/liberty/ - Liberty

>The Best Hebrew Songs Ever

Anon, what have you been watching?

>>103123

RENT FREE

OBSESSED

>>102018

>organisms do well when given giant piles of resources.

>>103032

I'm not even going to say anything.

>>101992

Brainlet doesn't understand demographic transition.

>>103032

Only if that were true then africans would be kangs

>>103131

Fuck her, fuck her good.

>>102231

You really think all 1 million of those NPCs are being simulated every tick?

>>102231

Most of those complex mathematics go into simulating tesselated polygons–an intensive but repetitive task. Normies are simplistic, but they're just a big more complicated than triangles, so it would require a lot of processing power to stimulate the decision-making process of just one normie. I think Hayek called this the knowledge problem. No, it's not the calculation problem, that's different.

The first thing to realize is that a planned city is not necessarily unfree. The point of planning a free city isn't so much to account for the most likely actions of it's residents in advance. The point of planning a free city is to set up various systems that will exist for that city which will ensure the freedom of that city. Of course, there are some things which can be planned, such as trash disposal/recycling, fire-extinction, medicine,, but there would be some difference in how they would be planned in a libertarian city as compared to a governmental city.

I think one of the things I dislike about this board is that there is too much focus on ideology without concrete, specific action (beyond outcry against something that happened in our statist dystopia). Yes, I'm accusing you of circlejerking. Get your act together! I think what this board needs is some constructive project. I propose that we try to plan a specific city to be a good libertarian city. For the sake of starting things off, why don't we go with Detroit, as it seems like the governments and just about everyone else are more-or-less neglecting Detroit.

I'm not saying we should actually go to detroit and implement the plan, but that we should, as a collective thought experiment, figure out the details in terms of a real place. What say you?

-Not from Detroit.

Is there a term for 'resident of Detroit'? If not, I propose "Detroitoise" or "Detroitante" or something else in keeping with the Frenchiness of "Detroit"

>>102231

>so if you imagine the complex mathematics that goes on in rendering the graphics of a game like that, why can't we just apply the same processing power to simulating human behaviour?

Dwarf Fortress basically does this on a micro-scale. A fortress will usually crap out with a couple hundred of individuals.

You'll probably have to have Aurora 4x tier graphics to have a thousand individuals simulated.

>>103099

>is there a term for 'resident of Detroit?'

Nigger.

>>101945

>arguing in good faith

Spooky

>>102398

>In places like New Zealand, Ecuador and Colorado rivers have rights of personhood. There have been cases of "rivers" suing companies for polluting them, for instance.

Your conception of justice is drenched in authoritarianism. There is no such thing as a crime without a victim. When you say "a river sued someone" what you really mean to say is the government arbitrarily decided they had an arbitrary right over a plot of land they had neither homesteaded nor traded for. It's the government that is the actor here, not the river.

> If you pollute a river or burn down a forest, you're going to prison.

<if the government enforces the law, it must be good!

What are you? Are you a libertarian? You sound like a democratic socialist whinger.

>LOL. Being this boastful of one's unaware ignorance…

>LOL. It's like talking with a cartoon.

Oh fucking sod off mate. Honestly, fuck right off with that reddit shit

>>102401

>Your argument makes a bit more sense. Less edgy, more pragmatic. Of course everybody knows rights are "spooks" like the other retard said. Your explanation of how they came to be is very effective.

Oh I'm honored you like my arguments you smarmy, suburbanite american millenial twat.

>However, I have to say that "being an actor" is not a precondition to enjoy rights.

Why?

>You mentioned the potential to be an actor in children or having been an actor, in the case of the dying, for instance. You are saying that only humans can and should be able to enjoy rights. I think humanity as a whole is moving away from that notion and expanding it even beyond sentient beings:

>Animals have rights too: You can't abandon dogs and cats, it's against the law. Most people are not okay with eating dogs and cats. A growing Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>animals can't consent

Oh? I think you need to not make such false generalizations. What is important is that, in any given case, to examine whether all involved parties consented. If the animal that you fucked consented to you fucking that animal, then anyone else forcing you to stop would be the aggressor.

There is, of course, the other question of proof. If someone violates you, and claims that they were justified because they were protecting the animal which you fucked (or tried to fuck, as the case may be), which they claim did not consent to you fucking them, and you claim that they were not justified in violating you, because the animal did consent, how is the question of who is reponsible for what restitution settled? I'm inclined to go for 'innocent until proven guilty', which would mean that the person violated you would have to prove that you were violating the animal, but then, what if the proof of guilt is too great? Of course, being a careful person, whatever I do, be it fucking an animal or otherwise, I ensure that I have proof that all effected parties consented, but that's me being a careful person.

(Not that I fuck animals or anything. It's all hypothetical here.)

>racial equality

SO. (Ahem.) What is important isn't racial equality per se, but that all discrimination is legitimate. There may be cases where discrimination based on race is legitimate. Of course, >>99186 a government that promotes racial equality is the antithesis of libertarianism, but it's not because that government promotes racial equality, but because it's a government.

[Age of consent]

>Are 14 year olds that different from 15 year olds? Are 13 year olds that different from 14 year olds? Where does it stop?

The point is that you don't look at the arbitrarily chosen property of 'how long has this person existed' to determine whether they are capable of consent, and you don't even look look at whether they are capable oc consent, but whether they did consent (!!), because that's what we care about here. SurPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>103086

Yes.

>>103071

I'm not op, faggot

>>103007

By liberty for aristocrats do you mean that natural aristocracy idea that Jefferson was talking about? Also, how are we living in ancapistan already? Do you mean Ancapistan is the base level of a society and then it moves on from there?

>>103008

we need grassroot propaganda and education

in poland mises institute wrote a textbook for high schoolers but i think the textbook was no approved

>>102918

>everyone seems to follow class/wealth envy?

I don't think most people do. It's just that the ones who do tend to be awfully loud about it.

>>102950

Education isn't nearly as influential as incentives.

>>103007

>we are already living in anarcho-capitalist land

"Anarcho-Capitalist Land" is essentially defined by the absence of certain types of institutions, which are very much present. Thus, we are not in "Anarcho-Capitalist Land". Nearly all of the positive elements necessary to produce order in Anarcho-Capitalism are present, but that is not its definition.

>the natural response to anarcho-capitalism is the formation of states

You're going to have to do a lot of work to back that up.

>Essentially, liberty is to high-energy a state, and groups of people will naturally move towards lower-energy states, in order to dissipate the energy and create structure.

What does that even mean? In what sense is liberty "high-energy"? How do you justify conflating liberty with a lack of structure?

>>103020

>we need grassroot propaganda and education

It's nice for recruiting True Believers(TM), but mass adoption doesn't work that way. You have to make your way of doing things materially more appealing than the alternatives. That's not education or propaganda: that's marketing.

>>103054

>What does that even mean? In what sense is liberty "high-energy"?

I think he's trying to make some big-brained chemistry analogy, in which high-energy reactants have a tendency to become low-energy products. The problem with this torturous metaphor is that anarchy is the natural state of affairs to which we always return, and government must constantly interfere with this tendency to maintain its existence. Which is to say, the analogy works in the opposite way from what he tried to imply.

>>103066

I was trying to be somewhat more Socratic with my inquiry so that he could walk himself into that realization.

>>102440

>the false assumption that a consumer is a rational being making rational choices.

whether or not we are rational has no bearing on whether or not the market is rational.

It could very well be the case that we are irrational, but it wouldn't matter.

The laws of supply and demand are not dictated by rationality. They are dictated by simple arithmetic and opportunity cost.

The only reason why we assume rational behavior is because there is no such working model of irrational behavior.

Currently, modern econ is working on how rational or irrational are we.

In business, you can hire an economist specialized in this topic to see if you are behaving rationally, and if not what you could possibly do to correct that behavior.

For the consumer, you have apps on your phone to track your spending habits, etc.

Overall, though, whether you are rational or irrational has no bearing on how the market behaves.

https://m.cdn.blog.hu/el/eltecon/file/JPE-Becker-1962.pdf

rationality of the consumer is just that. rationality. if he s stupid enough to pay 1000$ for a pair of shoes he s an idiot but good job to the company because it determined this idiot to give them 1000$. free market is about making money. as long as you dont hold a gun in front of someone s face to make em buy a product i see no problem. we dont need government intervention into market if that s what your suggesting we do.

the beauty of the free market is that you dont get to decide the value of your labour. it has to be traded for another person s labour so the prices will balance themselves.

>>102604

It's almost as if they don't actually read the books.

>>103050

If you're being ruled your rationality is already compromised in the first place

<Steven "pedo trannyfucker" Bonnel I and a quarter, self confesed level 2 sociopath, bashed Jontron over a fucking graph

No, thank you, Keep Yourself Safe

>>102215

>There are people out there who actually believe randomness can exist in a stable system

>These people are capable of making posts to this very board

What the fuck.

But seriously. Reality is deterministic and therefore all things can be predicted with accuracy. Just because you can't doesn't mean it can't be done. This is however, as some flagfriend poster earlier mentioned, irrelevant when concerned with agency. This is what we're primarily concerned with when the subject arises.

>>102264

our universe is not stable

>>102212

>What is your opinion on Destiny's argument in this video?

It's bad. He isn't even tackling how libertarians view free will. He's right in saying that there has been an issue with free will and separatism - how do we become free agents in a world without god - but he's not attacking libertarian's view on free will. He's attacking compaitablism, and calling it libertarian's view on free will.

Libertarians follow the concept called the principle of alternative possibilities to link up moral structures to actions: A person is morally responsible for performing a given act only if he could have acted otherwise. To a libertarian, a person could have acted differently, but not as to be purely random or arbitrary. It's founded on the notion that the world is constantly changing, the rules of "the game" are constantly changing, so it's impossible to predict any difinitive end-state. Instead, it's a procedural process of finding out what works and what doesn't work - then re-evaluating along the way.

The most classic example of this is to examine what game theory tries to do, but many times fails: Make people into mechanized computers of if - then statements.

It's also a core problem with his belief that, "If only the rules of the game were clearly defined, would we see smooth outcomes."

We know that simply isn't the case. In fact just the opposite. People have a tenancy to organize things fine without any "clear rules of the game." Society doesn't implode. A person won a nobel prize proving this is the case.

As a counter-example to show how absurd Destiny is:

>Be put into destiny's shoes

>be successful streamer

>claim "he didn't build his success, his community did"

>destiny in the future decides he doesn't want to stream anymore. he wants to do something else in his life.

Is it Destiny's responsibility to make sure everyone who has ever donated to him in his lifetime finds an equal or betterPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>102212

>CTRL + F "compatibilism"

>0 results

Is there no hope for this board?

>>102757

Ok, here's me trying harder

The murders of the Inquisition, the murders of the counter Reformation, and the murders of native foreigners in early Catholic colonialism are antithetical to the Bible's foundational moral code in the decalogue, "thou shalt not kill".

These actions were justified by the Roman church because it was corrupted, especially in the realm of statism.

Christianity is best defined by what the Bible says, since it is the source document. The Bible is opposed to the behaviors we talked about.

Therefore:

Catholics are not Christian

>>102762

"Catholic colonialism"

most of the early settlers were Puritans, i.e., Protestants.

>>102726

people can gravitate towards muh ego dik

>>102765

I know, and they were supremely moral compared to Catholic colonizers in Latin America and elsewhere. Pennsylvania was explicitly purchased because those Protestants has a clear conception of land rights.

>>102771

Catholics did feudalism, sure, but Prots did ethnic cleansing.

>>102716

One thing that really annoys me about this game is that everyone on all sides of the political landscape praise it for being so prophetic, yet they are all guilty of doing the exact thing the game was warning against (especially left wingers)

No one hardly ever challanges their ideas, they just take up some contrived political take as a replacement for a personality and huddle around like minded people in their own bubbles and just keep blowing smoke up each others asses which only makes them worse and worse. To be a truly healthy person, you need to play devils advocate and realize you dont really know shit and realize you can learn different things from different people. Or in other words, just be open minded, which is something every jackass says but very few practice, again, mostly leftist.

>>102803

Challenge your perception of capitalism then

>>102811

/liberty/ is already /leftypol/'s shitposting toilet.

>>102811

I do. I dont worship capitalism as some god. people who view economic systems as such are stupid.

>>102646

>what are Monopsonies and Natural Monopolies?

Unproven hypothetical scenarios used to justify government interventionism and irrelevant to the discussion unless you're literally glued to a spot in the ground.

>what is determinism and the free will impossibility?

Also irrelevant to the discussion.

>>102629

>The electorate gains by land reform and the expansion of the dole.

>But you mentioned earlier that the enfranchised will not vote for the dilution of their power. So what is it?

You answered your own question. The electorate voted for land reform and the grain dole, not the expansion of the franchise.

In fact, the younger Gracchus got murdered by a rabid mob (the electorate) when he expanded the franchise.

The electorate fought to keep the franchise limited. You can't get elected by an electorate that can't vote.

>Slavery is an inefficient system because slaves lack the monetary incentives of free labor.

Tell that to the millionaire plantation owners of the antebellum south. Slavery is inefficient overall, but very profitable to the slaveowners.

I mean why do you think it existed for so bloody long as an institution?

>Probably nothing, but I am also against monarchy.

I said

<The only governments which have effectively kept the state from growing are republics where the franchise is restricted to property owners, which makes sense in terms of incentives.

<I'm not saying it's not degenerate (all states are) , I'm just saying it's better than giving one random cunt all the power and hoping he isn't a Machiavelli.

I would rather have no state at all, but out of all the states that have existed in history, I believe the ones wherPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>102761

>have proven to provide

have provided

I'm too tired for this shit

>>102619

Let me tell you where I'm coming from so we can stop talking about minutiae and look at the bigger picture.

I believe the defining characteristic which determines how free a society is has nothing to do with voting itself, but rather with the relationship between producers and consumers of a single good:

Rights enforcement.

The monopolisation of the production of this good, most commonly done by the state, will inevitably result in tyranny. The larger the state (both in physical terms such as land or population, and in terms of the presence of statist thinking in the minds of the members of the society), the more complete its monopoly and the faster the tyranny will progress. Therefore, in choosing which kind of state is the least predisposed to tyranny, I ask myself two questions:

1) Does the structure of belief which allows the state to justify its own existence lead to totalitarian modes of thinking?

2) Is the production of rights enforcement solely the purview of the state in this society?

The first question is fundamentally about ideology; the second is fundamentally about economics. Since I am not a Marxist and therefore not retarded, I know that economics follows from belief and physical circumstance. Since we cannot control the physical circumstances of the world, it is safe to ignore them for the purposes of this discussion. We can therefore pare down these two questions down into a more fundamental one:

Who do the people believe produces the enforcement of rights?

In a citizen-soldier republic the people believe they are the producers of their own rights, and the state is relegated to the position of a coordinator.

The popular militia, in this frameworPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

> The electorate voted for land reform and the grain dole, not the expansion of the franchise.

The electorate essentially voted for both by voting for the officials that did both.

> the younger Gracchus got murdered by a rabid mob (the electorate)

He committed suicide, and he was not chased by a mob but by Opimius’ men.

> Slavery is inefficient overall, but very profitable to the slaveowners.

Plantations were profitable (not really that profitable in antebellum South since Washington and Jefferson had to rely on rents to sustain their income) due to legislation favoring slavery. It was the large land grants from the state that made them profitable, not slaves. Tobacco crops required large landholdings to counteract nutrient depreciation.

>>102792

I forgot your (You): >>102792

>>102792

I forgot your (You): >>102761

>>102167

Hitler was right about what?

>>102717

Racialism, I guess. Funny thing is, the new right wing regimes are looking to be about as interventionist as the left wing ones.

>>102723

he thought jews are untermenschen

it is the opposite way