/liberty/ - Liberty

Joking aside, a dart could potentially be a violation of the NAP if done in certain situations intentionally. Especially if you have really fucking smelly farts.

Your suffocating shitposting is fart rape.

test

I can't post new threads, fam.

Ah I see

>>15716

>>15739

Libertarians are anti-central authority, not anarchists. Many philosophers, especially libertarian philosophers, have suggested a UBI as an alternative to the welfare state and as a means of ensuring social safety nets within the confines of Libertarian philosophy. Some of the founding fathers were actually in favor of it.

The general idea is that you could virtually have a robot run the entire program and deliver all of the checks, and the taxes could be raised via consumption methods rather than income methods. "Taxation is theft" is an Anarchist saying meant to criticize Libertarians, that many Libertarians have unwittingly taken up in their fight against big government.

But lets not forget that Anarchists are Libertarians, and even some brands of socialism/mutualism are Libertarian. Libertarian is a very large ideology, which many of us misconstrue as only covering what we'd consider "Conservatarian."

I'd go into more detail with UBI, but I gotta sleep so I'll link you to some articles instead.

From a universal libertarian perspective:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/27/ed-dolan/libertarianism-pragmatic-case-universal-basic-income

From a more "bleeding heart" libertarian perspective:

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

From a more conservatarian perspective:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

http://rare.us/story/the-libertarian-case-for-a-universal-basic-income/

>>15741

Simply put, while I want to smash the state, even I'd support a Universal Basic Income as an alternative to the current welfare state- it's one of the few points that I'd concede to a Marxist so long as no special stipulations are attached. It doesn't really change much since we'd still have private charity and people would only be able to live with basic necessities under UBI (E.G. they'd need to work to afford luxuries like a computer and internet), but it's one of the best compromises with the left that exists within our timeframe, and it would finally settle the issue of whether humans are inherently good or evil based on how they'd utilize a UBI (the results in other cases where it's been tried are surprisingly either neutral or optimistic).

yes

they are called

EXTERNALITIES

and most anclaps dont understand the concept

It is technically pollution, though I don't know what you really want to do about it. It's like somebody walking down the sidewalk and knocking a few grains of dirt into your property. Are you really going to consider that such a violation of the NAP that you take them to court over it?

>>15743

Pollution used to be treated like every form of property damage. If the smog from your factory ruined the facade of someones house, you had to pay up. The english courts later changed their ruling in this matter, as the positive effects of industrialization outweighted this kind of property damage, in their opinion. And just like that, the state once again fucked with property rights and the economy, by turning pollution into an externality for which no compensation was granted.

THE END

>>>/leftypol/

>>>/leftypol/

>>>/leftypol/

>>>/leftypol/

>>>/leftypol/

>>>/leftypol/

I CLAIM THIS BOARD FOR LEFTPOL

>>15766

Lol you faggots are so bad at spreading communism that you can't even do it on the internet

>>15755

>Pollution used to be treated like every form of property damage. If the smog from your factory ruined the facade of someones house, you had to pay up

>be poor

>have no property

>cant complain someone is polluting

great fucking idea faggot

>>15893

the poor don't matter

>>15900

My body is not private property, but me.

>>15901

The two terms aren't mutually exclusive. You are your own property, and as such, you have the final say on what happens to your body. Nobody can do anything to damage it without your explicit permission.

>>15900

so basically the same we have right now

except first the capitalist doesnt need to ask for permission to the sate first before fucking up an area, and doesnt have to be held responsable by whatever court you are suing them because there is no state, and "private courts" don't have any authority

sounds pretty stupid

>>15895

you forgot your anacap flag fam

>>15893

but you have personal property (e.g. yourself)

>>15926

>What are review systems

For the same reason someone won't give all their trade secrets when they switch companies, courts won't just always side with the business (which can't grow to massive levels in the first place under Voluntarism).

If they do, word of mouth and reviews quickly spread exposing the shit that they're doing. You're using that mutualist flag, you should understand the nature of non-governmental courts quite well, so why are you using statist logic?

>>15905

They are. I'm not property, but myself. I have no body, for I'm my body. Try separating me from my body, and you will end up holding not my body, but a corpse.

> you have the final say on what happens to your body.

> Nobody can do anything to damage it without your explicit permission.

Absolute nonsense, permissions mean nothing in the face of overwhelming force.

>>15940

we dont need to solve the problem caused by a corporation if we stop the corporation from fucking up whatever they are fucking up first

which is why private property is dumb

>buy land

>fuck it up

>sell it

>"hey wait a second, this land is shit"

>my property you are voluntarily chosing to buy it NAP NAP!!!

inb4 >companies wont cause harm

>>15962

>buy land

>fuck it up

>sell it

>make 10% of what you bought it for because you fucked it up and now it's worth less

>>15919

That's not what we have now at all, the capitalist doesn't just "ask for permission" from the state, the state grants a license to pollute. People cannot sue the company anymore because the state has issued them with a license. The state removes peoples ability to fight against pollution spreading onto their properties.

>>15966

>already made 3000% or more off that land

>literally irrelevant to sell it for 10%

>>15967

basically, the problem is the state issues a license as long as certain limits of pollution are respected, it is well known corporations do not respect these limits

how are corporations going to respect a private court with no authority if they dont even respect the state court and its laws?

its senseless

>>15971

see, your problem here is that you quite literaly have an underlying problem with people making profits, people reaping rewards for their work. You're nothing more than a jelly idiot. You can't bear to see another man above you.

>>15962

Private property is a pragmatic solution because the results when it doesn't "exist," or is very weak, are marked by mass deforestation, draining large bodies of water, and huge amounts of people doing exactly what you're complaining about.

When property is private, people actually have an incentive to take care of it either for monetary reasons, or for sentimental reasons.

There's a reason farmers paid a lot of money back in the old west to have a cowhand ride around the property all day long- they were making sure other farmers knew their grazing lands, and said farmers took care of their grazing lands.

>>15971

>how are corporations going to respect a private court with no authority if they dont even respect the state court and its laws?

Corporations don't exist in AnCapistan. Their business models (actually, 99% of macroeconomics) are unstable and only propped up by state welfare (whether direct through subsidies or indirect through safety nets that let them undercharge their workers).

So lets stop using the term "corporation." A corporation is a body of individuals who have a state-granted privilege that makes them legally less touchable than a business.

A business is a relatively local operation, and will have to play by the rules in order to remain in a town (namely, follow common law). If a dispute came out between two businesses and the first business had fucked over the courts/ignored them in the past, you can bet your pastey ass that they're gonna doubly fuck over that business by siding with their competitor, and the second time around the ruling will be enforced by the local populace.

Local Businesses follow the courts, and in this case would follow them based on social pressure. It's the same idea behind clothing store competitors informing each other of shoplifters- it's better to work together than to be a misanthrope when the guy in charge of the court is likely also a customer at your local shop- or his family is.

>>16011

Are you retarded?

>>15926

>a court driven exclusively by profits

Why need a court? If the pollution damages one's health the PR will alone cripple the business if they do not compensate.

>>16028

>well ad-homniem'd

wat

>>16244

Infinity Next will be better.

>>16253

I think at this point it's confirmed to be Infinity Never tbh

>>15741

>Many philosophers, especially libertarian philosophers, have suggested a UBI as an alternative to the welfare state and as a means of ensuring social safety nets within the confines of Libertarian philosophy.

Milton Friedman for example.