[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / lounge / tingles / vichan / x ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 82rd Attention-Hungry Games
/tikilounge/ - Relax, take it easy

June 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Ya'll need Mises.

File: d2d49ae6063423b⋯.jpg (17.62 KB, 407x406, 407:406, 1552576254984.jpg)


When a libertarian decries the minimum wage, they are only focusing on the costs the employers’ face, that is what is seen. However, they fail to notice the unseen, namely that as employees wages are higher, they spend more, hence sales and revenues of a business rises. Minimum wage doesn't create unemployment. The broken window fallacy that the libertarians use so often shows that we could have a minimum wage law. Further the broken window fallacy is retarded because it can apply to the private sector too. If a restaurant owner sets up a restaurant aren't other owners being deprived of rental space? Libertarians also like to say that the public sector cannot create jobs. But they do not realize that the public sector brought the world out of the Great Depression via the military. They also say that there shouldn't be any public spending during a recession but they do not realize that people have less money to spend in the private sector because very few people have jobs.

35 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




Still, thanks anon.



that link doesn't work anon




shit, thanks



>Philosophy PhD

In my experience, these guys are just as bad as Marxists, because they just start arguing semantics as soon as they get cornered in an argument.

File: 7187692688536df⋯.png (4.97 KB, 220x80, 11:4, uhmzog.png)

File: ec6b62ec8a4fed8⋯.png (1021.51 KB, 720x868, 180:217, kobayashi41.png)


Sometimes I wonder whether it would be a good idea to go onto commie forums, pretend I was communist, but then troll them by attacking the in-group by saying that they are not communist enough. Just try to get ideological opponents to falter by making them accelerate to the most extreme possible opinions possible. Just destroy any modicum of moderate political opinions that the left have.

I kind of feel like this has already been going on without my doing anything anyways.

5 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: cad338b2c3b340c⋯.jpg (48.88 KB, 720x709, 720:709, Commies and economics.jpg)


>I kind of feel like this has already been going on without my doing anything anyways.

Realistically so, communists tend to do this by themselves because of the many fuck-up variations of socialism that exist as is, Ju-che, ancom, demsocs, etc etc. It's already a bunch of fragmented retards screaming at each other. What you're essentially doing is just what they've already been doing to themselves.

I mean if you want to run 24 hr ops like that, go ahead but commies are already fragmented to high hell as it is.


File: 2acd424d9c9aebd⋯.png (191.22 KB, 392x336, 7:6, 2acd424d9c9aebd85a658352b1….png)


>It's shown me it was a bullshit idea to possibly think

>Three days after when very little has happened yet

Anon, we're just getting started.


You Nazis ARE commies lol

National Socialism is still a form of socialism you fucking idiots



Who are you responding to?



He must think this is /pol/ lol

File: 04f834711a24c1f⋯.jpg (702.26 KB, 1500x1125, 4:3, Jackson-Portrait (1).jpg)


after studying economic history I can see that a central bank is needed. When Andrew Jackson ended the central bank and implemented a "hard money" policy he caused a huge depression.

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



A huge depression, known as the slow depression, where growth averaged 7-10% per year once you correct for deflationary pressure.



in the states there's no law saying you can't use anything else for a voluntary exchange.

Milton Friedman even had this critique of Hayek's writings on monetary policy

>Hayek's writings of the 1970s on monetary reform. Noting Hayek's vigorous defense of "invisible hand" evolution that Hayek claimed has created better economic institutions than could be created by rational design, Friedman pointed out the irony that Hayek was then proposing to replace the monetary system thus created with a deliberate construct of his own design. Moreover, Friedman noted, there is nothing in current law to prevent voluntary bilateral exchange via any medium freely accepted by two parties.



>nothing in current law to prevent voluntary bilateral exchange via any medium freely accepted by two parties.




Also, legal tender laws and capital gains taxes against commodities (like gold/silver) is the standard argument taken, but I wanted to show a concrete case of how there definitely is legal issues. Similar issues happened to a private currency in Florida (Cruz, I believe was his name), and to a few online gold banks that used to be operating ten or twenty years ago. There are plenty of legal issues. The U.S. government does NOT want these to start up.



>but in the constitution I would prohibit the State from making people use the notes issued by the central bank/government.

And as we all know, no government would ever dare overstep the limits placed on them by their constitution (or worse yet, ignore the constitution entirely). It's literally impossible for such a thing to happen.

File: e3370fbf8d11eae⋯.jpg (238.34 KB, 630x883, 630:883, rolf harris.jpg)



>Rolf Harris: Why We Know He Is Innocent.


>Rolf Harris should have been given a retrial.


>Rolf Harris and the case of the sleeping Metropolitan Policeman: Bias and Unfairness in the Rolf Harris Trial


>Rolf Harris - Beyond reasonable doubt?


>Rolf Harris is a victim of a heinous conspiracy.



How do they prove such allegations when the supposed acts occurred decades ago?

File: 677a2ac67ce50dd⋯.png (85.71 KB, 650x336, 325:168, United_Kingdom_unemploymen….png)


Under Thatcher the free market Prime Minister the unemployment rates skyrocketed. Gee I wonder why? is it because she was opposed to government spending??!

38 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



because the government was bankrupt you idiot



then why weren't private sector jobs create



because those jobs were useless in the first place


She was a fucking moron, who trashed strategic industries, created misery for the fun of it, hated govt spending but ran huge deficits anyway - despite running into a ton of oil and selling everything that wasn't nailed down, and kicking off a process of financialization that has landed the UK with some of the biggest debts, most overvalued property, and most over-leveraged banks in the world. Just an all round disaster. Never, ever, let a woman run a country.


File: 62780b1b0a105eb⋯.png (108.25 KB, 500x372, 125:93, government-spending-real-1….png)

There was an overall net increase in public and welfare expenditure during Thatcher's term. How can one consider this "deregulatory" or "pro free market"?

File: c04b120df2781b6⋯.jpg (164.93 KB, 750x885, 50:59, welcome.jpg)


BO, I know you lurk here at least occasionally. I've learned to appreciate the hands-off moderation, but could we please change the image in the stickied post to be something other than that political compass? You have DemSoc and honest-to-God statism listed in the "welcome" zone. Neither of those, and arguably nothing in the bottom-left quadrant, belong in the welcome zone.

3 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.







Hey, i remember the very same thread with this very picture long ago.



There was a similar but not identical threat a while back. If I recall correctly, OP was bitching about the BO's moderation policy rather than the sticky.


File: a55352dd2035a7d⋯.jpg (68.93 KB, 564x397, 564:397, Hoppe_on_immigration.jpg)


It's a symbol against white genocide

File: e9afc496be95e74⋯.jpg (1.35 MB, 2000x3334, 1000:1667, same.jpg)



>profit is theft

>profit is unearned wages


>taxation is theft

>taxes are unearned wages

2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



>I want to stop giving profit to X

<stop buying from/working for X

>I want to stop paying taxes

<put in cage, dog killed by ATF


what is profit?

profit is revenue minus expenses, where expenses are all expenses. sometimes some expenses are hidden, such as the owner of a business not including his wages in his calculation because, to him, all his profits and all his wages are the same (money in his pocket). some argue that in an efficient business, there would be no profit, because the price would be just above the cost, so the revenue would be just above expenses. however, if the transaction was agreed to voluntarily by each effected party, and each involved party was well informed, then each party benefited, or at least was not harmed, by the transaction occurring. if no-one would benefit, then there's no point in expending effort trying to make a change, so the effect must be net positive. if there's a positive, that means there was more benefit than cost, which means there is profit. where does the profit go? what's the fair way to distribute the profit? if only some parties get all the profit, then it's unfair, because they'll have a disproportionate increase in capital power. whether it's the employees, or the business owners, or the customers (as in the above example), or whoever else, is not important (though mitigation strategies may depend on who unfairly benefits). what i think makes sense is for some part of the profits being distributed among everyone equally as contributing to a sort of universal basic income (how much of the profits will go to this? this needs to be decided), and the rest to be distributed proportionate to how much each party contributed to the project (how is it decided how much one contributed to the project? this is a question that needs to be answered). the safety net is there without deterring the incentives, which are also there.

it's not the profit that is theft, it's the unfair distribution of profit that some people force on others which is akin to theft.

libertarians are against theft, because they are against violence (though some exclude violence which is 'necessary' to ensure restitution is completed), and theft (misappropriation) is a form of property violence. taxes are also a form of property violence, where the government uses coercion (credible threats) to scare you into paying, and if you don't, they 'make good', so to speak, on their threats by jailing you and forcibly appropriating (which is a form of misapproprPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 0d1cfcde62f2780⋯.jpg (71.76 KB, 680x680, 1:1, f54.jpg)




>drink water



>drink water


GR8 b8 m8



>bumping this shit thread


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


>That moment when Gray realizes that Anarchy is good for business

4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


That game looks fun, gonna give it a try.



I don't get it. What's the context for this?


File: d738d9f74b7ddf7⋯.png (912.38 KB, 674x960, 337:480, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 6371ebb8f1f6b39⋯.jpg (242.41 KB, 700x553, 100:79, scaled_full_c4da6df5609a8d….jpg)

File: 4f6ed1b0e984f3d⋯.jpg (34.56 KB, 640x356, 160:89, 3lSpqUP.jpg)



Left coast states have banned plastic straws.

File: 50ff49c938f4bfa⋯.jpg (93.61 KB, 718x960, 359:480, muslims.jpg)


I think one of the limits to liberty is believing in philosophical systems that run contrary to liberty.

If you, as a libertarian, want to invite muslims into your country… you are fucking retarded and probably not a libertarian.

32 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>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.



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.



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.



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



what dont jews speak against?

File: ba2d897b6847a95⋯.png (24.05 KB, 657x525, 219:175, 1552874697574.png)


If one wants to understand economics from the point of view of austrian ther eis the Tom Woods Show, mises.org, PFS, ecc

What about other school of thought? In particular I'm curious about the chicago school. Is there an equivalent of mises.org or the others are cool enough that can just survive in academia?

4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



>Also priori arguments don't cut it.

But that is itself an a priori statement, not a positivist one :^)

It's impossible to attempt to refute a priori reasoning without using multiple a priori arguments yourself; by the very act of dismissing the conceptual approach you only affirm its validity.



>because they can be disproven via empirical evidence and it sounds as schizophrenic and Keynes.

They cannot be. A priori arguments, if they are logically sound, are by definition correct, and cannot be disproven by any occurence. To say that empirical evidence has disproven marginal utility is like saying that a triangle was discovered that shows Pythagoras' Theorem to be wrong.

A priori arguments still are not infallible. If you find independent reason to discard them, then you can do so. Empirical evidence, no matter how overwhelming it seems, is at best a reasonable incentive to look at what is wrong with the a priori argument. In this context, it is important to remember that there is only one reality. There can never be a genuine conflict between properly interpreted empirical evidence and logically valid a priori argumentation.

Another way to look at it is this: Every observation must be interpreted in the light of what we know without any observation. For example, the scientific method relies on experimentation, but for experiments to be meaningful, causality must be real. The validity of experimentation stands and falls with causality. Likewise, to make sense of economic data, you require a knowledge of economic laws. Otherwise, you rely on implicit laws.

As for your infopic, I'll leave that to someone else, for now, unless I find something striking in it.



So, I looked at Friedmans graphs. I found this sentence striking:

>booms do not tend to cause recession of equal intensity, which is what would be required by the ABCT and similar business cycles

Honestly, why would they be equal? GNP is not a direct measure of wealth. For one, even blatantly unproductive transactions drive it up. Expenses by the state enter it at their nominal value, even if they were a mistake from a financial standpoint. That is for one. Meanwhile, services that clearly have value, but one that isn't expressed in monetary terms, do not enter it. It is not a perfect representation of the state of the economy. To treat it as such is wishful thinking.

Furthermore, there are, at any given moment, millions of factors driving GNP up or down. The same is true of most economic indexes. To expect a proportional relationship between two factors to be visible in the GNP, when millions of factors enter it, is not to know what GNP is.

Now, when I look at figure 1, I can see that every trough is preceeded by a peak. Certainly, the peak is not nearly as prominent, but it's always there.

I'll leave the rest of the interpretation to other anons. Perhaps some that have more of a background in statistical analysis.




is this emoticon supposed to show NPC or a Jew?



jesus christ how new are you

File: 15cf4216c222a15⋯.jpg (16.32 KB, 326x326, 1:1, cat_reeeeee.jpg)

File: b0184058dd1c0d6⋯.png (27.63 KB, 582x481, 582:481, pinochet_heartandsoul.png)


>get banned from ancap discord server for making helicopter memes and "what if the child consent."

Fuck redditors and fuck discord.

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



anarchy is the surest way to get your liberties curbed and fast. it's an autistic mess of ideas. it's no different than fascists or communists either.

>da joos

>da white males

>da gubbamin

>da bourgeoisie

the reality of anarchy is chaos. owners shutting down roads, banks stealing your money, property you're not currently living at being taken away, no insurance, no way to ensure your food is safe, no way to ensure the restaurants you eat at are safe, nothing to protect you from fraud, nothing to stop foreign governments from buying property, no car insurance, no infrastructure to recover after damage, your neighbor'a poorly built house will fall on yours, nothing to stop a hoard of migrants, nothing to stop NGOs from bringing in migrants, nothing to stop bank fraud, cities will look like shit because you can build anything you want anywhere, and you guys can't even agree on an age of consent.


File: ff4802bc0070258⋯.png (430.26 KB, 680x680, 1:1, 1494435830317.png)


>no car insurance



>Anarchy means no liberties

>fascists and communists are the same

Are you an unironic Goldilocks republican? Seriously? Or are you just some retarded Monarchist who thinks that ultimate power should be concentrated in the hands of "my beautiful, perfect, noble lord" instead of "My beautiful, perfect, dear Fuhrer"?

Reading your post again it seems you're just a normalfag. How did you even find this board?



I'm starting to notice increased influx of normalfags since that shooting.



Socialists have a right to live. But children also have a right to consent.

File: 279a975c7a01971⋯.jpg (434.84 KB, 2067x1627, 2067:1627, claix6sgqa421.jpg)


What does /liberty/ think of street art? Isn't there something freeing about putting your name on something sacred to a normie for the enjoyment of yourself and those who can appreciate it?



First, 99% of street 'art' is just niggers marking their territory with ugly letters and gang signs.

Second, you have no right to mark others property. If you want to paint a mural on your own building that's fine, if you want to get permission from the property owner that's fine, but it's disgustingly narcissistic to deface and vandalize just because you feel the urge to.



This, pretty much.



street art should be illegal like in singapore

File: c43037d705fe727⋯.jpg (484.34 KB, 1000x853, 1000:853, IMG_3447.JPG)



Traditional Marriage as it was practiced before first wave feminism 100+ years ago, was created without the state, across cultures through voluntary social interactions.

We would likely to go back to such a system. The only reason why people still get married is that they mistake and get fooled by civil marriage and think it's real marriage.

In actual fact just having a long-term gf is more real of a marriage, than actually marrying her under state marriage, because it's natural for women to ONLY get your ressources, if they stay with you. You corrupt that and basically create an incentive for women to immideatly leave men, once something is not to their liking, if you marry them.

15 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



How do you figure? NEETSocs have no control over the state apparatus and they probably won't anytime soon. Any goons that kick down your door are going to be either commies or the tools of commies.



If it was up to me, the state would get out of marriage, and marriages would henceforth be treated as contracts as far as the state is concerned, modified by religious canons. So if you are married by the Catholic Church, you don't get to divorce. When it's a muslim marriage, the women cannot divorce, but the man can do so unilaterally. And so on.

If it was up to me, everyone married couple would follow the rules of the Catholic Church, but where is the value in enforcing my religious views on what a proper marriage is on couples that do not share these views? If I can tolerate (in the true sense of that word) pagan chicks having open relationships, then I can tolerate muslims marrying five women at once. If they don't subsidize their bullshit, and am not obliged to respect it, then I am good. We live in an imperfect world, after all.

>Traditional Marriage as it was practiced before first wave feminism 100+ years ago, was created without the state, across cultures through voluntary social interactions.

But, anon, which libertarian would not admit that? I suppose left-wing libertarians, but there are very few on this board these days.



>you need to already be married to a woman, and then have another woman join you in your household

That's what it means to you. That's not what it means to him or those people. I always thought it meant "woman who is less legally important than my wife, but one I nevertheless claim".


He's worried about Australians showing up and murdering him, I think. Some idiots lately have been saying that.



Nah, the shitposting cunts love me.


Commie governments tend to collapse under their own weight anyways, and I'd fall under the special privileged class who gets to live the high life due to my skillsets in a commie government/flee the country when shit hits the fan. NEETSocs (who have a real chance of getting into power in a country that isn't 3rd world status already) when they get into power tend to fuck everything up in the process. Both would point a gun at my head and tell me that work makes me free, but the Commies at least intuitively understand that killing people like me is a quick step towards 3rd world status and give me cushiony living standards and sometimes even a girl to fuck.The Nazis just insist on me doing shit for them (or die) while living in abject poverty in their mockery of an economy that they claim is "booming." The NEETSocs are closer to the Mexican cartels in a lot of ways such as this. By process of elimination, I'd be more likely to point my gun at a NEETSoc invasion than a Commie invasion albeit I'd point my gun at either if I thought I had a winning chance.




OK purple monkey dishwasher.

File: ff0f470f7563727⋯.png (250.44 KB, 600x600, 1:1, d05.png)


So I finally got my first job in California and now I honestly have a obligation to vote for someone without a D after their name, Long story short I pay close to FIVE HUNDERD DOLLARS a month in taxes for no good reason. Where does my money go? And for who? Why are THEY or the GOVERNMENT entitled to my hard earned money. I work in a factory mind you, before this I actually voted for the Green Party… Not making any o this up, has coming out of my NEET habits and growing up really made me understand what is what in this world. Any place I can start with ebil gapitalism?


Don't vote

Move away and don't bring any Californian practices with you.


File: f2c532188445b87⋯.png (3.18 MB, 1920x1081, 1920:1081, 61c485c2f437c79c4fd8b51914….png)


It's made you understand that being left to your own devices, you'll invest your money where you need it, or malinvest and suffer the consequences. The next step is realizing that even the most retarded members of the population are capable of learning that you must invest your money wisely. A mentally handicapped man will understand "if I spend my money on a candy bar, I can't ride the bus home, and I'd have to walk five miles in the snow" so it's not a leap to suggest they realize hardship and come out more careful with their money in other areas (or hire a poor man's accountant/family member to do it for them). The age/advent of 3D printing and other technologies means even a cripple can have a plastic arm to perform simple tasks for about $100-$500 depending on how much functionality they want.


You should bully anon for using normalfaggot memes, not for realizing he was indoctrinated.




California is a shithole, sadily. Meanwhile the immigrants get their checks slipped to them by the supervisior :(



Report him to ICE.



>He thinks the Republicans are any better

>He thinks voting can solve the problem

Either be poor and avoid the taxes, or become rich in spite of them and then pay lobbyists to fight them.

File: 0dd1179c4900199⋯.jpg (40.44 KB, 444x444, 1:1, Karl-Marx1-d9076c70d7110a8….jpg)


Capitalism is a Marxist strawman that was designed for failure and you guys gobbles it up. Marx coined the term Capitalism and gave it his own definition which was a strawman. Everyone just believed that the opposite to Marx's system was the strawman definition he gave. Numerous schools and politicians have gone on defending a Marxist strawman. Marx created division and a false dichotomy that you must choose one of two radicals. Marx was evil


In the us, capitalism just means free market economics, regardless of the spurious origins of the term.



>Marx coined the term Capitalism

When will this meme end?



It was coined by proto-Marxist socialists, however. Regardless, it's been pretty successfully coopted as a denotative term for free enterprise, rather than the pejorative it was originally. I still do my best to avoid using it on principle, however.




>1854, "condition of having capital"

Note that this is 18 yeasrs before:

>Meaning "political/economic system which encourages capitalists" is recorded from 1872, originally used disparagingly by socialists.


File: 41b5ac5d7cfe8ba⋯.jpg (523.06 KB, 1672x1196, 418:299, imgID134154083.jpg.gallery.jpg)


Doesnt matter, marxism is a dead ideology anyway. And any "marxist" you see today are simply critical theory zombies wearing the corpse of marxism over themselves for LARP purposes

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / lounge / tingles / vichan / x ]