and this problem of necessary-for-sirvival simply does not arise, we are left with two uncomfortable answers:

Suck it up: Private property rights are absolute, unfortunately. You will simply have to live with the encirclement.

Postal solution: Natural law means nothing if it is not recognised. One guy can go into the private borders and shoot the guy owning them. Dea people cannot have property rights as they do not have self-ownership, and if the man has no will & testament, the property will be declared abandoned. Of course, if you are caught for this crime, you may be punished (as of course, murder deprives one of all rights permanently, since one has removed the self ownership of another and so is his removed until restitution is made, and restitution cannot be made to dead people)

by any means necessary or possible, but if people manage not to figure out or choose not to care, then indeed you have just solved the problem with impunity. Natural law exists only insofar as it is enforced, as we are well aware with how the State is.

>>187405

Haven't heard the term Reecean Proviso before, but it's definitely something I'll be looking into more. Thanks! This isn't dissimilar to how I was trying to formulate a solution to this problem by my self.

Basically my line of thinking was that if you encircle another person's property you are effectively assuming full control over it, making you the de facto, but not de jure, owner of the property and possibly by exension the person themselves, if they happen to be inside it and you're basically imprisoning them. This being a means of acquiring property that's done without consent or contract means you're effectively violating the NAP similarly to say "grabbing an object in another person's hand and taking it for yourself."

Sorry if I'm expressing this clumsily, but what are the faults in this logic?

>>187405

>Hitler was a shill

>We don't believe in coercion

And how's not believing in cohercion gonna help you when they send a squad of niggers at your doorstep?

Do you want me to believe you're such a simpleton that you believe the current holders of power will magically disappear or somehow stop using cohercion to control the population? Do you really believe a formally recognised state is necessary for someone to hold the monopoly on force and propaganda?

Now I might be thinking about this backwards and you meant that YOU won't use cohercion, in which case you might as well blow your brains out yourself, cause jackshit's gonna happen without force.

Holy shit you really are a toothless version of a commie.

>>187429

>When they send a squad of niggers at your doorstep

No coercion != non-violence, violence may be used in self defense. In fact, in defending against a credible threat of coercion, one may use *any amount of violence necessary* to deter the threat. In practice, this means Hans will be getting the Flammenwerfer to "show" those niggers.

>Jackshit's gonna happen without force.

Indeed, but this does not mean it is moral to initiate force against peaceful people. People who are not peaceful, whether they are threatening violence or are unrepentant about a known criminal offense, are a different story.

>Argumentum ad hominem. Checkmate libertarian

Zionist cucks one and all. Nigsocs are hilarious.

>>187447

>corporations are evil because they use their power to lobby/influence the government

>the government is going to fix this problem

Not sure if this is your actual position, but I'll just reply to this post to make a point. There's a lot of valid reasons to criticize corporations even if you're a capitalist and I think we can all agree that corporations using the government to do their bidding is bad and it would be in the best interest of both free individuals as well as society at large if we could prevent them from doing that.

The only real difference in perspective is that the people who think we need government to keep corporations in check believe that we can somehow make government cronyism/corruption-proof. This seems to me a lot more utopian and idealistic than suggesting that the more efficient way to stop corporations from abusing government power is to simply abolish the government or reduce it's power significantly.

>>187422

You're very much welcome! Feel free to ask about this kind of stuff to other libertarians. there's 15000 ways any given scenario could play out in a free society precisely because its free. We can't have one singular answer but there is one singular natural law, from which a free-market law system might develop.

>What are the faults?

I would say factoring de facto into your structure would be the fatal flaw. This logic would mean that if I can homestead a big circle of land around a given piece of unowned property I want, I only have to homestead that circle and I thus come to own the whole piece of land + the circle. This leads to the logically absurd conclusion that I can come to own something upon which I have performed no labour and which has not been given to me by anybody else via trade or gift. Any principle that gives you this conclusion must make you stop and think "Where is the line?", and of course this system gives no consistent answer. If I own a small plot of farmland, my de facto ownership extends in a short and steep but nevertheless noticable gradient around my actual lawfully homesteaded land. Thus, by the "de facto" theory of property, that gradient is *itself* my de jure property claim, and therefore, the de facto claim gradient extends now around *that*, and then de-jure-ifies, and so on and so on, meaning the first person to claim property in anything like farmland or a part of a body of water thereby owns everything in the universe, as his claim extends forever.

There is no problem with de facto property per se, but it should be seen as such, not as de jure property. When I homestead a circle around a nice hill, and I obviously do so with the intent to homestead the whole hill as I move inwards and preventing others from "getting there first" via property rights enforcement, I believe I would de facto finish homesteading the hill when there was no gap in my homesteaded circle wide enough for a man to fit through. Still, the hill itself would remain de jure unowned. As such, I would not have any de jure rights to the hill until I come to own it all, only to the specific circle I have come to own (and once that circle is broken and somebody can justly enter to the hill without my permission, we're off to the races once more). As such, I can sell maybe the northern semicircle, but I cannot sell the windward edge of the hill, because I have no title to it.

You also speak of de facto ownership of men, which is basically impossible without violating natural law (unless you're a pretty girl, in which case if you need something done you just need to message a revealing photo of yourself to a guy and it'll get done). If there is a man atop our hill, of whom I am not aware as I homestead around him, and once I de facto own the hill (and thus will likely not have parts of the hill homesteaded before I can take them barring tresspassing), I take my recess at the hill's top, whereupon I find the resting man. I have not come to de facto own this resting man, as it is impossible to have property titles to developed adults, and guardianship titles to children are very weak in what can/cannot be done. If this man would die if I failed to let him off the hill by excercise of my property rights once he woke up, he would have full right to flee, appropriating as little property as humanly possible (again, Reecean proviso).

Never be afraid to learn from people who are different! A lot of my views on libertarianism and the environment were borrowed from Ted Kaczynski and the ecofascist tradition, and while my views on property are the Rothbardian ones, my arguments and reasoning have been sharpened by reading Pierre Proudhon.

>>187462

>There is no problem with de facto property per se, but it should be seen as such, not as de jure property.

>You also speak of de facto ownership of men, which is basically impossible without violating natural law.

Those are the exact same points I make to justify how encirclement is a form of aggression. I'm not saying it's a legitimate way of gaining property, but the exact opposite of that.

Having ownership of something means that you have exclusive rights to monopolize it. If someone else intrudes on your right to do so via de facto means (as in "building a prison around it") as opposed to a de jure means (buying it via contract) then that person is effectively committing theft, so violence against the encircler is justified because that party agressed first and you're acting in defense of your property.

>>187463

But it's possible to encircle something without coming to own it de facto. Maybe you own the hill, and I simply purchase all the land owned by others adjacent to that hill such that I now come to own a circle around the hill. I am obviously the exclusive owner of that circle.

Encirclement itself is a very legitamate property title, just one in a heterodox shape. It is the attempt to enforce property rights over self-ownership that is punishable by violence. This is the point of the Reecean proviso.

Building a wall or a prison around a property or neighbourhood of properties and preventing people from leaving who would die if they did not, this is a form of aggression. However, if a person was prevented from leaving who would not die if refused to let outside, property rights would unfortunately take precedence.

However, though rights are absolute and exist outside of just the minds of men, they mean nothing if the minds of men know them not. Anybody who builds a wall and allows only Reecean proviso candidates past would likely recieve a bullet at high velocity as a reward and his property demolished and his body desecrated, and no God and no man can stop an angry mob, which would be what a wall like that would create and unite.

"But muh NAP"

I don't care. Likewise, if I find out my daughter is in an active relationship with a creepy 80-year-old Joe Biden type, I don't care if she's a consenting adult, that guy is getting put in a coffin.

>>187467

>But it's possible to encircle something without coming to own it de facto.

Yes, that's true. If my land encircles your house, but I still voluntarily allow you passage through my land just so you can come and go, then there's no problem.

The specific issue I'm referring to is "building a wall or prison around a property" like you said. If preventing the person from leaving causes them to die that's clearly an act of aggression, we agree on that part, but this bit seems a bit troubling to me:

>However, if a person was prevented from leaving who would not die if refused to let outside, property rights would unfortunately take precedence.

That just seems like you're saying it's OK to build a prison around someone as long as you feed your prisoner. The fact that you're acting in a way that monopolizes that person and their property means that you're effectively asserting a level of control that is identical to ownership over a property that you don't own.

>>187471

But you do not own them! They simply do not have the right to leave if their life is not in danger.

Note that I'm talking about building a wall around a whole self-sufficient neighbourhood. If you want to build something wholly encricling one person or that person's property, especially their house, this becomes impossible without the conent of that individual. Going back to the example on the hill, I don't have the right to punish the hill man for appropriating my property in his escape if it was necessary for him to preserve his life. Here this is immoral forthat self-ownership is being pitted against property rights, and the dependent may not overrule that upon which it is dependent. If I was to *stand in the way* of the hill-man, such that he would have to violate my self-ownership to get past, here we get a situation where the hill man is not able to lawfully leave the hill.

Your complaint about monopoly is understandable but absurd. Just like monopolistic companies in a free market, yeah they're the only ones around, butthe second they jack up their price or start cutting corners, they won't be.

Similarly, yes, I have a wall around that neighbourhood, but the second I start to infringe upon the self-ownership of the residents via such things as contracts under duress, I would become a legitimate threat and my property could be declared abandoned with impunity.

Please try to understand that whenever self-ownership starts to feel like it's falling apart, it actually isn't. You're just peeling another layer off of the natural law onion. This goes infinitely deep, but Rothbard already took an industrial drill to it with Hans-Hermann Hoppe, so we're at the point where new corollaries make very little difference.

All you have to remember is: The dependent cannot overrule that upon which it is dependent. You will never be violating self-ownership (""Breaking the NAP"")

>>187476

>The second I start to infringe upon the self-ownership of the residents via such things as contracts under duress, I would become a legitimate threat and my property could be declared abandoned with impunity.

This is more or less the outcome or answer I was looking for. In my mind I was picturing a single property being imprisoned via embargo/blockade with the express purpose of creating leverage for coercion. I don't think anyone is likely to build a prison around someone else for completely accidental or arbitrary reasons, although I suppose it's not impossible.

In any case, for now I'll probably go and find more of this stuff to read. Right now I'm planning start with Anarchy and the Law, Anatomy of the State, and Democracy: the God That Failed.

>>187478

Oh if you're reading AotS and DTGTF you're already halfway to becoming a living libertarian powerhouse like somebody like Reece or .win/u/Voluntaryism (whom I am convinced are the same person)

Glad we could hav this discussion! Go ahead and bookmark some of the blogs mentioned here, especially Zeroth position. Reece is an actual genius.

>>187433

You are not quite answering the full thing again, tell me how would an aristocracy that currently, at this very moment, on this bloody Earth, directly controls media and economy and by proxy controls armed forces, stop having the might it currently has in a lawless society where they even have the chance not only to escalate further, but also sabotage in the very same ways it does now.

Cause so far you only list some mumbo jumbo buzzwords and religious doctrine that's awfully close to the kind a proselitising a commie would peddle but without even a hint of concern over the current hierarchy, let alone what a commie won't talk about because of political correctness.

Basically, do you have a solution to the fact that banks have virtually unlimited power due to the fact that the currency you currently hold

is issued by them and they have the capability of just printing more to invest in any sector they want to hold or create a monopoly in? And how in the fuck do you expect to shield yourself from all sorts of sabotage they employ? Is that even a problem for you?

>>187528

>tell me how would an aristocracy that currently, at this very moment, on this bloody Earth, directly controls media and economy and by proxy controls armed forces,top having the might it currently has in a lawless society where they even have the chance not only to escalate further, but also sabotage in the very same ways it does now.

Not that anon, but if the government (which on every level completely fails to restrain this so called aristocracy) is one of the tools they subvert and use to implement their agenda, then wouldn't reducing government power automatically reduce the power of the aristocracy as well since you're taking away the weapon tool in their arsenal?

>Basically, do you have a solution to the fact that banks have virtually unlimited power due to the fact that the currency you currently hold is issued by them and they have the capability of just printing more to invest in any sector they want to hold or create a monopoly in?

Government backing is the only reason they get away with that shit so abolishing the government would solve this problem too by driving them out of business and giving rise to alternative currencies.

>/LRG/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERA

>>187528

Aristocracy.

Greek word for the rule of the best.

These are rulers, by your own admission. Rulers are what libertarians are against, whether its a crown on their head, a democratic mandate, or a hooked nose.

>Do you have any solution to fractional reserve banking?

Frational Reserve Banking is a form of aggression, and a violation of contract. Please watch this lecture on how money evolved before and without the state, how the state took it over, and how we can chase it back out (among other things)

>https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=hfK5G3a8mJ8

It is a problem, and it can be quite easily solved.

I suggest you read Carl Menger and Murray Rothbard on money. Also read DTGTF just for good measure.

>>187422

The fault in the logic is that encircling property does not make you own it, it merely makes it unusable, or at least less usable for its owner. Its a stalemate at best that benefits no one unless your plan is to coerce the owner of the encircled property to sell at a favorable price, which is a dubious prospect since you've been tormenting him. Realistically this problem gets resolved by the encircled party putting a bullet in the offender.

BTW "fence" law exists in our current legal system. So you can do exactly as you describe except you have the state do your dirty work and evict the your victim.

>>187597

This is a masterful explanation. 10/10 couldn't've said it better myself.

>>187597

>Its a stalemate at best that benefits no one

Is it really a stalemate when one party is completely deprived of the use of their property while the other party suffers little to no cost for doing so? Also, people can act pretty damn irationally so it might just be somoene doing it out of spite and maybe that person gets a bunch of other people to go along with it using social pressure.

>unless your plan is to coerce the owner of the encircled property to sell at a favorable price, which is a dubious prospect since you've been tormenting him.

The plan could be to coerce the person to do any number of things, some of which might not even necessarily be sinister, like "I'll build a road on my property and we can both, but you have to foot half the cost of construction & maintenance."

>Realistically this problem gets resolved by the encircled party putting a bullet in the offender.

That's basically what I was trying to get at. My question was mostly about at what point in this interaction does that use of force become justifiable.

>>187695

Its not going to be justified, but it will still probably happen. Neighbors being cunts to one another really has nothing to do with libertarianism, except that the state doesnt get to pick a winner.

>>187777

Digits of truth. There will always be assholes, in fact libertarianism is the ideal way to solve this problem as well what with physical removal and private law.