[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / choroy / dempart / doomer / jenny / lewd / lounge / mde ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

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

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 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.


Assess this statement:

Anarcho-capitalism isn't an abolition of government, it's an abolition of the state. The point is to put the power to government entirely on individuals.

It seems like most casual conservatives consider the spectrum in terms of "more government" (left) and "less government" (right). I noticed when watching this new JBS video that this presents an easy case against all forms of anarchism, since it logically follows that no government -> no structure -> chaos

Rothbard used this same view of the left-right spectrum since he called himself "far right" for advocating an abolition of the state

Start the vid at 9:37

9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>brown shirts created anarchy

im not sure about it


Rothbard said that there was nothing surprising about libertarians being with conservatives of the old right and with the anti-war left. I think what mattered to him was not where someone is between peace and war, but where he is heading; he seemed to think it important that he become more liberal throughout his life.

An unspoken implication, in the video and elsewhere, is that if everyone unanimously voted for something, it should be done. No such implication exists and laws are good and bad irrespective of voting or lack thereof.


>most casual conservatives consider the spectrum in terms of "more government" (left) and "less government" (right).

<absolute monarchism is the total absence of government, guys!

I mean, there's a reason y'all get taken as nothing but an undesireable plague of morons…



>the spectrum in terms of "more government" (left) and "less government" (right)

These terms treat "government" and "state" as synonymous. If you were to translate the "big government/small government" terms into somewhat more accurate political terminology, it'd be "more state" and "less state" (and of course there's plenty of room for improvement on those, but I'm not interested in laboring that point here; I trust you get the idea). The "government" = structured social coordination definition isn't what is being used in the left/right = more/less government spectrum, so switching over to it distorts the discussion a bit.

This means that the lack of a state (anarchy) is not synonymous with the lack of social organization (I've heard the term "anomie" used). It's entirely possible to have structured social coordination, and institutions that provide it, without said institutions having a territorial monopoly (which is a state). Polycentric legal orders have a long history of success across every inhabited part of the world.


>private law doesn't exist

>what is history

We've grown accustomed to a higher caliber of bad argument than this. This is seriously even weaker than "muh roads". Step it up, would you?


>If anything the removal of the goverment would allow others greater ability to steal from you without repercussions

It would allow a greater ability to hire whoever I want or organize how I want to defend myself and my neighbors. If I wanted to start a neighborhood defensive firearms club, the state would have some very violent things to say about it, and that's AFTER restricting the kinds of firearms we legally have access to. Without them, the neighborhood watch could arm itself with whatever we want, or go in for a discounted group rate with an insuraPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



Oh, I don't see any ancaps that claim an abolition of government would lead to stealing being impossible. I don't think your claim that theft would rise in anarchy is true, but even if it were to do that, so what? That society considers government theft as legitimate is both inconsistent and continually harms. Stealing should be illegal, and, as government always grows when accepted, any form of "necessary evil"-argument is void. Statism lead to the point at which the decision of one criminal could eliminate most of humanity (if not all), anarchy led to uber.

File: 48411ec3ccd3c69⋯.png (154.06 KB, 500x512, 125:128, pphonest.png)

File: 1406c3858abb206⋯.png (305.13 KB, 610x620, 61:62, elonshrugged.png)


This sub often rants on about how government workers are terrible, but is silent about how private companies can be complicit in the state's activities like Merkel having Zuckerberg going after "hate speech" online or companies like Ratheon, Boeing, or Lockhead Martin profiting from the military state in the US. Heck even Elon Musk is a statist who gets his funding from government subsidies. If government was a prostitute, then these companies would be buyers.

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



But it's okay for a company to accept exactly the amount of subsidies required to reduce their effective tax rate to zero, right?



Maybe, i dunno. Find a moralfag and ask him, these matters are not ones i want to judge subjectively.


File: 1b1a87962504bdb⋯.gif (75.99 KB, 427x640, 427:640, straightjacket.gif)


Maybe, i dunno. Find a moralfag and ask him, these matters are not ones i want to judge subjectively.



Fuck, wrong thread doublepost, sorry.



People are not guilty based on what they recieve from the state. They are guilty based on the degree to which they use the state or gives it power. A person who gets the neetbux and does not help or use the state in any way whatsoever is not guilty at all, a person who lobbies for laws or regulations, votes and sees to it that gov't rules are enforced wherever he goes is incredibly guilty, even if he did not recieve any money from the state.

File: 51f0238e57b9530⋯.jpg (73.69 KB, 500x667, 500:667, 51f0238e57b9530c4183b5b0a0….jpg)


Capitalism doesn't work.

Pic related. Imagine a construction company having to buy 10 bricks from this guy on the street, and then having to go to another guy on another street to buy 10 more bricks, and then to another guy on yet another street to buy some more, and so on… until they reach an amount of 10 000 bricks. It would take ages before any work is done.

How else would construction happen if the government didn't produce all the bricks and build shit for you? There are many examples like this, but they prove that ancap, markets, businesses, etc… are just a fantasy, and only fascism (but more specifically, national-communism) is the driving force of civilization, at least the commies got this part right.

25 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Ancaps aren't edgy. You fuckers are as status quo as they get. Your height of relevance was in the early 2010s among fedora-tipping bronies who lack any sense of self-awareness.


I mean, your main issue is with the quotes? Or, is it me basically stating the fact that China and America have been friendly since the 70s and have worked together to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War?

I also mentioned the influence of Proudhon's thought being most prominent on EVERYONE but communists.

>That's not leftypol, retard

Haven't went to leftypol since a year ago.

>Nice strawman

You then proceed to screech 'literally a leftist' like it's supposed to be an insult. Political labels don't constitute an insult. It's like me trying to call you an ancap as an insult.

The problem with you is that you see things in terms left vs right without understanding WHY you hate 'leftists'. WHY is leftism bad? If you say because of low-IQ minorities, then my views shouldn't be an issue, considering how I'm against them as much if not more fervently than you. If it's because you despise the 'lower classes', then surely you'd be fine with wealthy Muslim and poo-in-the-loo immigrants? You'd be fine with the rampant liberalism of the wealthy elites? You'd be fine with (((them))).

You criticize Nazis as 'feels over reals', yet you base your entire ideology off your feelings towards words and semantics instead of actual economic conditions, history, and cultural/racial differences. You just want to be as 'right-wing' as possible out of sheer hatred for the 'leftist'. It is no different from the antifag adopting the hammer-and-sickle despite him probably being the sort of person who'd end up in a gulag in such a state. You don't have real principles or matPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



Oh man, your shocking comparison/insult towards capitalism in general and ancaps in particular has really changed my mind. Clearly we're all fools here, just look at that silly idiot with no pants and that jew with an erect cock. You're a master of discourse and argumentation. I'm NAZBOL now!



>Haven't went to leftypol since a year ago.

<I don't post on /leftypol/ exclusively

Sure thing, leftyshit

>you then proceed to screech 'literally a leftist' like it's supposed to be an insult

It's not an insult. It's a description of the most degenerate, wasteful and cancerous creature ever imaginable, which you fit perfectly. If you don't like it, get a brain and grow some balls.

>you base your entire ideology off your feelings towards words and semantics instead of actual economic conditions, history, and cultural/racial differences

t. leftist who knows nothing beyond feelz>realz ideologies

>The problem with you is that you see things in terms left vs right without understanding WHY you hate 'leftists'. WHY is leftism bad

Oh, little lefty pussy is sad noone joing a circlejerk. How sad.

>Also, I only namefagged because I knew I wasn't a 'normal leftist' and didn't really fit into Leftypol's 'culture'

>namefaggot is a leftist faggot snowflake

Checks out, you dumb trash. The only difference between you and the stupidest trannypol shitposter is that you add namefaggotry to make sure nobody confuses someone worthy of absolutely anything with cancerous scum you are.

>You don't have real principles or material interests

>How dare you not follow the class structure i made up!!1!

>You just want to LARP as the ultimate' rightist' to win a dick-measuring contest

Oh, another projection. You are even lower than animals as even they have more capacity of self-reflection.

>Anyways, I'm out of here. Clearly, you faggots are no different from leftpol and leftypol in terms of autism.

He said on the road to leftypol.

>Good luck being shills for (((them)))

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>I also mentioned the influence of Proudhon's thought being most prominent on EVERYONE but communists.

On everyone but MLs. Most of communism is nonmarxist, and marx, actually, ripped proudhon off more than once.





File: 491941da813ceaf⋯.png (184.97 KB, 504x261, 56:29, ClipboardImage.png)


What should governments have done after the subprime mortgage crisis? Was there any way to encourage economic growth that would have actually worked, whether or not the banks were bailed out? The ones they did try with QE/low interest rates (caused an asset bubble), austerity (caused public service quality to decline), and stimulus spending (caused an increase in public debt for no discernible gain) failed to prevent economic stagnation for years in advanced economies while China and India significantly narrowed the gap in gross output.

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



There's a reason why the bursting of housing bubble is worst than the dot com bubble. It is because the government involvement in the housing market which lead the tax payer losing their money especially when you have 401K as apart of your life saving investment. At least in the dot com bubble, there's were no tax payer money were involved, only private companies. Although, the FED were also at its fault for artificially micro managing the interest rate without applying the fundamental of supply and demand to reflect real value of interest rate. The only rational step the government should have done was to amend the 1913 FED act and replace it with something more fairer legislation. Also, the government shouldn't have involved in the market in the first place.



Decriminalize the issue of competing currencies.

Abolish all taxes and tariffs, but failing that, replace them all with a single flat tax on corporate profits (it's effectively like a sales tax that the customers don't have to see). Make this tax at the local level, and allow each higher level of government to tax only the levels of government immediately below them.

Abolish all welfare programs, but failing that, replace them with a single continuous-rate negative income tax. Filing is voluntary, and only citizens qualify.

Abolish the military, decriminalize all weapons, return to issuing letters of marque and reprisal, and auction off all military equipment to the private sector.

Decriminalize all substances.

Prohibit publicly-funded retirement programs, but honor existing obligations. Transition public sector retirement plans to the private market. Going forward, public employees may not receive compensation in the form of promises of future payment.

Government representatives may only be paid the mean average of their constituents' wages, including the unemployed, reduced by a function of the public debt.

Give federal land to the states.

Abolish all agencies not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Shy of abolishing the government entirely, that's what the government should always do about everything.



enjoy your nuclear wasteland dotted with bunkers and no useable water ya moron


File: ec714043cb37f9e⋯.jpg (44.23 KB, 750x585, 50:39, sunglasses.jpg)


>not even an ancapball

Shitposters have gotten so lazy, what is the world coming to?


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Let the market fix itself, no matter how painful it might.

File: 722b9c3cc62cd28⋯.jpg (93.23 KB, 403x352, 403:352, 010.jpg)


>democucks, republicucks, "moderates" and other bread and circus cucks of all kinds

Since the Jap has started stirring shit up at 4cuck again, this place has been flooding with cancerous normie scum the likes of which we have never seen before, and it seems like they're here to stay, but since the commie BO has taken an anti-market approach at moderation, and sees no need to improving the quality of his board or to compete in the board market, it is up to us now to find a new home.

So tell us old pal, where do you see yourself posting about capitalism in the next 6 months? Don't have to mention it explicitly, we don't want this plague to follow us there.

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


File: ce6ab4bcad9750e⋯.png (997.25 KB, 1000x667, 1000:667, ClipboardImage.png)


Tell me, are these "poltards" in the room with us, right now?



Go back sucking white cucks, confederatefaggot



Awww, babby gets triggered by bad words. Maybe you should fuck off back to tumblr where no one could call you a NIGGER.



Wow, guys, it's an actual BLM specimen here. What a rare sight in these places.



>We know you're dumb, NEETsoc

Who is "we"? All I see is one hysterical bitch.


It was funny the first few posts, but this newfag scum should get lost now.

File: 6d2dc8cbea28e35⋯.jpg (1.37 MB, 3671x2064, 3671:2064, foto_no_exif (189).jpg)


do you travel? show us your photos from your travels

what country/state did you like best and which u hated?

picrel photo i took this vacation




File: 9398fc97d89b06d⋯.png (26.3 KB, 586x196, 293:98, ClipboardImage.png)


Did she violate the NAP?



She tried to force her father to poo in the loo instead of the street, that's tantamount to rape.


File: fa66d7671cde736⋯.png (28.6 KB, 953x575, 953:575, 1347084347429 (2).png)

File: ec9374a568c81f4⋯.jpg (16.38 KB, 300x339, 100:113, Margaret_Thatcher_19831.jpg)


>fucks up Britain and British economy



File: c5b931a26764245⋯.png (45.69 KB, 480x290, 48:29, 040813krugman6-blog480.png)

shameless selfbump

File: feb3bc620a3ab7f⋯.webm (1.08 MB, 640x640, 1:1, Z3mpeUB.webm)


>Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life (acronymed: SITG) is a 2018 nonfiction book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Taleb's thesis is that skin in the game is necessary for fairness, commercial efficiency, and risk management, as well as being necessary to understand the world.[1] The book is part of Taleb's multi-volume philosophical essay on uncertainty, titled the Incerto, which also includes Fooled by Randomness (2001), The Black Swan (2007–2010), The Bed of Procrustes (2010–2016), and Antifragile (2012). The book is dedicated to "two men of courage": Ron Paul,[2] "a Roman among Greeks"; and Ralph Nader,[3] "Greco-Phoenician saint".[4][5]

>Ron Paul



What's wow-worthy here?



rą pą

File: f962983d0db0e49⋯.png (98.3 KB, 2054x1514, 1027:757, welfare-cliff1.png)


Did the growth of welfare programs by the State crowd out the church, and subsequently caused the secularization seen in many places in the West?


Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Not just welfare. The state has crowded out the church in almost every function it provides, from a neighborhood community to moral advice, and replaced it with a civic religion.




File: 1a55fb12ff7e3ca⋯.jpg (166.25 KB, 1174x754, 587:377, 1a55fb12ff7e3ca390bc6e848b….jpg)


Do the robots / incels have a valid perspective on modern society? Are they products of a nanny-state culture? Will rising rates of autism destroy society?

Final question: Why do so many people hate incels? Is this simply blaming the victim?

84 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Equating incels/MRAs/etc. to the left rings hollow when there are numerous laws on the books discriminating against men and creating an environment where it's literally illegal to pursue decent girls for fear of getting slapped with false rape accusations and other nonsense. There are no laws preventing a communist from opening a business and making money. Communists often argue that the laws are written in favor of big business, but this really only feeds into the libertarian/ancap argument that this means the market isn't free. Any similarities between the left and incel arguments ultimately come from the fact that somebody is distorting the marketplace in their favor by using the government. In the case of the left, that somebody is the porkies, while for incels the Chads and Stacies are the ones doing it. But at least the incels generally have enough sense to realize that it's a market issue, while the left has the idea that they can use the government to solve a problem that only exists because of the government.



This is a great post. I had a similar theory before, but couldn't word it well enough. Screencapped for future generations.


>But at least the incels generally have enough sense to realize that it's a market issue

Do they though?



problem of some incels is that they dont grasp biology of reproduction and attraction and sex and gender



>sex and gender

Same shit.


File: 112deccac5eb853⋯.jpg (86.25 KB, 251x257, 251:257, shrug.jpg)


Hi, social democrat here interested in the rational and reasoned debate that you liberals are so famous for.

Anyways, I just want to get a few answers from you guys:

1) I often hear from libertarians and the like that “taxation is theft”. This is repeated often, but it seems to me to be quite a ridiculous assertion. How do you respond to someone who asks you to biblically justify your assertion that taxation is theft when the Lord never decreed it as such? The ancient Israelites, after all, had systems of taxation and not once, to my knowledge, did a prophet ever inveigh against taxation as a moral evil or equivocate it with theft. The only reason tax collectors in the New Testament were designated as sinners was because they were helping an occupying and alien force (the Romans) extort arbitrary amounts from the Jewish people. And it is noted that even then, despite being forced to pay unreasonable amounts coerced via a discriminatory state apparatus imposed by others with no chance at real political representation, that Jesus still instructs the Jews to pay.

2) How do libertarians justify the clear evils present within the existing capitalist framework that the vast majority of the world lives under today? To illustrate this, today my 5 year old phone was on the fritz and I was thinking of getting a new one. Curious, I tried to search for a replacement “fair” phone, i.e. one made respecting the rights of workers, ensuring that they are treated well, sourced with materials not extracted from conflict zones like the Democratic Republic of Congo, environmentally friendly as possible, etc. Unfortunately, I was not able to do so. The farthest I could get was the FairPhone, but a closer examination of just one of the points that I was looking for (worker rights), revealed that despite their rhetoric they were unable to substantially improve working conditions for their Chinese workforce. Even then, the phone makers were charging a premium (I think it was 500 euros). This means that I literally cannot buy a phone without contributing in some way to an active war or abuse of workers or environmental degradation. What is the libertarian response to such market failure?

3) Libertarians and liberalPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

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


File: e5e3a32d87f8727⋯.png (304.12 KB, 640x509, 640:509, ClipboardImage.png)


>I fail to see why a religious response grounded in the Bible does not qualify as a “reasoned, argumentative response”.

Because it's an appeal to authority and not an argument. You're just pointing to some passage, calling it a day, and turning off your brain.

>I could say that libertarians use “taxation is theft” as a very flimsy rhetorical shield to justify their refusal to pay for any common good that benefits the community.

That equivalency is false, for a number of reasons. First is the simple fact that conservatives, and other advocates of lower taxes, consistently donate to charity far more often and in greater amounts than their leftist counterparts, so any claim that conservatives don't care about "the community" have no basis in reality. Second, to paraphrase Bastiat, being against the state doing something is not at all the same as being against that thing. If these "common goods" were really beneficial to the community, individuals in the community would be willing to pay for them.

>I mean we can quibble for forever over definitions of theft but at the end of the day there’s one section for Tax and another for Theft in the dictionary

Funny you should say that. By doing so I notice you've sidestepped my challenge and failed to contradict my definition. I suspect you do this because you can't contradict it.

>Even Adam Smith

Adam Smith also supported public schools, never understood comparative advantage, and used the Labor Theory of Value. He was just an economist, not some messiah, and I'm under no obligation to blindly follow a policy because he liked it. Maybe that kind of language appeals to you, but I really don't care for appeals to authority.

>despite being a Protestant

Suddenly it all makes sense.

>led me to believe that he is not a genuine Christian

"Gays and atheists go to heaven LMAO" didn't tip you off?

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



> I could say that libertarians use “taxation is theft” as a very flimsy rhetorical shield to justify their refusal to pay for any common good that benefits the community.

How are libertarians justifying this? The onus is upon you to justify why we must pay taxes.



I'm going to occams razor your religion and moral values away towards objective questions.

How do you suppose that social democracy brings greater social good when by depriving the markets, you are taking away things from producers in the complex economy. How will reducing investment to consumer goods make things better once the goods run out?

If you really want to do something nice for people, give to charity and other friendly things with fellows that share your values. DON'T try to break the system because it isn't following your values. It is too big and too wise for any government to manage, and such a government will abuse such controlling supervision if they had a chance to do greater evil than good.


First of all, we're not liberals. Most here are ancaps.

There's a certain difference vetween having the owner of the world declare that you should give back some of his delegations, and having some human government force you to give them your stuff.

Also, I'm not really sure that the pre-saul taxes were really taxes (i.e involuntary). Of course, under the kings, there were taxes, which is one of the many thing Samuel tried to convince the Israelis with to not have a human king (Samuel 8). No king but Christ.


File: 4d31585c77a5581⋯.jpg (468.92 KB, 1080x1341, 120:149, 83b5f2e51116c775b22ae845a0….jpg)

>rational and reasoned debate that you liberals are so famous for

>you liberals

File: 2a80e5001a3a1ce⋯.jpeg (70.69 KB, 800x450, 16:9, meme man.jpeg)


How do we stop internet censorship of social media companies influencing legislation without surrendering to onerous regulation of state censorship, foreign subversion, or giving in to the vulgarities of the mob?

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



>Judicial activism is a huge problem but it isn't total and ubiquitous

It really is.

>the SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled in favor of the Christian bakers

But they didn't rule against the Civil Rights Act, and by the time they undid the lower court's decision regarding that bakery, the damage had been done. You can point to isolated victories, and I'm very glad these victories have occurred, but those are strictly tactical victories. What you're suggesting is to expend a strategic weapon to gain tactical victories, which isn't going to work in your favor at all in the long run.

>And, once again, SMACA protects leftist views as well as right-wing ones.

Civil Rights Act was meant to protect whites as well as niggers. PBS and NPR were supposed to be non-partisan entities. But guess what? Only niggers sue for discrimination and both PBS and NPR are communist propaganda. We've danced this dance before, the federal bureaucracy is firmly in control of the left regardless of who holds political office

>Their investors and their monopoly status by the nature of their service.

And who do you think maintains that monopoly? The FCC uses regulatory capture practices to ensure they don't have competition, alphabet soup and various foreign governments pay top dollar for the datamining done by these companies. Facebook and Twitter are not "private entities" any more than Planned Parenthood or PBS are. They are propaganda ministries of the left and should be treated as such. If you had the slightest amount of economic literacy you would have realized this on your own. So, yes. It is. Sorry!

>So what? What even is your point?

My point is that your precious law can and will be used against you, even if you think you've structured the language such that it can't. "Censorship" will be redefined to mean whatever the left wants it to mean, and they'll use it to further stymie right-wing influence online. You'Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 0a598534ab79120⋯.jpg (105.1 KB, 400x345, 80:69, you keep using that word.jpg)

File: 22c6f58928563b7⋯.jpg (92.79 KB, 938x699, 938:699, othepajamaboy.jpg)


>confuses immediate profitability of undercutting competition with share value

>Taking over the social media for the Clinton Foundation rather than independent American industrialists

>expanding state media to include webspace to select obama's hand picked successor.



>on /liberty/

>nazcoms get physically removed from private property for advocating hatred of the owners of the commercial services due to their wealth or often false positive racial hatred

>legally not obligated to bake the nazi fag cake due to moral convictions.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

>pressured by shareholders not to babysit shitposting on server racks that could get an expensive Subpoena

>because corporate lawyer billing hours are free, and in no such way affect the competitive pricing that drives more valuable customers away

>demand to socialize costs in a globalized market space where customers, profits, and revenue move towards less autistic legal environments as the unmovable fixed costs shut down the net.

>Free speech




>I will sell you a cake for a strike price of five dollars.

>Psych! It wuz a social experiment, bro!

lolbertarians have been on the leading edge of these laws, as it's a basic premise of market theory.

> PBS and NPR are communist propaganda.

This is true; there's a lot of crafting and gardening shows.



What are you even trying to say here?


Why I'm Against Antitrust Laws


Google CEO Gets a Surprise Visitor! 😆


File: fd94737f2acf614⋯.jpg (231.82 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, 1502658501130575132.jpg)


hurray new terrorist attack in strasbourg today :D maybe it will wake these cucks up

File: 461a1904114c4d0⋯.png (32.56 KB, 192x192, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)


when you mention their heroes were jews, especially those WN ones?

I don't get it. they usually end up dodging the question and spam helicopter nonsense at you. they're ones to talk about something "not being an argument" when all they do is dodge the question like an oven.

are they even real?

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


Because we don't believe that something being made by jews changes it in any significant way. Especially if it's a priori, only marxists believe that different people have different types of valid logic.



With Marx, I don't know. Maybe it's his hatred for capitalists, which are of course often jews. With the libertarian jews, you're wrong. They're individualists, so when they critisize Israel, general behaviour of jews or jewish tradition, they don't neccesarily mean themselves. And, with some of those cases, like with Block, we know they don't.


File: abc5d9d0818c691⋯.png (318.96 KB, 1028x880, 257:220, 1517182797584.png)

File: 98ec5e327c51009⋯.png (20.47 KB, 246x200, 123:100, 04f.png)

File: c93f20e844eeb08⋯.jpg (74.52 KB, 960x784, 60:49, dd511394aeac3616b32b72ad27….jpg)

File: 6524bf899adc563⋯.jpg (32.64 KB, 465x269, 465:269, 4f45d453c7fe26f8b06d0cca20….jpg)


>Block is actually a jew


I've never really seen ancaps care about jews, not sure what you mean.


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 / abdl / choroy / dempart / doomer / jenny / lewd / lounge / mde ]