/liberty/ - Liberty

Only neo-reactionaries think it was bad and side with the monarchists.

If it wasn't for that cunt Robespierre then i probably would side with the Jacobins.

While the revolution itself inevitably turned into a massive shitshow. I still like to believe it had a role in the emergence of classical liberalism and the relatively free democracies we have today.

Monarchies shouldn't exist as much as the violent revolutions against them.

>>11917

Yeah it wasn't actually necessary to kill the king or his family… or execute everyone who, even while pro-revolution, weren't good enuf for robespear xdd

>>11940

>Liberty

>Beheading people

>Believing in guilt of association

Try harder, Rob.

>>11944

>guilt by association

Corrected.

>>11944

>>>/monarchy/

>>11954

>Implying you have to be a monarchist to believe murdering children is wrong

>>11961

The western world murders children all the time. There is a fair bet some component of the electronics you are using, or the clothes you are wearing were created in part by child slave labor.

But you don't care because they are that perfect combination of not-white and far-away.

>>11965

lool every commie is an SJW amrite? :DDD let's talk about video games tbh

Generally I look at Louis XVI sympathetically, it's not his fault that France was in such dire straits, that was mainly due to the retarded shenanigans of Louis XIV, and somewhat XIII and XV. Robespierre was a real cunt, and while it was possible that the revolution could have turned into something good, it turned into one of the worst shitshows in history

The monarchy had to learn but that faggot took it too far.

>>12032

This picture is blatantly ignorant of history, especially considering the thread topic. The very fact that the Bourbon monarchs had borrowed and spent so extravagantly would have necessitated that they would declare bankruptcy or at least sell off vast amounts of assets. When Louis XVI took the throne, half of the king's taxes were going solely to paying off interest.

This is off course ignoring the more broader point that Kings themselves don't really have any basis for claiming that they own the land, at least not from a libertarian standpoint. Unless you mean to tell me that monarchs homesteaded the nations that they rule over?

>>12034

Do capitalists homestead the factories they rule over?

>>12095

They tend to build the factories, with materials they have either bought or homesteaded. At least in Ancapistan. In the real world, they might get everything from the state, and then they don't homestead the factory, no. Instead, the factory would rightfully belong to the workers, who have made more of an imprint on it than the factory owner had.

>>12104

>the factory would rightfully belong to the workers

>>>/leftypol/

>>12109

No, he's right as an Anarcho-Capitalist, a factory owner who was given a factory by the state which is funded by coercion does not legitimately own that factory.

If he was only subsidized in building it, he'd be obligated to return the money to the taxpayers as best he could.

>>12111

>>12104

I swear if you so much as read the wikipedia article you faggots would be mutualists

>>12116

Nope, because mutualism is based on the labor theory of value, which is a flawed concept.

>>12116

lel I can see why you would think that but no. It's common for An-caps to say that people who have profited off of illegitimate means are obligated to pay it back.

This does not mean we recognize that homesteading a block of marble, turning it into a statue, and selling it is illegitimate profit because durr you didn't invent teh marble! gib to prole.

>>12118

Adam smith is the creator of the labor theory of value, also you know nothing of mutualism read proudhon autist

>>12119

Read proudhon autist

>>12127

>Adam smith is the creator of the labor theory of value

The only people who are happy to throw Adam Smith around these days are leftists. For a while, the labor theory of value was the best economics had to offer. Eventually, praxeology came along and took that throne. Adam Smith is simply outdated (and wrong), in that regard.

>also you know nothing of mutualism read proudhon autist

I did read Proudhon. He had some interesting insights to offer, unlike you, you lazy piece of shit.

>>12132

No, that would be historical determinism.

>>12138

Shut up, weeb.

>>12151

>>12153

>>12154

>>12155

>>12156

>>12157

>>12158

Proof that even when blatantly shitposting, ancaps make better posts than gommies.