Shills, fuck off. If you're not a fan of "lolbergs", it's best you go back to /ptg/.
>Discussion Topic: Are you ever tempted by other political ideologies - what keeps you a libertarian?
This is a thread for the discussion of all ideologies that promote self-ownership, voluntary association, self-governance, individual liberty and the natural order. This means primarily anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, national capitalists and some monarchists. Others are welcome to debate us.
THREAD RESOURCES: >Pastebin: pastebin.com/iT0Rw8PT >Discord & Book Club: fnmp99D
RECOMMENDED READING: >The Law (Frederic Bastiat) - mises.org/library/law >Anatomy of the State (Murray Rothbard) - mises.org/library/anatomy-state >For a New Liberty (Murray Rothbard) - mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto >Democracy: The God that Failed (Hans Hermann-Hoppe) - riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
FURTHER READING: >Reference - See i.imgur.com/wCIpgNA.jpg >Torrent - magnet:?xt=urn:btih:8d8ec6ef882dee291f119eb69994797574e5d616&dn=Anarcho-Capitalism%20Books
THREAD TUNES: >Hoppewave playlist - youtube.com/watch?v=bch6Jm9VB9A&list=PLTf87zQ00lsRqjgERV0cEb0rotlAQnbNU >I need a Pinochet! - youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o >Drop it like it's Hoppe - youtube.com/watch?v=HPKGgo4kGQM
I've noticed that /lrg/ tends not to reach the bump limit. Maybe the right ideas will never be accepted. What's the one video people should watch? It's too bad it takes at least 30 minutes to explain AnCap.
I remember back in the day /lrg/ would reach the bump threads, 6-ish months ago. We've been inactive recently, maybe it can get some activity again.
Joseph Lopez
>Are you ever tempted by other political ideologies No. There is nothing appealing whatsoever about any other class of political philosophy - they all advocate completely intolerable tyranny.
Jace Bailey
I'd go with this video, since secessionism is the project most likely to actually get people who don't like us and whom we don't like to go be crazy without us. youtube.com/watch?v=IXOEdvfMeIY
Brayden Hall
I see your point, but he's not an entertaining communicator like Hoppe or (not an AnCap) Milton Friedman. There's no point if it's not entertaining. This is a big hole to dig out of!
I used to be tempted to side with the Nazis but ways always turned off by the socialism and totalitarianism. These days there's a lot more Libertarian white identity people and so I feel more at home with my lolbergery. Thank you /lrg/, you guys were a big part of making that happen.
Carter Phillips
BUT WHO WILL UPHOLD THE NAP????
Austin Smith
(You) yourself are responsible for that. Also, Czech 'em
I sometimes find myself tempted by republicanism, especially as that's one of the most dominant ideologies in the history of political philosophy. What keeps me libertarian is contemporary political reality; that is, of what a wreck the system has turned out to be.
I always felt like if you switch from ancap to something else you are a supreme idiot because ancap is the logical conclusion. Only teenage females and dumb opportunists switch from ancap to something else.
It means a person didn't understand what they were supposedly committed to in the first place.
Owen Moore
Really great podcast.
Justin Watson
>Are you ever tempted by other political ideologies - what keeps you a libertarian? Not really tempted by any particular ideology, even though I switched from Rothbardianism to Thomism a while ago. I changed my opinion on some liberty-related topics, like emergency theft and the subjugation of savages, but these don't make any real difference in my overall conclusions. People can steal from you to save themselves from starving to death, so what? How does that lead you to an institutionalized system of theft to ensure that everyone has access to color television? And subjugating savages, how does that justify subjugating non-savages?
This is true in the great majority of cases, honestly. I can conceive of counter-examples, but can't think of any that I encountered.
Cameron Scott
It isn't even a matter of commitment. All it takes to be an ancap is that you 1) understand that the state is an expropriating property protector, which is an oxymoron, and 2) realize that it would be preferable to have something else, regardless of whether you believe such an outcome to be realistic.
Henry Baker
what if i'm a micro-national socialist with a libertarian, natural-order bent?
freiheit heil
Alexander Cooper
>People can steal from you to save themselves from starving to death, so what? Interested to hear about your justification for this desu, not because it's unreasonable, but because it's an uncommon opinion (amongst ancaps)
Christopher Gonzalez
>realize that it would be preferable That's the thing though - many people's preferences aren't aligned with such concerns in the first place. They're more concerned with other things - nowadays it's identity shit. They're perfectly willing to accept tyranny so long as there's a veneer of the goons speaking what they want to hear (regardless of whether it's the truth or whether it comes to fruition - they don't have the attention spans to go beyond surface impressions in the first place).
Charles Carter
I must also say, in all my years as an ancap, I have seen one explicit critique of Rothbardianism that was decent, and that one was from Edward Feser and not conclusive at all. It was easy to evade his critique by modifying your own philosophy slightly. To him, that didn't matter, because all he wanted to demonstrate was that Rothbard was a bad philosopher and he thought he did that. He contrasted Rothbard with Hume, who apparently was not a bad philosopher, even though Hume threw over a thousand years of good metaphysics and ethics out the window. I think Feser was butthurt about something and had an axe to grind.
So yeah, that was the only good critique of Rothbard I have found. It was not conclusive at all, and I have never seen it referenced anywhere else. And never, when I asked one of these types who say they used to be a Rothbardian like me, did I ever encounter one who could give good reason for rejecting him, only half baked consequential or worthless aesthetic arguments.
Matthew Evans
A libertarian society is not safe from outside influences. Considering all possible options when dealing with domestic affairs, the libertarian way is the most profound and effective one. A libertarian state could exist in these times, a libertarian world order would collapse in a matter of months, the power structure is very imbalanced. You cannot reform the system without transforming the power structure.
I am a massive fan of Hume's problem of induction. That was his greatest contribution to philosophy, and I revel in how utterly damning it is to a bunch of philosophies that I can't stand (naturalism, materialism, physicalism).
Nicholas Perry
Assuming your premise of being less safe without a state - which isn't borne out in reality - were true for the sake of argument, I'd rather be less safe from outside enemies than have SANCTIONED and SUPPORTED inside enemies who abuse people without the populace even realizing they're being abused.
The invaders can be rallied against. State goons are nigh-worshipped in places like the U.S. (e.g. thank you for your service xD).
Nathaniel Hall
What do you suggest?
Jonathan Price
I'd like to senpai, but I don't yet have a single, poignant reason to give. I might when I have read up more on the scholastic theory of natural law (or, when I still don't have a very good explanation after that, I will probably throw this opinion of mine out).
So far, what I got is this: Stealing to save the life of yourself or of another, when you are willing to pay the damage back, when you show yourself grateful, and when you have not yourself caused the situation you are in, affirms the sanctity of human life, and human life is a higher good than the material goods we can own, as we have been made in Gods image, and as material goods are only valuable because they serve us. That's not a watertight case, but I know that most ancaps would not condemn a poor man who stole a loaf of bread, so it's not my most urgent priority to improve on it.
What's more interesting is why this reasoning doesn't have the welfare state as its logical consequence. For one, by having a welfare state, we do not ensure the mere subsistence of the poor. It also isn't an effective means to ensure their subsistence, even if we limited it to that function (capital growth is far more effective). Then there are its degenerating effects on society, like creating a class of lazy parasites and punishing industriousness.
Cameron Martinez
>A libertarian society is not safe from outside influences. The Nazis were created by outside influences. National socialism was a Czech ideology, the Führerkult was heavily inspired by the Italian Fascists, eugenics was invented and brought to Germany by Anglos, and scientific racialism was first really expressed by Gobineau, a Frenchman.
What's bizarre about things like the is-ought-problem and the problem of induction is that they apply with full force only to philosophers that forgot the Greeks and their metaphysics, and one of the prime philosophers in this tradition of ignorance is Hume itself.
Grayson Garcia
>Assuming your premise of being less safe without a state - which isn't borne out in reality - were true for the sake of argument, I'd rather be less safe from outside enemies than have SANCTIONED and SUPPORTED inside enemies who abuse people without the populace even realizing they're being abused. This, too.
Alexander Wright
>is that they apply with full force only to philosophers that forgot the Greeks and their metaphysics By "Greeks and their metaphysics" you're only talking about Plato. Aristotle is obliterated by the problem of induction, and so are all empiricists ever who don't have commitment to an idea of a "higher" or otherwise untouchable "real-reality" (which is most scientism-worshipers).
Okay lets start. Why do you support anarcho capitalism?
Lucas Cook
I really want a natcap flag already It legitimately represents me.
Ethan Ward
One thing I should add, the Nazis also didn't deliver on their promise to keep Germany safe from the outside world. They didn't usher in an era of unprecedenced cultural growth or the preservation of age old traditions. They themselves were huge reformers in every possible way.
>Aristotle is obliterated by the problem of induction He isn't. Humean philosophers are, because they have given up on the idea of proportionate causality. To Hume, it was a mystery that fire burns things and doesn't freeze them. That it always burns things when you test what it does is a freak accident to Hume, but not to Aristotle and the philosophers in his tradition, who accept the principle of proportionate causality.
Because the idea that any small cliche (A) has the right to or (B) can effectively rule over millions, even billions in some cases, is simply absurd. There's plenty of arguments to support this hypothesis, that this system of governance and lawmaking is hideously inefficient, leads to mass injustices... who on earth thinks a society would all decide to submit to a central government and lose all control over their life to increasingly petty laws and regulations, if they had not already convinced it was the right thing to do by a broken status quo?
Camden Garcia
Humean empiricism is not the only victim of Hume's poi. Aristotle's understanding of induction is quasi-revelatory - nature hits the enquiring mind with a "eureka" moment. But Aristotelian empiricism still makes past-future inferences whose justification the problem still repudiates.
So are you trying to maximize freedom, or trying to maximize utilitarian good?
Jonathan Ortiz
The Ultra-Capitalist State ie Hardcore Minarchism could exist, but the Ann-caps, normal minarchists and limited-government libertarians would have to agree that the government would have to be a very small, but powerful one.
Luke Morris
Both to a degree, working under the assumption freedom is a good.
Henry James
Fuck, just noticed that this is shooped. The proportions of the lettering on both signs is exact. Why not just change it slightly, so it's not obvious?
Gavin Sullivan
Okay, so you support utilitarian views, and think that freedom is inherently utilitarian. But what about cases where freedom is objectively bad in the utilitarian sense?
Angel Wright
And the missing part of the C is pretty bad, of course. I wonder what they were actually burning.
> But Aristotelian empiricism still makes past-future inferences Yes, based on an understanding of causality that avoids the problem of induction. If something causes burns, the Aristotelian assumes that that's because of some quality of the thing in question. He will assume that even if he only observes this effect once, because of the principle of proportionate cause. Do away with that principle, and you're implicitly doing away with causality, which is what Hume did.
Jackson Morgan
Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick is the framework on what an ultra-capitalist utopia would look like and how to get there
Ian Sullivan
Not that guy, but the moral imperative I'm committed to is to obey God. And that just so happens to condemn any and all violence amongst men, which means voluntarism is the political philosophy I MUST hold.
>He will assume that even if he only observes this effect once Everyone rejects this, because a single observation is often completely unreliable. When you're presented with an entirely new object, reason does not suffice to determine it's causes or effects from its sensible qualities.
Andrew King
I don't believe we should try and engineer a system that "maximises utility", but I believe it is in people's interest to live under a system that maximises their subjective valuation.
David Sullivan
Okay, so you support maximizing the freedom each individual has?
Xavier Campbell
No, I support maximising the economic wellbeing and the freedom of myself and the people I care about (which happens to be the general populus, to an extent). Economic and physical wellbeing is heavy linked with freedom, in my opinion. I admit I may be inconsistent here because of previously held views about self-ownership and freedom which were much more deontological, in nature; but one can certainly make the more practical argument that self ownership is desirable for pretty much everyone who isn't going to be ruling over others.
Lincoln Stewart
Should right-libertarianism be considered reactionary, seeing as how we're interested in restoring the natural order?
Brayden Young
But so I need to know, do you prioritize freedom or wellbeing?
Samuel Sanchez
I don't think supporting freedom has anything at all to do with past states of affairs. It has to do with seeing an ideal instantiated.
Ryder Walker
LOL YOU LOLBERTARDIAN
Grayson Nguyen
My dear friends I may interject, i've come to be tossing around a idea; and idea about moving forward into the next age, as our economy suffers from inflation and from the over regulation of industry that stripped jobs from the rust belt and created the ghettos' we all know today, this was caused by an outdated and questionably malicious homosexual monetary system that we need to once and for all get rid of, i am of course talking of the irs, and the many polar voices payed for by one or many special interests in our congress, house and in almost every branch and arm of the gov. It was necessary once to write against the king and his tyrannical polices, but today we suffer from our elected officials using the government as nothing more than a way to get rich quick and enjoy status and life time control and power. It is necessary now to become aware of the nature of our oppressors for it is not one face but many, and many more hidden faces doing the dirty work itself. They have, with outright malicious intent furthered the cause set forth by the international bankers, guilty of enslaving and restricting the people with regulation and taxation in order to create a society of monopoly and materialism. For any patriot it is time to come to the solution at expense of livelihood and freedom; Stop paying taxes! so not file for income tax and do no not give a dime if they come knocking. Fracture the two parties! Start new parties in your area and run in local elections, seize power and limit the federal government's power upon the municipalities and states. Finally, Take arms and rally other patriots to your parties, clubs, and causes; organize protests and take to the streets in strength of numbers and arms!
>Disgussion Dobig: Ar u ever dembded by oder bolidigal ideologis- whad geebs u liberdarian?
Dhis is a dhread for dhe disgussion of all ideologies dhat bromode self-ownershib, bolundary associadion, self-gobernange, indibidual liberdy EBIN! an dhe nadural order. Dhis mean brimarily anargho-gabidalisds, minarghists, nadional gabidalisds and sum monarghisds. Odhers ar welgome do debade us.
REGOMMENDED READIN: >Dhe Low (Fredrig BASEDiad) - misses.org/liverary/low >Anadomy ov dhe Sdade (Murai Rodhghild) - misses.org/liverary/anadomy-sdade >Vor a Niu Liberdy (Murai Rodhghild) - misses.org/liverary/old-liberdy-liberdarian-manifesdo(Dhodally nod as usles as de gommunisd on) >Demogracy: Dhe Dog dhat Faild (Hans German-Hobbe) - riosmauricio.gom/wp-gondend/ubloads/2013/04/Hobbe_Demogracy_Dhe_Dog_Dhat_Fail.pdf(bud nod fail as much as angap. I hope)
FURDHER READIN: >Referens - Se i.imgur.gom/wCIAgna.jpg >Dorrend - magned:?xt=urn:btih:8d8ec6ef882dee291f1eb1n6000000j00s7574e5d616&dn=Anargho-Gabidalism%20Boogs
DHREAD DUNES: >Hobbewave blaylisd - jewtube.gom/watch?v=bch6Jm9VB9A&list=PLTf87zQ00lsRqjgERV0cEb0rotlAQnbNU >I need a Binoched! - jewtube.gom/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o >Drob id lige id's Hobbe - jewtube.gom/watch?v=HPKGgo4kGOY
I only wish that true individual liberty had representation in the American political sphere. I am of the belief that a return to the ideals on which the US was founded is the only way to preserve the nation, but to do so requires organization and numbers which do not exist. The libertarian party is a cruel, disgusting joke and there are no true organizations to support such a movement. On the contrary, authoritarian ideologies are far more attractive because they are easy to rally behind, and so almost all American support rallies behind a strong leader or gobernment as opposed to the individuals and their responsibilities to maintain the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Freedom isn't political. Politics are the antithesis of freedom - acting as if facets of other people's lives or behaviors regarding their body and property are subject to a political process is necessarily anti-liberty.
Well, I’m ancap at heart but I think right wing/ alt-right has a better shot of achieving basically the same thing. The ethnostate is wayyy more likely to swap into ancapland than the brown multicultural 56% future
You're thinking in the wrong terms. Rather than try to convert hundreds of millions of people, stop being in the same political union with people you disagree with. They don't want you to make political decisions for you, and you don't want them to make political decisions for you, so support secessionism.
Politics are required to determine the minimalist policy which is necessary to the functioning of a society, at it's most basic form. Judicial systems and police to protect the fundamental rights of those unable to defend themselves.
In the modern America it is required to ever attempt to make the transition to a minarchist state, a cohesive front for the desires of people with a desire for liberty, otherwise you have no chance of breaking the proverbial chains.
Brody Rivera
Defense and arbitration aren't necessarily political, and in a free society they're not. I'll repeat this for you - we don't need to convert hundreds of millions of people. We need to separate ourselves from them, which people are doing more and more with the sea-steading and other free society projects.
I'm not entirely familiar with sea-steading or free society projects, but I will look into them.
I see your point though, however unfortunate. It would still be nice to see the US embrace the ideals upon which it was founded, but I suppose you are correct.
Brayden Phillips
I don't think there's anything unfortunate about it - I don't want to live with rubes who thank cops "for their service" when they're getting ticketed for having a headlight out. I want nothing whatsoever to do with people like that.
