/liberty/ - Liberty

>>19471

s/die of starvation/die in The Great Chimpout Riots of 2017

>>19437

>muh automation

The luddite movement started in 1811. They've been predicting the same thing for over 200 years. How much more goddam empirical evidence is needed? How many more centuries do you need to be proven wrong for this shit to finally disappear?

Do multiracial states really result in war, or is this just scaremongering?

>>19501

Die capitalist pig B^)

>>19508

Yugoslavia

>>19510

>Yugoslavia

>multiracial

>>19310

Technically speaking, slaves were considered inequal for the sole purpose of voting. Freed niggers were still one whole vote.

>>19296

It's pretty clear, but the next line makes it even clearer. "That they are endowed by their creator…" etc, etc.

>>19297

>Except niggers, of course. ;-)

Actually free black men had the vote into the 1810s and 20s, until it was stripped from them State by State as racism (as one of the main excuses for slavery) spread throughout the country.

The more you know.

>>19298

>Historically, it has been commonly believed that men are not born equal.

Hit the nail on the head. Romans, and Greeks before them, believed those who had been enslaved had lesser spirits than those who were freemen. This idea, that slaves are morally and spiritually below non-slaves, was the norm throughout all of human history, including slavery in the American South. Each society invented its own form of "lesser-ness" to apply to the enslaved, and when faced with a lack of "visible" (not immaterial) differences they would invent metaphysical inferiority for the enslaved.

After all, if you like having slaves, you need an excuse to tell yourself that it's alright that you're not the slave here and that that poor guy is, that something concrete separates the two of you and your status.

>>19310

Te hnically speaking ammendents are part of the constitution.

That doesn't mean I don't reject the 16th as unconstitutional

>>19506

Parts of the constitution can't be unconstitutional.

Equal under God*

>>11774

You present a false dichotomy.

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe some government is necessary, but simply that it must be limited to and focused on a narrow set of things and do them well rather than do everything poorly at great expensive.

So yes in Liberland there must be taxes, of course.

Let me give you a scenario. Let's say you live where I live and want to sell your vehicle to some other person through craigslist.

1) The buyer has to pay sales tax on the amount

2) The seller to pay income tax on the same amount

3) The buyer has to get it inspected, registered, insured and licensed and these are all completely separate fees that are tantamount to taxes.

That's like triple dipping here.

While on the subject of cars every time you buy gas you pay a gasoline tax and sales tax and the business is paying a tax and the trucking company is taxed and everyone is taxed. As a private citizen you probably pay municipal and city taxes for roads, but then there are also toll roads and parking meters. And all sorts of weird parking laws – where I live it is run like a scam where cops just write bullshit parking tickets for city revenue. We're talking a $400 ticket for obstructing an unmarked crosswalk. Literally this happened to me. In fact everything is taxed in every way imaginable. We pay all this "transportation tax," but still have to buy a bus ticket or metro ticket at cost. So many working class people today walk out their door thinking "what bullshit way is the system going to squeeze me today for my last dollar."

And where do these taxes go? Do they go to services provided for ordinary people? No, of course not. They go into the pockets of billionaires and bankers. Literally, from your pocket straight into theirs through the magic of fractional reserve banking, corporate welfare, and a fiat currency syPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>11774

You know there are other ways to look at that, right? Such as a court case can't be held if the defendant can't get an attorney?

You do know there are also voluntary means of raising cash such as a lottery or through land development on land that has been privately bought by an individual but donated to the government, right?

>>11774

>Libertarianism means no taxes ever, and anarchy

>>11774

if the court system werent extremely shitty you wouldnt really need money for legal defense

>>18977

>in liberland there must be taxes

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

TRIGGERED

Approaches (I'm not saying whether they work or not, just saying that I've seen various libertarians hold these up as viable approaches):

- Unbanking/underbanking

- Using gold/Bitcoin

- Using hard encryption

- Going gray/black market

- 'Going invisible'

- Entrepreneurism

- Making a successful 'State insurance' company like Hoppe suggested

- Primal/GTFO of the medical system.

- Tax evasion

- Offgridding

- Seasteading

- Not talking to the police

- Legal activism (EFF/ACLU/etc.)

- State activism (TAC/Texas Gold Bank/etc.)

- Basic advocacy/protesting/outreach

IMO, that last one gets overlooked a lot more than I think it should. It sounds the lamest, but it's probably the most important.

What about Cruz? I literally knew nothing about him but I was reading on his website and he seems to be pretty loyal to the constitution except when it comes to being an Israeli slave and thinking America is supposed to be a "world military leader" like everyone else, but that's expected. Since Cruz seems to favor small government, maybe he's the best bet to at least not make things any worse?

>>19047

>>19047

>apartment listed under an untraceable trust

Please elaborate

>>19474

>on this rock i build my church, and it just kinda vanishes

>>19226

>>19465

Apostolic succession is treated a bit different between the Orthodox and the Catholics.

For us, the heads of the church are not infallible beings nor do they hold absolute power in any sense of the word. While it may be an oversimplification, they simply pass on the traditions and keep the order to make sure heretics don't sprout up. They are for the most part "geographical spiritual father figures."

The pope has exceeded his station and therefore the argument of apostolic succession is only partially correct.

>>19475

It's more a matter of the gates of hades not opening so long as the spiritual contract of succession is maintained.

>>19475

Well actually, that's what you'd be implying if Peter actually was just the first of many popes within the apostolic tradition, since Peter died. Sounds ridiculous, yes? That's because Peter was never the Church. People are not the Church. Jesus built his church upon Peter. Matthew 16:18 says "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Jesus was not giving any authority to Peter or any of Peter's descendants. He was simply doing exactly what he said. It's written plainly: Jesus built his Church upon Peter.

Read the rest of Matthew 16.

"From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”"

And that is what I would say to you. You are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man. Don't every prescribe another human being with spiritual authority.

Romans 3:10-18

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes."

>>19482

>>19478

>nigger detected

>>19494

>Thinking a nigger would even be able to form a theological argument

top kek

>>19324

Well, snake girls still suck

>>19282

>No female happy merchant

>>19498

What else do you expect from /leftypol/?

>>19411

>>19412

Some surprisingly mainstream political scientists have maintained for decades that Nazi Germany had horribly weak institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Mommsen#Functionalism_and_the_.22Weak_Dictator.22_Thesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Broszat#Functionalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw#Structuralist_views

>>19423

My thoughts exactly.

The Holocaust isn't really worth the time to investigate.

Basically

There was no need for America to enter into either WW1 or 2, and FDR provoked the japs into attacking Pearl Harbour so he had a reason to. Shit had nothing to do with the holocaust whatsoever

Numbers don't really matter to me. If it was 200,000 people who were gassed or 6,000,000 people who were gassed, the core concept remains the same: people were gassed. While it's proven that the numbers are unreliable, uncertain, and exaggerated, that isn't an argument winner.

The fact of the matter is that no-one was killed in gas chambers. There weren't gas chambers. The fact that most Holocaust survivors talk about gas chambers, and that there weren't gas chambers, means they are lying or unreliable in some other way. At the very least, the person acquainted with Holocaust revisionism on even the most basic level should be skeptical about the whole thing and find it hard to believe what all the -bergs and -steins have to say about how their people suffered.

Surely, after all, the Germans suffered a whole lot more.

>honeypotchan

If you're going to shill a different image board, at least use that one with Lynxchan that all the shitposters love so much but never use.

This has an onion address and I can disable jvscript. This is (somewhat ironically, I believe), the only forum I know of that allows this.

>>19197

s/forum/liberty forum/

On a side note, fuck all the libertarian Facebook groups. Do they have any idea what the fuck they're doing?

>>19198

All they do is shitpost pictures of cities in communist and capitalist countries.

>>19173

Daily Reminder That Masterchan is An Alphabet Soup Honeypot

>>19417

>19 fucking 71 man. 1971.

The year everything started going to shit, thanks Nixon

>>19435

I agree that it's not that useful for a lot of reasons

We should keep in mind that Switzerland has less spending and a freer market than the US.

And like I said the other things like demographic displacement and low skilled immigration will mess with the data.

More research is needed!

>>19435

It could reduce poverty if it gives more resources /spending to poor people obv

>>19427

>whoever made that graph is a marxist. wich means they think people not dying from poverty is a good thing.

Nice definition of Marxism you have there m8.

>>19427

False flag leftypol get out ree

>>19451

>>>/pol/

>>>/out/

>>>/lit/

>>19422

>le hoppean autist face

You are the worst poster on this board besides the fucking /pol/ retard. Why you even come here rather than jerking off in /pol/ over how awesome the divine right of kings is is beyond me. The one thing the french revolution got right is that all monarchists ought to be put to fucking death.

>>19485

>The SJW-tier French Revolution did a thing right

>>>/leftypol/

pls go and stay go

>>19488

Cry some more about it you little bitch. Sic semper tyrannis.

>>18987

The Anarcho-Statists of Spain by Bryan Caplan is a good read as to why all they produced was the same shit as the Marxists states did, only in miniature. What was supposedly run by the workers was run by the anarchist vanguard as soon as the workers started to run their co-ops like capitalists and worry about cost vs revenue. Catalonia was essentially just a totalitarian micro-state with an agrarian economy and exaggerated propaganda.

Of course, all the criticisms about not being stateless can be turned back on Ancap, with its silly polycentric chieftainships, but that's fine by me as I'm a filthy classical liberal state lover.

I don't think it's possible to not have a state.

>>19042

Was the Paris Commune truly a commune?

>>19483

*would be ineffective

>12th of February

Be patient. Shit this serious doesn't get resolved overnight because there will be big restitution involved and the cops won't just hand it out willy nilly.

>>19459

>because there will be big restitution involved and the cops won't just hand it out willy nilly.

Lol, the tax payers are the ones paying for it, not the police officers involved.

>>19464

This. Plus the officers involved might get put on trial, but chances are the court will claim they were justified, because the guy pulled something that remotely looked like a gun or something and the cops feared for their lives. Bunch of pussies. This is why you DON'T dress up as terrorists when you take someone in.

>>19464

this triggers me

I called again today. First I was connected to some detective. The guy was fucking worthless. He pretty much told me that he'll tell me shit, because I don't have a legitimate interest in the matter. I told him that I'm from the public and that this legitimizes my interest well enough, he responded by getting more and more offended and telling me I knew everything I do from the media, so I should better not prejudge the policeman who fired the shot. I told him that I pretty much know everything I have to do already. And I think I do: Guys in balaclavas shoot an innocent men in the face. Even if he had drawn a weapon first, they wouldn't have been justified. I simply see no way that this thing could be justified, not if half the information I have was false. Not without some serious assrape of the constitution. Then he ended the call unceremoniously, and so did I. Not sure which one of us did so first.

Then I called again, got connected to complaint management. The women on the line (who was very polite, for a change) told me that because this was a running criminal procedure, I would not get any information, which is what I expected, but didn't give a fuck about, considering I and millions of other taxpayers paid for this clusterfuck. Not that there's a proper law about this, mind you, that's just something the police doesn't do out of principle, because privacy is holy. That is, unless they walk into your store during 2 AM and take you into custody for everyone to see. Anyway, then she said she couldn't help me, because I didn't bother to write down the names of the police officers I were connected with, and apparently, the police has no central registry of incoming calls or other method of tracking down who I was talking to a minute ago. I didn't tell her to ask the NSA for this information, because she was actually a pretty nice lady who probably hasn't shot anybody in the face last month. Not the end of the world, because my complaint was pretty much "these guys are assholes", but if I am a querulant, I can at least go all the way.

Plz subscribe to my blog ;_;