/liberty/ - Liberty

define equality

Who the hell wrote this book? Libertarianism will lead to greater equality and much greater liberty. Socialism will lead to less equality (because face it, giving anyone political authority is the definition of special privileges) and no liberty. So, did I miss something? Where's the conflict, unless you believe everything Karl Marx said?

>>13300

>Who the hell wrote this book? Libertarianism will lead to greater equality and much greater liberty. Socialism will lead to less equality (because face it, giving anyone political authority is the definition of special privileges) and no liberty. So, did I miss something? Where's the conflict, unless you believe everything Karl Marx said?

Karl Marx was absolutely correct about the problems and inherent worker-slavery in western industrialized capitalist nations. He was just wrong about the remedy.

Do you mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? Because liberty and the former are the same thing, but liberty and the latter are mutually exclusive.

>>13306

>Karl Marx was correct

>About anything

nice meme

>>13314

When do you turn 18, anon?

No, there's not.

Equality is created through Liberty. When you sacrifice equality, you eliminate liberty.

I genuinely do not care about equality.

>>13299

There is no such thing as equality, it's a lie. Even among identical twins there are, predictably, different life experiences. With every person being different, why should equality be a praiseworthy goal?

>>13330

Socialism by its nature must deny property rights and thus turn its back on Liberty.

We don't just support property rights because we like them, anon. Property rights are pretty much the only thing that gives government legitimacy in Libertarian land, and in Voluntarist-land, strong property rights are what holds social cohesion.

In every example of successful socialism, the people have fair or better-than-average property rights (either actual via law/constitutions/etc. or implied). The fewer enforced property rights, the less prosperous the nation.

The issue is very few socialists know where to "draw the line," and get into the "lol personal property" meme.

>>13329

Yes you can, that quote is wrong. Your personal freedom can be unaffected by the lack of freedom of others. Some remote part of this planet has an authoritarian regime, whoopity doo. Unless that regime can outgun me their lack of freedom has no effect on my freedom.

>>13306

He wasn't right, though. His thoughts on alienation are pretty damn retarded and abstract.

>>13335

If you use the term as broadly as most people these days do, then yes, it means sameness. You can have equality of income, equal rights, equal opportunities and all that, but if you want to stop all privilege - and we know that a lot of people pretend to want this - you have to make everyone the same.

>>13339

We are talking about politics, m8, not mathematics. Equality is not sameness.

>>13344

Explain to me how absolute equality is not sameness. I am talking about absolute equality here, not about "social equality", which is a term that's so undefined that it could mean fucking anything, depending on who uses it.

>>13330

kike

>>13348

You can't just storm into a chess club and call everyone a retard for playing checkers wrong.

>>13373

Are you gonna stop evading my question? How is absolute equality (i.e. equality in every regard) not sameness?

>>13377

protip: it is, but it can only be the same object though cause position would have to be identical

>>13377

Fuck off already. Nobody cares about your "absolute equality". Nobody was talking about that until you claimed equality is sameness because you just made up this absolute equality thing to appeal to /pol/tards. This is a libertarian/anti-authoritarian board, not a neo-reactionary one.

>>13382

>Fuck off already. Nobody cares about your "absolute equality".

Good, then tell me what equality people care about.

>>13390

this haha :))

The equality we care about is equal liberty. Everyone must be a sovereign citizen, with the liberties associated with such a position. Everyone must have the right to own their own means of production, individually or collectively, to prevent a class of capitalists from having more liberty in their property ownership than those who don't own property. Everyone must assume the liberties and duties of running the state directly. We must administrate the state and serve as it's military to prevent having a military or bureaucratic class have more liberty than the average citizen. No man is to rule another, as EVERYONE would be the rulers in a democratic res publica.

>>13445

>No man is to rule another, as EVERYONE would be the rulers in a democratic res publica.

This is a direct contradiction, plain and simple.

EQUALITY OF WHAT?