/liberty/ - Liberty

You can justify Stalinism morally within a Consequentialist framework if you accept leftist premises about the evils of wage labor. But using the muh 100 gorillion line in an argument is very lazy, and turns it into a numbers game where you count deaths not quite attributable to communism and they count deaths not quite attributable to capitalism.

>>19315

Especially if arguing with an anarchocommunist; states do bad things is something you both agree on, so saying that to them is even more absurd.

>>19316

Why? You think you need a "state" for terror?

The state creates a structure which legitimises human violence, it gives violence a license, so that violence might be called law enforcement. Red terror within the law is only superficially different from red terror without the law. The terror can happen with or without a state vindicator.

Stalinism might have cast a greater shadow on the 20th century but the violent history of militant anarchism isn't lost on the memory of informed people.

Found this:

https://www.schwarzreport.org/resources/essays/why-communism-kills

Although it's clearly written from a christian perspective. I still think it's quite enlightening.

If you mongoloids can't write in complete sentences, then I will just ignore what you say.

Putting "<" before sentence fragments is imbecilic and I would thank you to maintain a reasonable level of discourse on this board.

>>18711

Lork moar you fucking newfaggot

>>19462

This was the worst necrobump ever.

>>19468

Why? He's a faggot, and probably also a raider. If he doesn't understand imageboard culture, he should fuck off.

HES ON RIGHT NOW

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ghost

SECOND COMING CONFIRMED

>>19458

>newfag

>>>/out/

After they start opening death camps. Before that point the government is probably made up of reasonable people who don't realize the implications of their policies. But after they open death camps, their malevolence is beyond doubt.

>>19441

This is a reasonable answer as well.

I think the main point here is that it's always better to work around the government via agorist/voluntarist counter-economics unless you're doing so in self defense. We're not murderers, and even that shitty governor probably has a family/just wants the best for folks even if extremely misguided.

>>19443

>Define violent insurrection.

This.

Does causing a complete collapse of the banking system through causing panic and triggering bank runs (because fractional reserve banking lol) which eventually leads to government collapse and temporary breakdown of society count as violent insurrection?

I think it's an example of somebody being highly selective in their estimations.

Primary Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Dslendingab%C3%B3k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Goose_Laws

The State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing

Good thread, though.

If you get a bone marrow transplant are you a 3 parent chimera?

>But panel members said that they took the philosophical issues seriously, noting that someone with genetic material from two different maternal bloodlines would potentially have to wrestle with questions about identity, kinship and ancestry.

This is not their actual concern.

>>19365

i think i'd rather have 3 parents than Huntington's disease

>>19364

as far as Im concerned, (generally) everything that gets us closer to genetically engineered humans is good

>>19424

>they deserve

might want to update your understandig of justice

also, personally I think stupidity should be differentiated from lack of information

>>19277

>When the claim is

>>intellectual property laws are needed to inentivize innovation

>and the evidence shows

>>innovation is higher in cases where there are fewer or no intellectual property laws

>Then that evidence falsifies that claim.

no, because they havent gone through all the cases

what they have absoluetly proven is a correlation

if you want to make the absolute prove of causation you have to rule out every single other possibility

wich is not something one can only do if one know all the elements, the arrangements and the entire dynamics.

wich is not really feasible. one reason is because the system we are part of (the universe, possibly multiverse) is too complex for humans to comprehend wholly.

>>19302

You have the null hypothesis reversed. The onus is on you to prove why IP laws are necessary.

>>19361

not my point

my point is its not possible to make an absolute proof with data because our system is too complex (you would need all elements, their arrangements and dynamics)

also im 100% against any form of IP

>>19392

I have some text. Im into nonlinear dynamic (chaos theory) and gametheory. unfortunately not deep enough to make a formal proof, yet. unfortunately not enough time on hand to learn it right now.

Ive been googling but havent found anything. its kinda surprising there isnt anything, but then again its very possible exactly that is the case.

So making the proof is something on my list, if it prevails that there is no publication yet. I have several things on that list however, so anyone is welcome to do it instead.

the part about roughly equal entropies is a bit bumpy as-is. but Im pretty sure you can work it out mathematically to produce some logically sound result that will practically do the same thing as a 'rough equality'

——————————————————-

intellectual property hinders adoption of ecnomic optimization

this is also very important regarding 'competetion'

should you put a price on a book?

economic operations of publishing a book:

cost of writing it (opportunity etc)

cost of publishing

ev of the information published (for the world)

accumulation/transfer of money

cost of publishing is neglectible these days (for ebooks anyway)

there is no direct/inhernet value in accumulating value. if there is one insight austrians have into keynesianism its that.

indirect value is the things you can do because of acess to capital/funds YOU WOULDNT OTHERWISE HAVE ACESS TO

>>19401

I extend the characterization to fascism because I have yet to find a fascist who supports the notion that people, by virtue of their very humanity, have anything like natural rights.

>>19402

Human rights are above the rights of the state [but below the rights of the race]. That's Hitler. Do you find this expression logically consistent?

>>19403

That depends on how much coercion other members of the race are allowed to use to ensure compliance.

>>19404

To be quite honest, I'm not sure how to fit race into this.

>>19404

It's not logically consistent unless you believe in qualified natural rights which is almost an oxymoron.

>>19341

>Cute that you'd bring that up, and choose to completely ignore the rest of my post

Because I don't care about refuting the rest of your post. I'm not a social darwinist.

>But b) I think it is pretty damn relevant. Explain to me why the losers will take your Darwinning laying down.

Darwinning is not a word. And no, whether ancapism is too utopian to ever work was NOT relevant at all.

>>19230

Because socialists have short tempers/shorter attention spans, and know that a liberty approach to socialism takes time, or that their ideas don't work in voluntary associations, so they try to subsidize it with force.

>>19344

>Darwinning is not a word.

You know damn well what the meaning of that statement was. You're being needlessly pedantic.

>And no, whether ancapism is too utopian to ever work was NOT relevant at all.

See - darwinism <=> ancap

>>19346

Look: You and the guy you keep citing are both incoherent as fuck. Deciphering what you actually said is an exhausting and timely endeavor, and from what I think I did understand, it isn't going to be very productive, either, which is why I'm not going to spend an hour trying to do so. Anarchocapitalism can't work because it's utopian? Heard that a billion times. Anarchocapitalism is kinda like social darwinism, except not really? That's something ALL laissez-faire philosophies have in common. Social darwinism can't work because fucking over 90% of the population does not lead to a stable system? Not exactly groundbreaking.

Incoherent + Uninteresting = What the fuck am I doing here? Also, learn some fucking english, for fucks sake.

One more thing: Whether a state of being is desirable and whether it's achievable are two entirely different questions.

Now I feel drunk. Holy shit.

>>19345

Ah, my appologies.

I read socialists instead of social Darwinists. This is why you should read things carefully, folks.

Daily stormers pretty good tbh

>>19293

I visit dailystormer.com every day because nobody talks about race and I need my daily dose of racial tension. Damn how could anyone be tired of talking about race. Race war when? Deport all kikes

>>19293

That place is probably one of the dumbest websites on the internet. Hand to God I've never seen a 'news service' more shrill. Even /n/ is superior, nonstop indian, racialist shit, crab news and all.

Cafe Hayek.com

Fights stupid myths endlessly

It's quite depressing

>>19342

Or else

Cafe Hayek.com

Fights the same myths endlessly

It's quite depressing

>>19311

>In the UK

>tbh

>maymay picture

>>>/intl/

>>19311

If the companies, posessed by some patriotic spirit, want to turn over their business records of their own free will to the state, fine. If the state mandates it, that is theft. Both ways, the information will inevitably be used against you. In 1939 there was a march organized by the CPUSA against Hitler. In the 1950s, the FBI dug through newspaper archives to find the photos, and blacklisted everyone they could identify as a supporter of communism. If the leftist or rightist types of idpol ever become more widely accepted, you are probably going to end up receiving some sort of punishment for something documented in the records.

The IRS goes after conservative and libertarian organizations more heavily

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

Libertarians are viewed as domestic terrorists

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/02/fbi-attempts-to-make-libertarians.html

People are being denied jobs because of what they say online

http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=6%2F26%2F2014&id=pr829&ed=12%2F31%2F2014

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about privacy, not just online.

>>19311

Then go to normiebook, faggot

>>19292

This is a good point, anon. I'm going to go think on that one. You've given me hope.

>>19281

>The number of commercially used cultivars and animal breeds is actually quite small. Why would human biotech be any different?

thats mostly because the regulatory stuff is expensive as fuck

if you look at regular breeding, wich is just a more limited version of genetic editing, there is a different story

for 'commercially used cultivars'.. here in germany only a handful of apple are deemed table-apples, wich is a prerequisite for selling it in a supermarket. I wonder who could be behind this the apple lobby, not kidding

regarding other breeds, people are always looking to breed better chickens, bulls, etc. and they have different ideas. also people acknowledge that evolution style is pretty gud, so there is a bunch of randomization involved usually.

so long as you keep down the entry barriers for new, noninstitutional innovation thats going to happen

>>19284

1. newborns are fine in any case

and that is totally heritable

2. its theoretically possible to perma edit every cell in a living beeing. not feasible now of course. or even conceivable (but im not in the field).

based on the possibility, I wouldnt rule it out however.

>>19303

>regulation

This is one problem not wholly caused by regulation. In South American and African countries with little or no regulation (or corrupt enforcers) you still find one breed of banana and two breeds of cocao. In the 19th century US, before food and crop regulation, most of the citrus produced was very closely related. You get a monoculture not only when you implement regulations, but when you have commercial agriculture on a large scale. In addition, many domesticated plants and animals now have traits that would make it impossible for them to survive without humans; bulldogs need a shitton of medical care, and wheat can no longer disperse its seeds without human help, since non-shattering varieties were selected for.

>>19304

>edit every cell in a living being

There are some viruses (like AAVs) which can enter humans cells and change the genome without lysing the cell, but these only infect very narrow cell types. Using a gene gun on every single cell would kill the organism, since the organism would need to be dissasembled to get to many of them. You would have to design a custom virus with a novel set of antigens. Designing even small proteins computationally is very difficult and modelling protein folding given a genetic sequence is impossible, since different chaperone proteins can produce radically different results and there are many possible post translational modifications. It is concievable that such a thing will never be done.

>"I think freedom of movement is essential for labor, but immigration is a bad thing!"

Freedom of movement is important, but open borders and amnesty destroys countries. Look at Europe. Secure borders are important to protect your country. Most libertarians would agree that immigration is good, but tax payers shouldn't be forced to pay for their welfare and they shouldn't be given special rights or be immune from the law. Legal immigration in the US works because most assimilate, follow the law, contribute to the economy, and bring good parts of their culture to the US. The US was built on (mostly) sensible immigration. Europe is failing because their cultures are fundamentally incompatible, a lot of them don't assimilate, they refuse to go after people who break the law, give them endless welfare, and ignore their own citizens.

>"Voting is a waste of time, but I'm going to regularly talk about the Presidential race!" (embed related)

Independent on political belief. Voting works when your political system isn't bought out and controlled. A lot of libertarians want money out of the political system and the people to have power.

>"I think Snowden was a hero for releasing state documents, but Hillary was evil for doing so!"

Snowden was a whistleblower upholding his oath to the Constitution and revealing to the American people how they were being abused. Hillary is a politician with a history of corruption and fraud, voted for the Patriot Act, constantly breaks US law, and is lying to the FBI, DOJ, and the American people.

>"People can censor opinions on their property, but fuck the PC media!"

People can, that doesn't mean we have to like it.

>"Privacy is fundamental, but X should be transparent!"

Government has a responsibility to the people, not the other way around.

>"Freedom of speech is great, but the ACLU is full of untrustworthy commies!"

They should be able to say whatever they want, you don't have to agree wiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>thinking that trump is more libertarian than bernie

>seeing ted cruz as anything other than a neocon shill

>failing to see how campaign contributions demolish any semblance of democracy

>opposing abortion

>supporting a free market while opposing immigration and free trade

>supporting age restrictions for drugs when they're legalized

>the lack of activism/discussion relating to prisoners and sentencing

>supporting states rights to pass/keep authoritarian laws

>completely ignoring what ron paul says about trump

I can't see how any of these things can be justified from a libertarian perspective.

>The ACLU is full of fucking commies.

Why should that matter if they consistently fight for civil liberties (which they do)? They even defended a neo nazi march in a jewish town ffs.

>"Privacy is fundamental, but X should be transparent!"

The more control people have over a government, the freer they are. Privacy makes things harder to control. That's why individuals should have it and governments shouldn't.

>>18786

>"I think freedom of movement is essential for labor, but immigration is a bad thing!"

immigration can be bad. if lew or tom said something like that they are reffering to a specific subset of immigration, probably illegal maxicans

>"Voting is a waste of time, but I'm going to regularly talk about the Presidential race!" (embed related)

for entertainment purposes?

to understand the future of the country. you might not be able to influence the outcome but the info is still useful.

>"I think Snowden was a hero for releasing state documents, but Hillary was evil for doing so!"

what makes you think those situation are equivalent?

>"People can censor opinions on their property, but fuck the PC media!"

because they are actively, intentionally and severly falsifying information

and also spread marxist indoctrination

>"Privacy is fundamental, but X should be transparent!"

wheres the contradiction?

>"Freedom of speech is great, but the ACLU is full of untrustworthy commies!"

where is the contradiction?

tldr: you are fucking retarded. kill yourself.

>>19259

>Boynie Sanders

>libertarian anything

The man is a menshevik jew running to lose and futher radicalise the Democrat base. Trump at least represents a chance to euthanize the Neocohens and the indistinguishable-from-the-DNC cuckservatives, the two main groups that have been instrumental in marginalizing constitutionalist/libertarian groups inside the GOP.

>supporting a free market while opposing immigration and free trade

Support for immigration unless heavily qualified in $CURRENTYEAR shows you to be the worst kind of ideologue.

>>19259

>thinking that trump is more libertarian than bernie

That's more like an apples and oranges comparison.

>seeing ted cruz as anything other than a neocon shill

I agree with this.

>failing to see how campaign contributions demolish any semblance of democracy

Libertarianism is not about democracy *you hear Hoppe's primal scream in the distance*

>opposing abortion

As someone who can not have kids, why should I give a fuck about the abortion debate? Why don't I leave it to the ones who can procreate?

>supporting a free market while opposing immigration and free trade

I agree with this.

>supporting age restrictions for drugs when they're legalized

I agree with this.

>the lack of activism/discussion relating to prisoners and sentencing

…really? Is there a libertarian worth his salt that wants to get rid of all the bs forfeiture/indefinite detentions/drug war fueling the prisons? Either you have completely different standards or are blind.

>supporting states rights to pass/keep authoritarian laws

Concrete examples?

>completely ignoring what ron paul says about trump

He's been saying stuff about him? I thought he had better things to do like talk about people dying in Syria.

>I know this is pretty /pol/ tier, but what does /liberty/ think of the claims of the KGB defectors Anatoly Golitsyn and Yuri Bezmenov? Golitsyn claimed in a 1984 book, New Lies for Old, that the USSR would fake its own dissolution, get the West off guard, and ultimately establish a worldwide communist state. Many of his predictions for the USSR have come true- he predicted that Gorbachev would come to power and implement reforms, for instance. Bezmenov claimed that the United States was in the middle of a subversion campaign, designed to destroy American virtue. There was a third defector who claimed that there were caches of portable nuclear weapons scattered throughout the American countryside.

Okay, so either this "ghost USSR" post ostensible dissolution is so well-organized that Golitsyn should never have been able to be the "one break" in the otherwise perfect conspiracy, or we should expect a variety of reliable leaks of its existence. The chances of some extremely powerful cabal only having ONE leak… not so great.

>I am somewhat concerned that both the left and the right could be Soviet fronts at this point;

Neoconservative as an ideology was founded by anti-Stalinist Jewish zionists in the 1950s. This is why you are getting that impression. This is not to be some fucking /pol/-tier retard that thinks jews have some inherent "kike gene" that makes them malevolent, they just happen to be vastly over represented in the intellectual parasite class due to their high IQs.

The left, which was disproportionately Jewish, infilitrated the right.

Now both are cowed to the Israel lobby.

Good job, America. I would kill for some paleocons, literally metaphorically speaking, Patrick Henry up in this bitch.

>>19136

>jews have some inherent "kike gene" that makes them malevolent

these genes are, generally speaking, real

whether jews have them or at what frequency is a different question

read

a troublesome inheritance

(short read, legit academic research)

>>19271

Doesn't deal with that issue.

t. knower

>>19276

MAOA is fairly prevalent in some aboriginal populations, but not in the Jews.