[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / bane / chori / choroy / dempart / jenny / nofap / vichan ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

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

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

May 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.

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


49 second

is it professor Hoppe? :o


>The Best Hebrew Songs Ever

Anon, what have you been watching?


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.





File: ce81f8d5cabb44b⋯.jpg (23.95 KB, 278x308, 139:154, 20190329-82635-13lzpm5.jpg)


For thousands of years of human history we lived in misery and suffering.

Then the planets aligned, and by some miracle we got some sort of capitalism and we got out of misery. Yet most people don't understand this and want to go back to the same policies we used for thousands of years and that kept us in misery and suffering, which is the starting point in nature.

What we're living is a big exception. I wonder how many times in history a society got close enough to start a capitalist revolution towards riches, and yet people started to bullshit and complain, forcing everyone to remain into poverty.

And it's not like things are getting better, you just have to look at how the average economics degree holder don't understand shit and has the same economic insights and knowledge of the average non-student.

Humanity is condemned to go back to the natural state, suffering and misery. Not because of a lack of resources or due to some major catastrophe, but due to its own inability to appreciate what it got.

Fuck this.

42 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>organisms do well when given giant piles of resources.



I'm not even going to say anything.



Brainlet doesn't understand demographic transition.



Only if that were true then africans would be kangs


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

File: 0eb7494b9a588f0⋯.png (9.55 KB, 472x498, 236:249, CP.png)


This picture is illegal in Australia.


Fuck her, fuck her good.

File: 9aa74e0601984b2⋯.png (73.13 KB, 796x799, 796:799, 1559554985896.png)


What is in your opinion the best political system in the world (existing or theoretical)? Which rules, reforms and institutions come together to form the best political system?

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



Ok so I guess would it be whatever system you subscribe to ( ancap, mutualists, ancom and etc.) You can leave and switch for another as if it were a service of some sort? I apologize for sounding like a retard. The concept sounds interesting from what little I've read of it I just want to understand the mechanics of it better.


File: 3ccf8088353910b⋯.jpeg (94.28 KB, 599x735, 599:735, 5c357933312bb.jpeg)


Will a rich enough person be able to buy their own private nuclear weapons in anarcho-capitalism?



>What is in your opinion the best political system in the world

Whichever one gets everyone off my property and lets me constitute 80% of my house into a very nice bathroom.



>You can leave and switch for another as if it were a service of some sort?

i think so



If they wanted to, sure. But nukes are very expensive to build and maintain, so likely only wealthy entrepreneurs would bother. Then, to cover maintenance costs, they sell McMAD insurance to their neighbors, promising to retaliate if a nuclear capable state ever violates their property rights.

File: 5271d4af5f8d333⋯.jpeg (29.04 KB, 434x448, 31:32, 5271d4af5f8d3330e55381ad2….jpeg)


What do you think about democracy?

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



This. In a sense, it's even worse than communism. In communism you know who the enemy is and it has a form, but in democracy society is divided against itself and evil hides in ambiguity.


"democracy isnt perfect but we never had to build a wall to keep our people from leaving"



Cattle doesn't try to flee when it's already tamed



People don't leave because the relatively free markets have made them wealthy and comfortable, not because of any ideological benefit from democracy. Why do you think migrants from third world shitholes are so eager to come to Western countries, so they can vote? Of course not, they just want the gibs.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Great. 2020 is going to a full-on 100% card carrying communist v. Mr. Tariff Man.

12 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Huh, didn't know that.



>Conceived by the founder of Instituto Mises Brasil, Hélio Beltrão, in collaboration with members of the Ministry of Economy, the Executive Provisional Act is a set of rules designed to boost free enterprise and impose limits to government intervention over small businesses.




Thanks anon.



i learned it from kelthuz but the vlog he speaks about it is in polish sadly



>democratic socialists are socialists

>national socialists are socialists

Are you brain damaged OP?

File: 0e39764688c7140⋯.jpg (37.09 KB, 300x360, 5:6, 300px-Civ4_Dschingis_Khan_….jpg)


Some buddies of mine have opened a new political discord, and I just wanted to advertise it to you guys: https://discord.gg/PCpGM43

We do not intend to ban any ideologies, so any lurking leftyfags are also welcome to join in.

Why have we opened it? Because the good discords have become insular, and hardly let in new members. There are some that let in everyone and have no quality control whatsoever, and others which set out to be circlejerks, or of which I know they will be circlejerks because their admins are frankly idiots. So with this one, we want to return to the golden days of /rwa/ and /lrg/, if any of you know it.

Picture unrelated, and thanks for reading.


File: fe77af463a0347d⋯.png (910.07 KB, 1280x905, 256:181, anime_pee.png)

>any lurking leftyfags are also welcome to join in.

Classic /liberty/. Why do you guys enjoy being such cucks?

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Realistic? implying you would know

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



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



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"



>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.



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


File: 4054bcf4a39235d⋯.jpg (54.45 KB, 474x422, 237:211, charlemagne.jpg)


>gay is okay

>fucking animals is okay

>polygamy/polyamory is okay

>freedom of speech/freedom to promote communism

>freedom of religion

>racial equality under the law


So when did you realize that you're basically just a moderate leftist?

221 posts and 54 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 618550ddafd3c16⋯.jpg (50.8 KB, 841x560, 841:560, 1414873461446.jpg)


>Children and the infirm don't have any rights. They are considered property either of an institution or of their closest kin. It isn't said as such because that would be "dehumanizing" but it is de facto true.

You are clearly mistaking rights with agency and treating the latter as a precondition to enjoy rights. You can dispose of property at will, save a few exceptions like fly dumping etc., but you can't dispose of children or the infirm in the middle of the street. You have to leave them at the care of someone. That's a right that they have, among all the others.

>Furthermore your insistence that property has rights is just baffling.

You are a poster-child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

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.


Just because you're not familiarized with the concept of natural reserves, it doesn't mean you have to act like a retard.


>A forest does not have the right "not to be burned down". Imagine if it was so, would those rights be violated by brushfires started by dry storms?

I'm going to assume you are arguing in good faith and that that retarded question is borne out of ignorance. Intent matters. And you clearly know this. If you fall down the stairs due to an earthquake or because you tripped on your shoelaces that's not a violation of your rights. But if someone pushes you down the stairs,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 0ed3aa623de6891⋯.jpg (482.73 KB, 1726x1172, 863:586, 1553922244062.jpg)


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. However, I have to say that "being an actor" is not a precondition to enjoy rights. 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 number of people think someone who tortures / fucks animals should go to prison, etc.

You disagree with these developments, I assume?



>arguing in good faith




>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


>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.


>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.

File: 76e424cce364925⋯.png (2.24 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, anarchy2.png)


Let's say you left a football on the beach. You put a label on it saying 'I made this, if you use it you owe me ten dollars'. Would I be 'initiating force' by using the football without contributing ten dollars?

Surely I would not be. 'You' are not the product of your labour. You may attempt to control or limit other people's interaction with the product of your labour but you cannot do so using force. In that case you aggress against me.

This is true on its own, but also, consequentially, the ability of people to own the product of their labour leads to the separation of ownership from use, which reduces the freedom of wage-labourers.

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


File: 9ea81f2f27a14ee⋯.png (25.55 KB, 402x310, 201:155, gibbon.png)

If an object that I am quantum entangled to is used to damage property, did I violate the NAP?


File: 137103da5c23174⋯.png (187.54 KB, 480x358, 240:179, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 32ab5a186b4fa47⋯.jpg (37.56 KB, 445x615, 89:123, 32ab5a186b4fa4734ff12368d7….jpg)

It's called the homesteading principle and the fact that it took 10 replies for >>103052 to even indirectly reference it is pretty disturbing. Property must be defended for it to be property.




I'm not op, faggot

File: e55ba3ab7fbb512⋯.png (71.12 KB, 700x700, 1:1, CUP LOGO 2.png)


GREETINGS /liberty/

The Infinity Cup is returning once again, and 8chan's boards will be fighting it out on the pitch to claim divegrass supremacy. As a board that has participated in the Cup at one point or another in its history, you are invited to the reveal stream for 2019 Summer edition of the Cup. On Saturday June 22nd, at 3 PM EDT/7 PM UTC, on cytu.be/r/8cup I'll be giving you guys an early look at the Cup's 5th edition, which will include revamped aesthetics, team stadiums and other quality of life improvements I've figured out how to do in PES 17. Hopefully this will get anons back on board with the Cup, considering it has struggled mightily since its 2nd incarnation.

So how is it going to go down? I'll be staging a couple of exhibition matches between teams using their rosters from the last Cup, and we'll shitpost our merry way through the stream. Once the stream ends, entries will be open for the Cup, and boards can start putting together/editing their rosters and kits. Entries will close in early July, the field will be determined, and the Group Draw will take place approximately a week before the Cup kicks off in August. I'm also hoping to possibly introduce managers for the Cup, although I'm still working out the details to keep this from devolving into a namefag dick measuring contest. I hope you all will tune in, and in case you aren't caught up on your board's history, I've provided some links below to get you caught up:



File: 00bdffc3a0324b9⋯.jpg (259.53 KB, 1080x1246, 540:623, lillydouse_52864797_232237….jpg)


we know that free trade increases real wealth, since people have more goods at better prices, resources are best allocated, international division of labor and so on.

The problem is that humans want meaning in their lives, they crave jobs and feeling useful.

If you have a person who works part-time, despite living like a king compared to someone from the 50s, he will feel like a bitch and will eventually lean towards natsoc, and no amount of education can stop that.

How do we solve this?

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



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?



we need grassroot propaganda and education

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



>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.


Education isn't nearly as influential as incentives.


>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?


>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.



>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.



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

File: 78eef0bffd8ae8a⋯.jpg (140.37 KB, 842x1189, 842:1189, a405ab3bab308f63876e153703….jpg)

File: f61c136d9d52eab⋯.jpg (67.58 KB, 450x595, 90:119, a2663246c1f6bc21e6f7475929….jpg)

File: f61c136d9d52eab⋯.jpg (67.58 KB, 450x595, 90:119, a2663246c1f6bc21e6f7475929….jpg)


Why don't you faggots have a board tan?

>pics related from OC thread


<inb4 muh snake girl

that's /leftypol/'s and not even a decent snake girl

77 posts and 50 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



That or do a tasteful lewd where she's in an AnCap or gadsden pantsu/bra combo and just lounging on the couch or something.



Or brushing her teeth or something simple like that.*



-ditch the toon im the op.

- go for babyfur alunya and ancapshota.

result success.


How do i install Rise of the Reds on a pirated CnC generals?


Hey /liberty/ watchu doin. Aurelia has already been decided here >>102785

File: c0b70daf4c9e853⋯.jpg (43.27 KB, 640x427, 640:427, socialistmillenia.jpg)


Why has capitalism lost the ideological battle AGAINAND AGAINoh and also that other timerepeatedlythroughout historywe never seem to learn? The younger generation is now majority commie ( https://archive.is/W2jEr ). I mean, dear lord, I'm not even sure this board has a majority of capitalist posters anymore. What the fuck happened? Why can't capitalism defend itself ideologically? And how the fuck do I prepare for the breadlines under the neo-bolshevik uprising? Something more useful than "Grab SK, go inna woods" or "go workout/be stoic" pls.

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


>other interpretations of liberties seem to go against the boards purposes

Dont seem to sorry


File: d2fdc354fb8c6c3⋯.mp4 (3.7 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, A Shekel For A Good Goy.mp4)


>Eh just ignore it then not like you cant still discuss stuff with other ancaps

There exists this concept called "scarcity," closely related to something called "opportunity cost." Time I spend filtering through commie scum, or entertaining big-brain centrist doubleposting faggots, is time I'm not spending on more productive endeavors. Every commie thread on the front page is a thread that could have been a useful thread on the front page.

>So illiterate ancoms arent too much of a big deal to me.

Considering your aversion to good punctuation, I wouldn't imagine you to be averse to any bunch of illiterates.

>right wing authoritarian facsists calling themselves libertarian anyways

Vid related, it's you.



Lol k sory for por punc*tution and you take this imageboard shit to seriously go make *an ancap board if it really bugs you ^cause iirc this isnt an ancap board….:";;;



>le murdoch murdoch cartoon

post immediately trashed



Very much agreed. You can argue perfectly on these anonymous boards and some self-appointed scholar will bring up the very same criticisms the very next day, as though they were his idea, and will be just as impervious to reason as the last guy. There's an overpowering sense that the internet rhetoric is a waste of time, because it is.

The key isn't education or internet arguments: it's marketing. We've got to sell liberty, like for money. We've got to sell people things that undermine the state, and keep the politics out of the advertising. When people do it because it's cheap, convenient, and safe, they'll invent justifications after the fact for why what they're doing is the right thing. All we really care about is that they do it, and that's much easier than trying to change their beliefs.

Besides, I find rhetoric to be much more effective in person. I've found that I can actually convert people slowly over time if I have the chance to make them feel listened to and show them how their concerns are much better addressed through liberty than through the state.


I've got ideas but still lack the technical skills to implement them. Hopefully the technology I'm trying to build will make economic civil disobedience convenient, financially attractive, and fairly safe.

File: fd73301828179f7⋯.jpg (22.02 KB, 500x385, 100:77, 1558545406551.jpg)


I've read quite a few free market authors like Rothbard, Mises, Sowell, and Hazlitt and they all make one grave mistake: the false assumption that a consumer is a rational being making rational choices. The consumer is no longer rational when companies are allowed to use all the psychological tricks in the book when it comes to advertising. Companies use celebrities, degeneracy, loud music, catchy music in advertisements to undermine the rationality of the consumer.

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



>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.



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.


File: daca3ad51694967⋯.jpg (726.46 KB, 2448x2448, 1:1, 1515509163939.jpg)

The subject is no longer rational when his rulers are allowed to use all the psychological tricks in the book: state idols, civic religion, national anthems, political campaigns—all are used by the elite to undermine the rationality of the ruled.



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



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

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 / bane / chori / choroy / dempart / jenny / nofap / vichan ]