/liberty/ - Liberty

>>101681

i think it must be coupled with cryptoanarchism

I feel like agorism is the best. But I wonder if a two pronged approach of agorism and some people running for local office would help. The ones running for local office could help encourage secessionism. But the one catch is for the people running for office cannot be fuckups and have to stick to their guns. This would be difficult given the nature of current day politics and some spergs might be attracted to this position of power. I still think agorism would be best as a long term solution but I think the local election could provide some reprieve for a little bit.

>What's the most effective way to kill statism?

All of them simultaneously. We won't make it by doing just one thing

>>101681

Agorist projects (silk road, etc) were all shut down by the FBI though. Plus black markets attract all kinds of criminal scum, which require laws to deal with.

>>101933

All agorist projects? What about the other silk road clones?

RASPEC WAMEN

Fucking moron.

>>101539

>>101540

oh wow, so now you're islamist too

>>99307

There will be plenty of prostitutes in ancapistan and they would probably be offering pretty cool services as it'll become an unregulated if you don't like used women then you can always ask the establishment for newcomers for a premium. Its already a thing IRL IIRC.

If you want legitimate companionship then I dont think any political system can help with that. Maybe like rental girlfriends?

I heard those guys over at neetsocs have subsidized prostitution though. Ancap prostitutes would probs be cooler though cause free market.

>>101584

> you can always ask the establishment for newcomers for a premium

you mean immigrants?

>>101752

>MUH STATE

No one mentioned your boogeymen, cuckchanner.

>>101755

You're the one who's lost. A rothbardian stateless society is by definition libertarian.

In speaking of free speech given how social media sites deplatform people for anything these days, Do you think the same would occur in ancapistan and how could it be countered?

>>101887

It might occur to some localized degree, but I doubt we'd see the systematic banning and deplatforming of certain groups that we see today. For starters, the only benefit of mass deplatforming is the pursuit of political power. There's no monetary or financial benefit to doing so, it's just very expensive virtue-signaling. If there's no government to influence, there's no payoff to pursuing political power, ergo no reason to use your social media service to pursue that end. You have to remember that Facebook and Twitter, with the subsidies, exclusive contracts, and regulatory favoritism they receive, aren't truly private organizations engaging in the voluntary market. Rather, social media serve as the DNC's propaganda ministry, they are political actors and should be treated as such.

>>101741

burden of proof

>>101389

pedo

>>100034

You know I'm really bothered by the first image because I know the only reason you went with DeWalt was their color scheme.

>>101445

kys fucking animeposter

>>100034

Selling the home made soaps made from natural plants in a leased shop owned and protected by the private soldiers.

>>101835

>>101409

This is excellent.

>>101409

>Actual pedophilia, i.e. attraction to prepubescents, is both rare and overwhelmingly homosexual.

citation needed

>>101221

removing the welfare state

>>101707

>>101770

Ok trannies, just kill all statists and done - no goverment.

>>90926

Because women are things

>>101722

Please do so I can send her pics of clowns jacking off in shit

>>101788

trannies can be ancaps too

>>101775

It has captions.

>>101710

>intellectuals

>introverted, shy, honest

WHAT

>>96138

Keep crying

Over 40% of world's chess champions are Jewish

Roughly 30% of Nobel prizes are given to Jews

40% of billionaires are Jewish while 40% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish

>>96219

forgot to quote >>96173

also WAIS is still used widely.

stalin hated cosmopolitism, right? but he hated nationalists too, right?

>>101734

Liberalism mixed with Marxism.

Democracy happened to them, what do you think? It's a system that encourages present-orientedness in the citizenry and rulers alike, while simultaneously encouraging sociopathic liars to enter the halls of power on the backs of parasites and rubes.

>>101735

>liberalism

why?

>>101610

Now I will assert your bullshit claims yes I am doubleposting, stay mad moralfag

>Do you also believe that someone buying a piece of land neighboring yours and setting up a rival business is a violation of your property rights and gives you justification to walk across the property line and shoot them in the head?

Such a situation could be justified depending on the framework we have as a contest, there can only be one company that does provide defense services with the legitimization necesary to be assigned the authority of trying to impose the defense rights of the third parties that pay them (their costumers), while there can be individuals who defend themselves in a consistent basis there cannot be more than one collective that does such a thing, as the mere existence of other collective supposes an instant aggresion towards the original one that possesed such authority, this is exactly the same reasons why labour unionist and communist should be purged or persecuted as the animals they are, you cannot propose a framework of ethics that respects those you do not follow the framework as it does promote evilness, thus, being, unethical or ineffective in its ethicness.

TLDR: Violent imposition of monopolies is perfectly ethical according to libertarian principles as it is just another form of market competition, which is different from individual survival and self-ownership, being business collective by definition.

>>101612

I don't agree with your reasoning but it doesn't matter because it's completely irrelevant. Assume that it's a cake store, since we're talking about whether or not decreasing the value of your property counts as aggression, not the violation of some sort of weird universal Highlander contract.

So initially, you owned a cake store, and that cake store had a monopoly on the cake market in our hypothetical town, thereby increasing the value of the cake store dramatically. Another person opens up a cake store, thereby harming your cake store's value by taking away its monopoly. Does that count as aggression in your mind?

Being abundant is not the same thing as literally not being scarce. No matter how abundant water or air may be, there is still a fixed quantity of air or water that exists on your property, and if that particular quantity of air or water is altered, your property rights have been violated. If the disc on which you store content is tampered with, then your property has been violated. If a different disc, owned by a different person, that happens to store very similar content, is altered, your personal disc is not altered. Nothing that you own has been tampered with. Your property has not been violated. No intellectual property is property at all, and outside of trademarks none of it can be reasonably enforced in the free market.

>As both a Disney and Activision-Blizzard shareholder you are literally taking food out of my mouth.

>as the owner of a state-granted monopoly, competition is literally taking food out of my mouth

>as the producer of an inferior good, higher quality goods are literally taking food out of my mouth

>as the owner of a terrible restaurant, bad reviews are literally taking food out of my mouth

Nigger-tier argument, go ask for gibs somewhere else you tripleposting cockmongler. If your ability to compete on the market has been reduced, make yourself more competitive instead of kvetching and begging for a handout.

>>101613

It all boils down at how damaging that value decrease is, the most fundamental base for all property rights is "might makes right", those unable to exercise any might as social leverage (i.e. animals) are unable to possess property, like Rhodesians defending their lands, if you are unable to defend something, then, it is not yours by definition.

>Does that count as aggression in your mind?

Funny to see what kind of buzzwords you use to defend your ridiculous points, self-defense is not an aggresion, is the violence uses with the purpuse of preventing or neutralizing more aggresions from OTHER people, those unable to defend themselves (like animals, or little children- i.e. see Rothbard's case for adoption markets) are not only unable to have property, but are also able to be uses LIKE property.

You are mumbling some socialistic-tier autistic bullshit bro, why is it so difficult for statists like you to understand that people should be free to defense their property and business to thrive and compete? You are literally comparing violence with aggresion like a statists compares the social contract with self-ownership & property-rights.

Suck it, retard.

>>101648

>It all boils down at how damaging that value decrease is

That's retarded. Rights violations are binary; they either happen or they do not. You can't violate rights halfway, so it's nonsensical to assume that severity plays into whether a rights violation has occurred.

>the most fundamental base for all property rights is "might makes right"

No, it isn't. First because that implies rights are relative (by definition they can't be), second because there are wide variety things which you can enforce by might which are decidedly not property. Propertarianism is gay and you should strongly consider electroshock therapy if you believe in htis.

>>93524

Thats kinda fucked up but hot tbh

what website should i use to find a waifu?

>>101552

Outside.

>>101556

tell more