Why does Jow Forums hate libertarianism?

gay autism focused around money.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZbuxWbArqiU

It is a distilled misunderstanding of classical liberalism mixed with the culturally void anglo-materialist mindset. It's adherents are often display a not at all endearing mixture of naivety and arrogance. A disdain for all thought other than their own own simplistic axioms and a keener interest in le epic interweb pwns than ever getting their ideology implemented. There is a reason most libertarians are either young or poorly socialized misfits, routinely mocked by practically everyone else. Most people have a grudging respect for their opponents, in one way or another, as one has to reckon with powerful counter-arguments against the position one holds when dealing with thoughtful and intelligent people who hold opposing views.

That is not to say libertarians are doomed to being this forever and always, but they a losing on the PR front that is for sure.

I think most of Jow Forums was libertarian at some point, myself included. We just came to the realization that the non aggression principle is shit when degeneracy flourishes and destroys society around you.

Libertarians are the only group of people to whom I have to explain every basic concept in politics.

Yeah, I have had similar experiences. I think many libertarians are exposed mainly through youtube videos. It is this little enclosed eco-system of le epic rational furries who make YT vids responding to other le epic rational furries and no one ever picks up a book.

It's not really that it's shit, it's just that it's not a self-enforcing axiom. You need the right culture to suppress aggression, parasitism, dishonesty, etc., and this constant importation of non-whites has largely undermined the culture we had for so long.

Attached: LeaveUsAlone.png (1275x1650, 252K)

Better yet why do the majority of libertarians hate and blow off the ultra-capitalist section of libertarianism

I have been shitting on it in this thread but Ido have a theory that libertarianism likely works well on a frontier. Both concrete and abstract. That in frontier environments a certain amount of unfettered freedom and ad hoc organization is required, and that as time goes on and civilization inches closer the need for it diminishes. My charitable view of the more respectable libertarians is that they are frustrated pioneers in an age where every inch of the earth is mapped out and overseen by swarms of soulless bureaucrats.

It's the principle upon which all law systems were created.

You’d be fine with the ultra-capitalist sect of libertarians like myself:
1) extremely small, closest to anarchy but strong federalist system
2) Iron-clad mega constitution
3) civic nationalism
4) laissez-faire
5) ultra-individualism
6) pragmatism
7) no government funding and or creating corporations
8) no subsidies to private corporations
9) no public welfare
10) judicial branch is solely responsible for criminal law, all civil disputes are settled in arbitration

I think I’ve talked to you previously. Remember when I told you that capitalism inherently requires wellfare?

Not true at all. There’s legalism, and hamarabe laws

Ultra-capitalism bans public welfare. Basically the government is in charge of police, fire and military. They also fund only criminal courts and a small regulatory body that deals with issues like hunting/fishing, accounting, transfer of ownership rules, disposing of waste, pollution, anti-trust and other industry related issues. Most libertarians follow Hayek and Rawls. We the ultra-capitalist follow Nozick

Both consider initiation of violence as the crime, and both account for private property/lockean appropriation principles.

Then they develop some more unnecessary laws based on mysticism but the principle is pretty much the nap.

Legalism not following any law which includes tradition, mysticism etc. Is an act of rebellion aka pro-authoritarianism

I think that it's a mixture of cosmopolitan progressive-libertine views that characterizes a large portion of the libertarian movement, and the naive (in my opinion) Rothbardian view of property rights which only accepts a narrow conception of property; i.e. Inter-subjectively verifiable property which is appropriated either through homesteading or voluntary exchange. Things are left out that can't conveniently be traded through simple monetary transactions (i.e. the commons)

So the problem of the commons is often dismissed in cases where it can't be divided and privatized, and glossed over with speculation. The question of the commons is something that we can never truly escape. Essential questions are almost never asked like, how to protect the commons in speech, truth (Many libertarians don't want prohibitions against fraud), social trust, and other pro-social behavior. Things that are essential.

Attached: 1499923405519.jpg (550x548, 27K)

Here is a summary, but it shits on ann-caps, normal minarchists, and even harder on collectivist ideologies

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

READ

Attached: satan.jpg (867x853, 82K)

autism. also not getting digits

Attached: 1523025643562.jpg (377x351, 20K)

The issue is that while that works in theory, it doesn’t translate into reality. Just to give an example, we could design a system where money doesn’t exist and people work for free (ancom). Fine in theory but horrible real life excecution. The problem is that you approach politics from a rationalist perspective where you construct an idology from the groun up, and then apply it into reality. However that doesn’t often work in real life because it’s nigh impossible to account for all variables. (Which is also an issue in economic theory.)

because it's the political equivalent of screaming reeeeeee and shitting yourself if someone comes to talk to you

I'm an ethno-libertarian
I believe libertarian comes after we secure the ethnostate. Only people that the NAP applies to are people within your own ethnic/racial group

> a system where money doesn’t exist and people work for free (ancom). Fine in theory but horrible real life excecution.

That's not fine in theory either, it would not handle any thoughtful criticism.

Saying something works in theory but not in reality is simply saying you cannot prove it would not work.

Because the time for individualism has passed, current and future generations have had self-sufficiency and common sense (((indoctrinated))) out of them. Nor can they be effective and productive citizens because civics and history courses are now full of revisionist history

The only future that will work (and WILL happen) is for an authoritarian regime to make good choices for the people. All we're fighting about now is who makes the decisions

Ann-cap can only survive for a short time before a pseudo state from a mob demanding protection money would emerge. The only way for Ann-cap to survive would be for a pseudo state to force a state from happening, which is an oxymoron.

>Why does Jow Forums hate libertarianism?
on any given Sunday here it's 50/50

go ahead n try bootlicker fag scum

Okay, give me some critizism to that idea.

If you read Nozick’s book you’ll become an ultra-capitalist. Ultra-capitalism or hardcore-minarchism is between Ann-cap and minarchism

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

I agree.

Ann-caps don’t criticism well at all and at times borderline delusional as ann-comms

I think the mob-demands argument comes from a projection of previous scenarios in which the concept of public goods was always present.

Even Proudhon admitted that private property had the capability of resisting democracy. If everything was private property I'm not sure you could find these kind of revolutions. Countries that had less perception of public goods have resisted stronger in that regard.

Ultra-capitalism existed in America from America’s separation from the UK until a couple of decades before the American Civil War.

>libertarianism
Did you go to the convention?

Attached: libatr.jpg (1842x1036, 80K)

anyone looking to make a living today, has to pretend not to be racist.

leftists started the lolbertarian meme.
there are weak minded people among us.

Allocation of resources requires of pricing and supply-demand forces. Even Marx recognized the need for Capitalist countries to copy their prices.

>all law systems require violence
wew

Only libertarian haters on pol are newfags, stormweanies, and alt rightards that should return to the rock from whence they crawled out of. Pol has always been a libertarian board.

FREEDOM REIGNS FAGGOTS

are you self describing?

Libertarianism is a hopeless utopia, just like anarchism and communism. It quite simply doesn't work. It is just as loony as some anarchist ideas.

Non aggression does not mean no violence.

youtu.be/oiCnrn6LkUo?t=5955

1:39:15
Watch till the end. Libertarians are mentioned

And quite impossible, since maintaining a functional society requires some use of force. Even 5 year old children understand this. OP doesn't, which means his mental age is 4.

Nozick argues that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own non-aggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in a single, private, protective agency which is itself a de facto "state". Thus anarcho-capitalism may only exist for a limited period before a minimalist state emerges.

Attached: MarkPassio-ForceViolence.jpg (500x372, 88K)

t. r*ddit

Attached: 1521341211691.jpg (600x699, 99K)

And ethnic groups change all the time, you amerimutts are the living proof.

if your ideology is weak enough to be BTFO by a few lines on a memeball it doesn't deserve the name of ideology

Attached: 1522287880240.jpg (740x634, 135K)

I don't follow the argument as to why the monopoly of violence is necessary, it's a minarchist argument, I'm aware, but there are plenty of good expositions on the private production of law.

libertarianism doesnt promise a golden city on a hill

only free people

Does anybody find it hilarious when amerimutts talk about the ethnostate? Christ, these mulattoes are completely out of their depth.

>Ancap
>patent

If your meme can't even get the first thing right then how can it BTFO anything?

Haha /pol doesn’t hate libertarianism! Libertarianism is simply a mask for those in-the-closet white supremacists. It’s like, “oh I’m not a white nationalist! I’m a libertarian :DDD BTW white people should form an ethnostate xDD that would be kinda cool. Let them do what they want”
Literally had some girl but in to an argument I was having with one of my buds. She instantly brings up no-go zones and rape problems (pertaining to Muslims in europe). My lib friend, obviously triggered, “so you watch alex Jones or something? You’re a right winger eh”.

Her response, “haha no I’m just a libertarian”.

We’re onto you...

Because it has no mechanism to deal with the kind of people who make Libertarianism impossible.

And Libertarians are smug intellectuals who view themselves as superior, when in reality their views are as impossible to achieve as Communism

Attached: 9EB880D1-3BDD-40A8-86B9-BA991F6CD66F.png (592x385, 190K)

Because you are taking a foreign jewish created ideology and presenting it as the "true" american ideology.
Like what the Bolsheviks did to Russia.

Attached: Libertarianism-is-Jewish.jpg (402x482, 114K)

Oh shit, refrencing Nozick. Yeah, the reason I am ancap and not libertarian is because Nozick really pushes contract law as the basis of all society to the point that the native americans should get back all of the US that wasn't contracted for (basically everything but manhattan).

Shit is retarded.

The monopoly violence comes from the enforcement of the law. It prevents angry mobs from rising up and looting and hurting someone for retribution. Otherwise, there would be gangs demanding protection money from people and other gangs. Have a centralized monopoly keeps the piece and allows for peaceful compensation when injustice is committed

There is a libertarian to alt right pipeline. People start off as libertarian, which makes them feel like discrimination should be legal and then they move to alt right based on the social degeneracy. It is a form of fiscal conservation and severe social conservatism.

They are loud and serve jews

Jow Forums is filled with national (((socialist))) Reddit cucks whose envy of better men decides their worldview. Anarchy is not feasible but a small goverment is ideal, I think every truly free man agrees with that.

Attached: 1467715034268.jpg (700x609, 163K)

/pol hates libertarianism because it clashes with their autocratic, fascist or natsoc aspirations. because /pol doesn't understand that democracy is the only true government of the people.

Attached: 10649859_10152763577309388_6580902205014426375_n.jpg (960x540, 32K)

I doubt that it could have survived in any case though...

troof

a boot for everyone

Nozick argues that the land confiscated would very generously compensated for, not penny on the dollars. More like 5-10x more of its FMV today. After that the historical principle kicks in

Who gives a fuck what you think?

Attached: polsnake.jpg (510x369, 77K)

why cant the left meme

What evidence do you have for that? Why wouldn’t people just spontanously organize themselves? Why couldn’t a central commitee calculate the prices?

HAHAHa wtf is this?!?

Jow Forums only hates libertarians during working hours

Nozick is first making a descriptive argument for why power would centralize in such a fashion, to the extent that interests of different parties simply align with each other and out-compete actors whose interests do not align and form territorial monopoly on force.

Nozick is also saying the formation of a state in this scenario is permissible because the transformation of a collection of private entities to one that monopolizes force need not violate non-aggression to do so.

Also this, libertarianism is also utopian. Which is a massive red flag.

It failed because Ultra-anti slavery people dicked hard with the South. There was an attempt of a compromise that everyone born before a law came in effect that would subject a slave be grandfathered in as a slave, but anyone else born after the law took affect would be born free plus the banning of the importation of slaves.

white people are not allowed to gather.

no groups exist. well, unless you include women or jews. So, like I said, no white people are allowed to gather in groups. Less rights then muslims. Even have the same watchers.

Attached: images (8).jpg (470x313, 24K)

The people who hate libertarianism here are all delusional fat natsocs who base their entire political ideology on autistic overly-emotional fantasies.

Why do ansynds have such shitty flag?

But my mom never breaks the NAP...

>white people arent allowed to gath-
>gather
>exist
Fixed it for you, senpai. For a second I thought you were an alt-right fascist Christian homophobic gun lover. I know it was a typo mistake, though.

Be careful... we’re everywhere!

Either a one party pseudo-state is mega-gang comes to power or a state emerges either way Ann-cap would revolve into some form of state

Attached: 258EF11D-5E79-4A11-8550-C00DBDA03223.jpg (1024x683, 86K)

But you don't get it - who fucking cares if it was their land first? We utilized force to take it. I want to be a lolbert but the NAP is retarded and does not stop a collective from engaging in all forms of aggression anyway. No Indian will ever get their land back not now not ever because they don't have the force necessary to take it back. Lolberts are too idealistic and don't take into consideration that might still makes right in reality as it is indifferent to human constructs such as morality.

>Anarchy is not feasible
Variations on anarchy (no power structure in charge) were the first forms of lasting civilizations. The problem with modern anarchy is that there is this image of the A with a circle around it and idiots throwing moltovs.

Anarcho-Capitalism can look very similar to the modern day, only without power structures and with those attempting to build power structures being fucking killed for it.

I don't think it's impossible, we just need a category shift of thinking to go towards it.

> nap is retarded won’t get their land back

If they’re paid out billions of dollars, you don’t think that they could buy back their lands and or start businesses to raise money to buy back more?

/ourgirl/ is a Hoppean libertarian.

Attached: NMVEddgv.jpg (512x512, 55K)

I don’t think a single event killed ”ultracapitalism” in the US. The main point is that there are certain trends in history which are impossible to revert, like for example the transformation of laissez faire capitalism into wellfare capitalism.

So you are ok with slavery? Got it.

Cuckus vey