[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

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

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Infinity Next update (Jan 4 2016)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: 1447925778227.jpg (188.9 KB, 1024x765, 1024:765, kingsanarchocapitalism.jpg)

 No.12907

 No.12909

>Doesn't realize white men are the reason everyone else currently enjoys/is able to enjoy western society


 No.12913

This story just cites statistics, which is all well and good, but it doesn't do anything to critique libertarianism at all. Simply stating that men do X more than women does not mean that X is bad. And the Rand Paul quote about the right to discriminate is entirely legitimate. Or is Salon in favor of forcing lesbians to date men? After all, it's not the man's fault that he was born a woman. Don't we live in an age of equality of the sexes?


 No.12917

File: 1447936265851.webm (1.44 MB, 450x472, 225:236, lots of reactions.webm)

>>12907

>mfw being white and male has become an insult

>mfw leftists still don't realize the king holds no legitimate property according to the libertarian theory of property


 No.12921

File: 1447945242161.jpg (74.9 KB, 680x709, 680:709, 1447068800693.jpg)

>salon


 No.12925

Well, at least they think we're intelligent


 No.12928

>directly linking salon

Use archive.is nigger.

While the author's reasoning might be shit, the point of libertarianism being popular among white men is not incorrect. Though this is largely due to two factors.

1. Men are more inclined to libertarianism than women, as men like muh freedumbs while women prefer security and someone else to handle leadership

2. Libertarianism is more popular among whites considering libertarianism really only has some visibility in the west and that America was founded on the principles of liberty. Political ideologies (and all memes, for that matter) tend to be the most popular in their place of origin. Complaining that libertarianism is largely popular with whitey is like complaining that shaolin martial arts and meditation is unpopular in Ghana.

And as per natural with no-progressives, rather than address what is wrong with something through judging it's merit objectively, they rely on identity politics and even straight up racism to attack it. Not to mention there are many exceptions to the rule, as there are plenty of non-white libertarians, myself included.


 No.12931

>>12928

I'd actually advise them to look at Angela Keaton over at Antiwar.com

Libertarianism didn't used to be a white male thing. You can thank 90/early 2000s Libertarians for that.


 No.12934

>>12928

why archive.is?


 No.12935

>>12931

That's like saying Republican conservatism doesn't have to be a white male thing because Uncle Ben Carson is running. lol.


 No.12936

>>12935

How are those even tangentially related to what I said? Do you even hear yourself right now?


 No.12939

>>12936

How was libertarianism different before the 90s/early 2000s?

From what I've heard, libertarianism used to be more left-leaning. Then somewhere down the road they got obsessed with Ayn Rand and Austrian School economics. And now they are increasingly morphing into a pseudo-Republican clusterfuck. Have you ever followed Stefan Molyneux? Compare the stuff he was saying in 2006/2007 to 2013-Present. He used to speak out against police brutality. Now he is an apologist for police brutality against black men.

The movement has turned into Republicans who can't stand Republicans (social conservatives). Libertarians don't cleanly fit in either the Republican camp or the Democrat camp. But in recent years, they have been becoming more and more Republican.

Almost a decade ago I was attracted to libertarianism mainly because I wanted the state to get out of our bedrooms and keep their paws off our drugs, guns, etc. The "muh property rights" thing has never resonated with me. It's easy for idealistic college kids or the privileged few to think that libertarianism is cool. They like the status quo and want to maintain their privilege in society. And see nothing wrong with the fact that they live far better than the vast majority of the people on the planet.

Even within /leftypol/ I feel disgusted with the growing number of people who oppose immigration (Stefan Molyneux and many libertarians have also moved towards that direction also). Because they want to maintain their relative developed world privilege compared to the developing world majority.


 No.12941

>>12917

>muh arbitrary definition of private property is the true definition


 No.12943

>>12934

So the site doesn't get any hits, so it can't make more money for writing trash.


 No.12950

archive.is like you requested

https://archive.is/fCHSp


 No.12955

File: 1447969876555.jpg (85.19 KB, 485x750, 97:150, 11114739_834209200000472_9….jpg)

>>12939

>How was libertarianism different before the 90s/early 2000s?

It didn't focus on white men as its main audience and had a lot more women and minorities involved.

>Have you ever followed Stefan Molyneux?

I don't follow populist icons used as strawmen against the movement, sorry.

>But in recent years, they have been becoming more and more Republican.

[citation needed]

I'm working with the two largest Libertarian student groups in the United States. Both are mostly headed by Left-Libertarian state chairs or Mutualists. The International Students For Liberty Conference sees right-wingers getting BTFO all the time on a range of issues, and is even featuring groups like Pussy Riot next year (they're keeping it hush hush right now, but I don't give a fuck). The only "pseudo-Republican" Libertarian state chair I know about right now is the Utah state chair, and even he's pretty chill.

>The "muh property rights" thing has never resonated with me.

What are the incentives of a lack of property rights?

>strawmanning

You clearly don't have many Libertarian friends. On the flip side, I have a number of friends who aren't Libertarians and who I can get better impressions of other ideologies from.

>And see nothing wrong with the fact that they live far better than the vast majority of the people on the planet.

This is actually one of our main jabs at socialists who still want well established nations. We're too busy raising the world out of horrible poverty to bitch about global inequality.

>Because they want to maintain their relative developed world privilege compared to the developing world majority.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just don't like state-sponsored genocide.


 No.12957

>>12941

It's not arbitrary. The libertarian theory of property is logically coherent as well as logically derived from the concept of self-ownership.


 No.12961

>>12941

Private property is not arbitrary. It's founded on some basic concepts.

Private property is…

1) Defineable- It is a defined space or object.

2) Defendable- It is capable of being defended

3) Excludable- The owner of private property has exclusive rights over who can come on/use the property in question.

4) Allocatable- The property owner is the sole determinant of how best to use their private property. This will naturally be influenced by the social circles that the owner is in. For instance, a property owner in Montana might lease out her property to horse or cow owners in exchange for compensation, and might build a horse shed to raise the value of their property, despite owning no horses.

5) Liable- The owner of property is liable for their actions on their property and doubly so if their actions cause damage to other people's property. This is why factories aren't supposed to be able to release pollution. Unfortunately the EPA bypasses this by replacing common law with regulations/"standards" that become the new legal precedent.

The more rights in our bundle of sticks that the property owner owns, the more likely they are to invest in their property. If a farmer loses their property rights over their water if they don't use it, they're gonna use it and dry up the spring for others. If the farmer can sell his water rights to others, he'll invest in systems to improve the water retention of his crops so he can sell off more of his water, helping out the environment tremendously. The rights associated with property are anything but arbitrary.


 No.12970


 No.13018


 No.13026

File: 1448050284802.jpg (24.29 KB, 400x400, 1:1, conorlynch.jpg)

>>12907

>Salon

Absolute garbage. I like the part where he implies that whites are all-powerful in society, but feel the need to join a minority political party in order to discriminate against non-whites openly.

>Fortunately, nothing can prevent the white mans inevitable fall from dominance

>Conor Lynch

>goony hysterical hipster white beard man posting on Twitter that Trump is a literal Nazi

Every. Time.

>>12917

I believe it's because libertarianism requires logical consistency in order to uphold its values, whereas progressivism just requires emotional consistency to uphold its.

Therefore, if a libertarian or libertarian-leaning person says racism is wrong (and it is wrong tbqhwy fam), they apply it across all races to be logically consistent. Meanwhile, a progressive will say racism is wrong, then apply it across all those who are emotionally deserving of the definition; this ensures they are being emotionally consistent in helping those poor, poor folks who need their uplifting guidance.


 No.13037

>>13026

>I like the part where he implies that whites are all-powerful in society

That's something I love about progressives. They say all races are equal, but portray white people like some indomitable elite that controls the world. It's like stormfags and kikes.

>Trump is a literal nazi

He's a lot of things but not a nazi.

Speaking of which, what do you make of Trump BO? Lately he's personally called out the FED and suggested that we reduce military spending, which actually sounds nice.

Though I'm quite suspicious as to where these new positions of his came from, as a lot of them seem to contradict even his 2012 positions. For example, back in '98 he was pro-gun control, now he's anti. That and I didn't hear about the beaner wall back in 2012.


 No.13045

File: 1448062851066.jpg (62.26 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, 1446745296200.jpg)

>>13037

Progressives are basically reverse stormfags. Schrodinger's white man - he is both all-powerful racist oppressor and powerless to act out his inherent racism at the same time.

And Trump is just a run-of-the-mill populist; he talks big game, people are fed up with their own leaders, and if he pisses them off then all the better. He's only popular because the Republicans aren't popular with their own base. In 2010 Republicans said they needed the House to make change. They got it, then they said they needed the Senate; in 2014 they go that. The party establishment still has not made any major changes, and has increasingly worked with the Obama administrator they promised they'd obstruct if only they could get the seats in Congress for. Mainstream Republicans also denigrated and cast aside a real grassroots movement in the Tea Party, further damaging their support.

I can only speculate as to why this happened, but here's my take. The Bush years saw the solidification of Republican control of the government, and they saw that once they were in control they kind of liked it. Perhaps it was the dominance of neoconservatives in the party, with their ideological roots being far to the left of the rest of the party, even if their rhetoric wasn't; they were much more comfortable with big government than the Republicans of the Reagan era. They kind of abandoned the anti-big government action (but not the rhetoric) that got them their jobs in the first place. This created a problem where they became the establishment they were being elected to defeat, and that's why a lot of them seem to have gotten cold feet when faced with their old supporters, like the Tea Party movement. That's why we see McConnell and his seven drooping chin flaps, each more terrifying than the last, trying to revive the import-export bank with the Obama administration, which is nothing but a drain from taxpayers right to wealthy American corporations, and why he views Ted Cruz and other "Freedom Caucus" members as rebels. Really he mostly ran on the same platform they did, he just doesn't deliver the goods like they do, and that's a threat to him.

So Trump is just a big "fuck you" to the Democrats, who loathe him, to progressives, who have equated him with Hitler on at least three big occasions, and the establishment Republicans, who failed to do what they were elected to do. He's the natural political consequence of being elected to do something and then refusing to do it. Plus, he pisses Democrats off like no tomorrow and doesn't apologize for it, which no major Republican has had the gall to do for a long time.

That said, I hope he's never elected. He's all over the place policy-wise, his protectionist rhetoric scares me (Bernie's too tbh), and he has no understanding of politics (or economics, for a rich guy) besides the fact that his poll numbers look good. Unfortunately, pissing off the right people is not good when you're in office, even if it helps you get there, and that's all he's good at doing.


 No.13141

>>13045

Don't forget that the Buckleyites and Neocons have been busy whittling down conservativism to low taxes for corporations and the guys at the country club, unquestioning support for foreign intervention and support for the "greatest ally".

Trump's populism is seen as dangerous because he isn't beholden to the donor class and his rhetoric pisses off the party establishment because they are quite frankly indistinguishable from Dem elites on most issues anyway. Sure, being pro gun control is political suicide but every other "conservative issue" is simply fodder to keep the rubes voting red.


 No.13143

>>13141

>Trump's populism is seen as dangerous because he isn't beholden to the donor class and his rhetoric pisses off the party establishment because they are quite frankly indistinguishable from Dem elites on most issues anyway

Were I certain of Trump's sincerity you might have a point. But his ideas are way too different than what he's preached before to make me think he's actually being honest. That and he's said some stupid shit before.

With that said, he's ultimately a better option than anything the dems have to offer (sans Webb, who doesn't really have a shot anyhow).


 No.13148

>>13141

Forgot to note, there's also Trump's unwavering support for the U.S.'s "greatest ally", to the point where he has personally endorsed Netanyahu. Granted, he did say he was interested in lowering military intervention, although he contradicted himself in saying we need to get involved in eliminating terrorists in Syria (while I don't blame him for such a position, it is still contradictory to his earlier statements and his anti-establishment image in general).


 No.13155

>>12939

>Now he is an apologist for police brutality against black men.

He reacts to the left's herofication of assailants like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, because he believes in self defence, even if the attacker is black.

>Even within /leftypol/ I feel disgusted with the growing number of people who oppose immigration (Stefan Molyneux and many libertarians have also moved towards that direction also). Because they want to maintain their relative developed world privilege compared to the developing world majority.

Supporting deporations is bad, but there would be no reason to oppose immigartion if not for the welfarestate and immigrants using the gun of the state for more socialism.

>AAnd see nothing wrong with the fact that they live far better than the vast majority of the people on the planet.

What's wrong with creating wealth and thus living better?


 No.13157

File: 1448275672675-0.png (48.84 KB, 674x544, 337:272, salon hyp.png)

File: 1448275672701-1.png (114.73 KB, 1017x370, 1017:370, salon pedo.png)

>>12907

>salon


 No.13164

>>13155

In demsoc's defense (never thought I'd say that), it's not like police brutality/incompetence doesn't happen, it's just that the liked of Martin and Brown are horrible examples. It's a big reason why BLM pisses me off.

As for immigration. you're right. If there wasn't any welfare and the population was well armed, violent/leeching migrants wouldn't be a problem.


 No.13193

>>13157

I am no fan of IDpol SJWs like Salon. I see privilege as a class issue, not just a race issue (class and race are linked). The leftist IDpol SJWs only want to talk about race, gender and pronouns. Fuck them. They are classcucks. But whenever they talk shit about libertarianism and conservatives, I can't help but get a kick out of it. We care about inherited privilege (ownership of means of production) period. While SJWs only give a fuck about white cis male privilege. Fuck them. They suck porky's dick. They just want a slice of the pie and then be like "fuck you, I got mine".

>>13164

#blacklivesmatter can fuck right off. Look at what they did to Bernie Sanders

(note: There's no porn in this video. It's just Bernie Sanders getting pwnd by #blacklivesmatter but it's a link to a porn site so NSFW if you don't want your supervisor/mom/etc to think you're looking at porn: http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph55d6abf905234)

But police brutality is a serious fucking issue. The cops shouldn't be resorting to lethal force to this magnitude.


 No.13197

>>13193

Bernie Sanders is in a pickle because he's afraid of being branded a racist if he were to tell #blacklivesmatter to fuck right off.

The left is a fucking sewer. Most working-class people don't give a shit about #blacklivesmatter, feminazism (I'm talking radical feminism. Like the SJW fascist shit), homosex, Caitlyn Jenner and pronouns. They just want a better life for themselves and their families. The "left" doesn't talk about economic issues anymore. Just Bernie Sanders and the fringe like /leftypol/.


 No.13249

File: 1448453150363.png (2.03 MB, 1200x891, 400:297, crybullies.png)

>>13197

>The left is a fucking sewer. Most working-class people don't give a shit about #blacklivesmatter, feminazism (I'm talking radical feminism. Like the SJW fascist shit), homosex, Caitlyn Jenner and pronouns.

I'd kill myself if those people were to be associated with my ideas.


 No.13371

>>12907

>implying libertarians don't believe in the american revolution, wherein we literally seized King George III's private property.


 No.15252

And don't you forget it!

Just kidding, I'm hispanic.


 No.15254

>>13371

The private property being ourselves? Fuck that, citizen not subject.

>>13249

It feels so good to be a part with an ideology that has a totally clean bill of morals and that it isn't even distantly related to something involving war crimes.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]