/liberty/ - Liberty

I was raised democratic socialist (my family/city is very far left), then went conservative, then national socialist, then calmed down a bit and went back to conservative/paleocon, then kept going until I became an anarchist. I think that there will be a reaction to the neoreactionary movement. An alt-alt-right. I think that there are many people out there who were picked up by this new counter-culture and were temporarily fascist but are now anarchist.

>>18343

I started out left-leaning, but completely disinterested in economics besides the meme that the rich have too much money and should give the 99% some of it. Also, I fucking hated ACTA, SOPA and other acronyms for "bullshit", as well as intelligence services in general.

I eventually became much more authoritarian after I started studying law, but not of the leftist kind. Again, I wasn't interested in economics. At the time, I was fascinated by how intricate and complex and seemingly well thought-out the law was. As far as I was concerned, people ought to follow the law, including pretty much everyone. Not sure what you call this line of thinking, besides authoritarian, except I didn't want to see state powers grow, I just accepted when it was exercised.

As time passed, I became more disillusioned, and saw how many loopholes the law actually had and how often pretty much everyone mangled it. My faith in democracy also faded. I would've stayed disillusioned and a little bitter, but a good friend introduced me to anarchocapitalism. We talked about it a few times, but I initially remained unconvinced. Then she sent me a book, End of all Evil, along with something like a personal letter on Skype. Somehow, the rhetoric in that book really appealed to me. It was a philosophy I disagreed with, but could respect nevertheless.

I looked a little more over the philosophy, and I couldn't help but agree with the deontological parts of it. A few months later, I had went from full-blown statism to minarchism and then to anarchocapitalism. Only downside is that being a lawyer who absolutely loathes half the laws he works with isn't easy.

I started off center left, flirting with communism. I can remember my mother and I having conversations, painful to remember, in which we complained about "income inequality." I reacted instant to SJWism when I stumbled upon it online, that moved me a bit to the right. BLM looting and finding that people I knew in the real world had drunk the kool aid moved me further right still. I had a brief infatuation with fascism, but I was more focussed on the militaristic aspects and pretty much ignored the socialism. After finding out about how socialistic the Nazis were, I started venerating a set of free market dictators, most notably Pinochet. But I had one nagging concern. You need tax money to support a military. That turned me into a minarchist muttering about local militias. Finally, about a year ago I read "For a New Liberty" and I have been an ancap ever since.

>>18344

Pretty much this except I'd say I'm a minarchist

I used to be National Socialist because i was into some gnosticism and paganism. I believed that it is good for a country to produce everything by itself. Then i started to get away from politics because i wanted to develop my spirituality even more, but i still thougth that economic nationalism was a good idea.

But i ever wanted to become an entrepreneur so i started to investigate about the 2008 crisis. I was convinced that the goal of businesses is serve the costumer so when some guy in a chat room was asked about private law and private security i watched the video that he shared so that made me say "I've learned from all that i've read that the government is always been a shit in both economic decisions and the application of justice, so if business that are something that i trust can provide better security i don't need the government anymore".

If anyone is interested the wikipedia pages would be

>utilitarianism

>communism

>margaret thatcher

>milton friedman

>ron paul

>anarchocapitalism

>>18355

Cause I decided MT was correct about shutting down the mines and it was the lefts who were being whiny faggots, and not caring about the long run and the overall utility

From spooks to spooks.

Really, why would anyone let themselves be constrained by hypermoralism?

Let us examine this question

>>18344

Wears ideology like fashion.

>>18347

Hasn't read any noteworthy philosophy and just believes what he is told.

>>18348

Wears ideology like fashion.

>>18352

Idiot, falls for anything that intuitively rings a bell.

>>18355

Idiot

>>18361

Why act in our interests if we could serve spooks? Spooks are easy!

>>18365

Are there any systems of morality that you would not consider to be spooks?

>why act in our interests if we could serve spooks

Are you an objectivist?

>>18369

>Are there any systems of morality that you would not consider to be spooks?

Every moral system is a spook if one places it above the self and therefor becomes it's servant.

>Are you an objectivist?

No, I'm not a hypermoralist ultra-spooker who believes that every poorfag should suck the dick of those above them in the capitalist hierarchy because spooks say they should.

>>18361

Surely doing things for principles or morality- even when they don't have good consequences- is even more worrying?

If you base things in empiricism and compel people to care about what works then they will come around to our way if thinking (if we are correct and obviously we are).

So instead of people getting angry and saying drugs are bad!!!!1 while we rant about natural rights, we will both look at the war on drugs, call it a failure, and go about our day.

>>18365

Autism / attentionwhore

>>18371

>Every moral system is a spook if one places it above the self and therefore becomes it's servant

Natural rights are a moral system that places the self above all by prohibiting, under all circumstances, aggression against the self

>every poorfag should suck the dick of those above them in the capitalist hierarchy

Syndicalism is 100% compatible with anarcho-capitalism if you don't too much competition

>>18372

I'm not quite sure what you mean by empiricism here. Could you please define it?

>>18374

Graphs and shit

>>18373

>Natural rights are a moral system that places the self above all by prohibiting, under all circumstances, aggression against the self

Natural rights are spooks, they are a rigid system, a fixed idea that is placed above the authentic self. They aren't "natural" at all.

>>18376

bla bla bla

>>18376

When I look up authentic self all I find is self help websites. You will need to be more clear. Or are you just saying that living life according to any principles at all is bad?

>>18375

But isn't this an argument for a strong state, since a single person invested with total power would best be able to bring about the recommendations of his or her adviser's linear programming charts?

>>18378

>When I look up authentic self all I find is self help websites. You will need to be more clear.

Are you that philosophically illiterate? You don't even know about something as pop-tier as existentialism?

To define the true self is like biting on ones own teeth.

>Or are you just saying that living life according to any principles at all is bad?

I don't. I just say that they aren't objective moral systems and that you're spooking yourself if you pretend they are.

>>18378

But it's not like a single person trying to bring about his ideal of what is morally right would be too great either.

Ideal is to bring about anarchy or something as close as possible by educating people about the failures of the state

>>18379

Maybe but don't you think rights are whatever we say they are? Like mutually acknowledged lines that shouldn't be crossed

>>18380

>Maybe but don't you think rights are whatever we say they are?

Exactly.

>Like mutually acknowledged lines that shouldn't be crossed

They're not mutually acknowledged, otherwise there would be no need for them.

>>18380

That makes sense. But then why choose anarcho-capitalism over minarchism?

>>18379

This seems like a better thought out version of that whole morality is a social construct maymay.

>to define the true self is like on biting on ones own teeth

Sounds like a spook to me. :^)

>>18382

>Sounds like a spook to me. :^)

No, it's the start of buddhism.

>>18384

>religion

>not a spook

>>18382

Why, because I think anarchy would work better of course. I'm not sure about private nukes but that's it

>>18381

>they're not mutually acknowledged, otherwise there would be no need for them

Come on m8 plenty of rights are mutually acknowledged what the fuck m8

>>18386

>completely unspooking yourself of the spook that is the self

>a spook

>>18387

If something is acknowledged by all, it doesn't need to be a rule.

>>18387

David Friedman apparently has a book out where he bases anarcho-capitalism in consequentialism that I'm going to look for now. I still feel somewhat uneasy about a philosophy that can justify Stalinism, but so long as two moral philosophies recommend the same course of action they can coexist just fine

>>18388

>completely unspooking yourself of the spook that is the self

Doesn't this contradict the whole authentic self thing? If there is no self, how can there be an authentic self?

>>18390

>Doesn't this contradict the whole authentic self thing? If there is no self, how can there be an authentic self?

It being undefinable, and me therefor having to use language that doesn't offer a full explanation, a term that only dimly lights the Being.

>>18393

If not one person would steal, there wouldn't need to be a rule that prohibits stealing.

>>18392

>the Being

Fetishistic terms are most definitely spooks.

>having to use language that doesn't offer a full explanation

I cannot argue with you if you cannot verbalize your thoughts.

>>18395

I would say that there are bad people in the world that must be restrained, but you reject morality so I can't.

>>18397

>Fetishistic terms are most definitely spooks.

No, it's a description, the most accurate there is.

>I cannot argue with you if you cannot verbalize your thoughts

You can't be argued enlightened.

>>18398

Then you do so, but that's not objective morality nor such is necessary for it.

>>18395

I think there is misunderstanding

I didn't mean people disagree about the lines should be or something.

I meant that everyone knows if you steal from someone he will pursue you. And we say 'you violated his rights' to describe this phenomenom

>>18343

always tendency for both

eventually I heard the term 'libertarian' (its not common at all in germany)

and read up on that

I used to think ethnicy doesnt matter

came to 4cuck/pol/ and picked up a lot of the propaganda

then full/pol/, natsoc for a short time where I was very conflicted about the ability of germans to 'fix' common incentive problems in socialism with ethics

then after more liber reading and ressources, full ancap

now reasonable worldview (including reasonable view on da joos)

nationalism has become 'creating a trustworthy society with strong workethics and social ethic + morale'.

i.e.

gnetics matter a whole lot, so does upbringing. ethnicity is a factor but secondary.

workethics - see germany

morale - see christianity (raised atheist, came around only recently, bible surprisingly accurate about most things, identitarian signling of social values makes a fuckton of sense)

>>18400

He will pursue you, because you bother him, he will say "you violated my rights" because it is thought that actions should follow from ideals.

>>18399

Neither of us seem to be about to convince the other or any third party of anything, so further debate is futile. Are there any books you would recommend that I could read to better understand your viewpoint? I've only read classical philosophy and some political stuff.

>>18402

Maybe so

I went from fascism to ancap after I realized how fucking stupid controlled economies are ("lol, lets abolish interest" - NatSoc fag) and how any system can be turned against me

>>18403

The Phenomology of Spirit and Being and Time are a good start, they don't instruct what I said, but they will give you an understanding of the subject matter.

Eastern philosophy is highly scattered and suffers from translation issues, you first need an implicit understanding to get to them if you want any understanding out of them. Alan Watts translated them in a way that is understandable to the western reader, so you could go with him.

>>18407

Thank you, noble opponent. Have a good day.

>>18365

>Hasn't read any noteworthy philosophy and just believes what he is told.

>Implying

Started out as a commie, took a high school economics course while browsing alt right sites and became an "economically literate" race realist ("nazi"), then I realized that force can't accomplish anything that persuasion can (in most situations) and called myself a paleocon. Met some left-Libertarians and became a full-blown right-wing Libertarian.

Proceeded to drop the big L, then one day it finally dawned on me that anything the state can do, private enterprise can do better, but there's no way for a state to set up a competitive field that doesn't become a public monopoly providing shit services, so why not just remove the state from the picture entirely?

Started reading up on the orthodox faith and here I am today.

It's kinda interesting, having gone from Stalin, to armchair Hitler, to roboghandi, to slightly-more-racist Hoppe.

>>18365

Faggot

>>18365

So, you were born an anarchist ideologyless mastermind?

>>18399

>No, it's a description, the most accurate there is.

By capitalizing the b? You are a ridiculous person.

>>18539

If he's quoting Stirner, there might actually be a reason for that, even if it'S just confusion. I'm reading the book in English despite German being my first language, and several footnotes are from the translator, talking about how it's downright impossible to translate words like Geist or Wesen.

Geist can mean spirit, ghost, mind or all three, at once. In Ego and his Own, it's usually translated as spirit, but there is also a creative, cognitive component to Geist, which would be lost if it wasn't for the notes of the translator.

Wesen means both essence and being, but not interchangably, rather both at once. You could think of it as the opposite of the platonic idea.

Can someone be alt-right and pro-liberty at the same time?

>>18645

Depends.

If you consider morals/traditions/social dealings to be as much subject to the free market as business is, then yes. I support a free market of ideas because I know (or rather, I believe strongly) that "degenerate" behaviors can not thrive in a free market, while traditionalists who value things like family and honor would. After all, "social justice" and its ilk are upheld by government and, more explicitly, the public university model. They are not held together by some subjective moral virtue, or actual desire to make a better world (outside of a few idealists who are better off in a philosophical role than in that of an activist).

The real question is if you're firm enough in your beliefs to hold that they can survive (and thrive) in a market environment?

>>18645

We are the alt-alt-right!

>>18343

I did. I was always interested in history. Especially ww2. I'm not sure what it was but national socialism just had this appeal for me. Not sure how, but at some point I found /pol/. I started getting into historical revisionism and learned more about how national socialism worked.

Then I found Stefan Molyneux / Bill Whittle, they showed me that there was a better alternative. I'm guessing most people on /pol/ are into nazism because of it's appeal. I'm sure most have never looked at alternatives.

As a child I was somewhat of a democratic socialist(around 10-13) became a monarchist(Aristotle) around age 14,

then eventually became an an Anarcho Capitalist/Voluntaryist after finding human action in a local library and reading it when I was 16,

I'd still classify myself as a voluntaryist, but I have over time created my own proofs and reasonings for it separate from the old masters.

>>19558

Those 2 don't really go together though… Far from it actually.

>>19563

Minarchism with racial realism - basically that flag

Paleoconservatism - basically that flag

Paleolibertarianism - basically that flag

People who think pinochet did to the commies what they fucking deserved - basically that flag

and so on in ad nauseam. Just because you are disgusted by the implications or what that flag represents does not make it any less true. /pol/ is full of people like that flag. Real life is also full of them. They are the people who smile and nod while shaking the hands of their nigger friends. But would not hesitate for a moment to go for war for white people if they needed to secure a future for their white race and their ancestral homelands.

>>19564

So nationalism.. NOT national socialism. It implies an autoritarian state with socialist policies. How does that compare to libertarianism..

>>19576

>How does that compare to libertarianism

What kind of libertarianism are you talking about? the cuck left 'lets open the borders, smoke weed all day lmao and have polyamourous relationships' type or the right wing 'get the fuck off my property you degenerate fagot' type?

Imagine a society which is extremely free except you had a small (but strong) government whose only function is to violently keep out foreigners and promote a core national identity.

>>19577

Also, I would totally switch to that flag if it was available

>>19577

You can't have the right-wing type without the left-wing type.

>>19578

Why the fuck are you even using an anarchist flag then?

>>19588

Listen , you just don't understand, a society is at it's most free when you're "Promote a core national identity" TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO

Because that means they have the freedom to not decide! BECAUSE WE WOULD KILL THEM

this is what nationalist libertarians actually believe

>>19577

>you had a small (but strong) government

You what nigga?

What's libertarian about having a strong governmemt on anything?

>>19581

The right wing libertarian does not need the leftwing cultural marxist libertarian.

>>19588

You can have it as a legal authority which makes the libertarianism boil down to minarchism or the nightwatchman state.

>>19590

You can promote a culture in your homeland without infringing on other peoples right to practice and do as they please within the confines of the law. Even if I don't agree with degenerates I am in principle not going to be in their way.

You are just salty that some nationalist libertarians would deal with the commie filth like pinochet did.

>>19598

>You are just salty that some nationalist libertarians would deal with the commie filth like pinochet did

You mean by creating a failed governmental system that does nothing but end as fodder for communist cowards to use as propaganda?

Good idea buddy boy.

But yeah just go ahead and say I don't want to kill communists

It's not like it's entirely justified as someone saying they are a communist are directly threatening your livelihood in telling you that they want to enslave you to their statist regime

>>19577

>small

>(but strong)

Go on any libertarian forum and you'll find a fair amount of people that switched from brand of authoritarianism to some form of right anti-authoritarianism.

That said, my political affiliations have been a bit bizarre over the years. Ended up settling into general right-Libertarianism, bordering minarchism.

>>19600

If somebody has an opinion that I don't agree with I rarely if ever care enough to even get upset.

If someone is trying to destabilize my country using communist subversion, rioting, political strikeaction and creating general unrest they can get a free ticket to the sea via pinochet helicopter tours.

It's very different having an opinion and being an active criminal against other people. You know it, they know it.

>>19606

Oh look you don't understand libertarian philosophy, or facetiousness.

It's alright let me libersplain this shit for you.

Basic natural law, someone threatens to kill you without pretense, you can aggress against them violently.

Because they are telling you fundamentally that they will do the same to you, legitimizing your action as a self defensive action.

Furthermore, If someone were to actively attack you unprovoked, not only are you justified in attacking them, in self defense, you are also justified in attacking them because they are nullifying the principle of self ownership for themselves, essentially consenting to attack in saying through their action "The right to self ownership does not exist"

Extrapolating that, a communist who tells you "I will kill/steal from/attack you for X reason" The reason having to be itself unjustified which I wont go into here, as I presume you agree with me that communism isn't ethically coherent

Justifies themselves being attacked outright without pretense, as they have for themselves nullified the right to self ownership through their direct statement. Which is somewhat less reliable than direct action but is still for obvious reasons binding to what the person believes, excluding them being coerced into that statement etc etc.

>>19581

>You can't have the right-wing type without the left-wing type.

I was more getting at the fact that the left-wing type doesn't care about getting fucked in the ass by the government over taxation and property rights provided they get to do their degenerate behavior. Because libertarianism to them means they get to behave like animals while at the expense of everyone else.

>Why the fuck are you even using an anarchist flag then?

Because I want far less government than le snaek flag and there is no minarchist flag on this board (even then I want less government than the average minarchist).

>>19587

>>19588

Yea I didn't exactly choose my words well, what I really meant was the government more promotes an outward national image/identity (towards other nations) rather than the telling people inside the nation whats acceptable behavior and whats not.

>>19592

>>19604

Yea I derp'd, sue me.

Libertarianism is fascism. There's no need to convert.

>>19614

I found the moron

>>19614

This is the second time I've seen you say this. I asked you to explain your reasoning last time but of course you didn't, this time likely won't be any different.

>>19637

He's probably some anarchocommunist "muh wage slavery" shill

Or is conflating libertarianism with minarchism saying that a state is fascistic no matter how small

>>19612

Sometimes a nation don't have to project shit. They just have to exist to be a threat to the status quo statist/communist bullshit.

It is enough letting people do their thing, enforcing contracts and deterring violence and theft.

==To just be a shining city upon a hil==.

>>19645

I have no idea what point you're trying to get across.

>>19649

apply yourself nigga.

>>19645

>commit violence onto innocent people

Hah

Seriously though, I agree. Ideally there would be no government anywhere ever but the smaller the better

>>18344

>>18343

>>18345

>>18347

>>18348

>>18349

why are you people treating political ideologies the same way tumblr treats gender identities?

>>19658

Are you trying to say that libertarianism and minarchism are the same thing in that they want a state?

Because libertarianism everywhere but the US means essentially "anarcho capitalism". . .

>>19668

People change their beliefs as they learn new things. Being stubborn is the worst because you don't learn anything. We don't all agree with what we were brought up to believe