[ 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: 1437684606736-0.jpg (111.73 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1437606488563-0.jpg)

File: 1437684606768-1.jpg (113.65 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1437606488565-1.jpg)

File: 1437684606768-2.jpg (112.62 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1437606488567-2.jpg)

File: 1437684606768-3.jpg (104.92 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1437606983267-0.jpg)

File: 1437684606768-4.jpg (112.3 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1437606983281-1.jpg)

 No.7582

What was yfw when you realised that you can't achieve libertarainism through democracy?

What was yfw you realised that western reactionary thought is heavily compatible with freedom?

what was your yfw you realised that it's not nazis vs communists, but the Revolution against the Counter-Revolution?

pic related

>mfw it all makes sense now and the puzzle pieces are coming together

good feel

 No.7583

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

We don't have the manpower to start a revolution, and if we did have this manpower, we could gradually wear the authoritarians down and show our superiority over them. A violent revolution should be a measure of last resort, as it always hurts innocents, too.


 No.7584

>>7583

You can't achieve freedom through reovlution faggot.

Hell, I'll go on a step further and say that using the logic and philosophy of the Revoiution leads nowhere and should be abandoned.


 No.7622

>>7582

Democracy from the beginning was a flawed concept. From even before the time of Adam Smith it was known that people specialised in areas, and very few people were knowledgeable about all the things in the world, if any. Yet democracy as a system places these people in charge of running something as complex as a country, and in charge of areas that they themselves simply do not care about.

However, that is not to say that democracy should be abandoned entirely, as it most certainly has many merits. Since the alternative is to have either anarchy or a few people in charge of running the country.

I for one believe a small democratic republic with a constitution that guarantees protection from the tyranny of the majority to a certain degree would work. Basically a tiny America that isn't trying to pull a manifest destiny on the whole fucking planet, and some decent politicians.


 No.7672

File: 1437930948012.jpg (46.86 KB, 620x350, 62:35, mfw a young gentleman thin….jpg)

>Revolution

>Acceptable as a method of political change

Absolutely disgusting


 No.7684

>>7584

>>7672

Hey guys, new to /liberty/ so I have a question for you.

Why do you say that the notion of a revolution should be abandoned? Of course if done poorly it could result in a shitfest worse than what you started with, but couldn't it also work as it did in the American revolution?


 No.7685

File: 1437950659961.png (382.21 KB, 500x662, 250:331, smug korra.png)

>he's a reactionary

>on the internet


 No.7693

File: 1437952810799.png (34.27 KB, 1024x614, 512:307, 1024px-Flag_of_the_Commonw….png)

>>7582

Democracy may not be the easiest way to achieve a libertarian government (and by that I mean minarchist, night watchman state stuff) but it is the best way, maybe the only way to safeguard it.

While England may have been a monarchy, local-level decision making was carried out by representatives, and the law interpreted and enforced on the same level. As opposed to top-down law coming from the government, it came up from the people. The monarch was not above the law, and it went poorly for them whenever they ignored that, but that required armed resistance and the ability to oust an unpopular king. In most states that failed, and the king became the law - absolute monarchy became all the rage. England's one of the few countries where the opposite was true, and the king got his ass beaten every time he tried a power grab.

That is what makes democracy so necessary. Democracy is a market-like system for political leaders; while liberty may exist under a somewhat autocratic government, it is not well safeguarded and subject to the whims of the ruler/s. Democracy is a system that replaces the need for violence to remove a ruler from power (although it's pretty obvious that force will be used against those who violate the system, ensuring its survival), and necessarily checks their power as they must worry about election and re-election. The interests of their constituents are the only things that will get them elected, making them the best people to represent their locality because they will be required to be responsive to the electorate.

I'd like to add that, in my opinion, most European style parliamentary democracies are hardly healthy democracies, as parties are national in scope and party leadership decides the party's makeup and not the constituents. And of course, a democracy must also be bound by laws - the will of the majority is not above the law, just as the monarch's is not.

tl;dr: representative democracy is the best safeguard in a state for liberty because it transforms the political landscape into a stable (not prone to sudden outbreaks of violence or corruption) market-lite that its voters know will function as intended, and that if it doesn't it will be rectified the next round in the local primaries. Representative democracy or bust.


 No.7710

>>7684

Mostly I just wanted to shitpost with Edmund Burke (who to be honest is more a conservative thinker than a liberal/libertarian). His main argument against revolution however was that he felt that political systems worked best when they evolved over time and thus that revolutions aimed at attaining change were innately flawed as they throw out the institutions that had served the people perfectly well for centuries and thus the end result would be worse and prone to falling into violent anarchy without tradition to fall back on.

However he felt that resistance could be justified in order to retain traditional rights/ freedoms. Which is why he initially supported the American Revolution as an attempt by colonists to reclaim their traditional rights as British citizens (no taxation without representation etcetera) yet didn't support the more philosophically driven French revolution where members were more keen to argue for the introduction of rights and freedoms that hadn't been present previously in France.

In other words, revolution for Burke would only function if it was in order to revert recent changes and was supported by tradition (so in this sense I guess you could argue that the US could support a libertarian revolution if you focused on the constitution as a sign of a libertarian foundation for the nation) but in places where there lacks a strong libertarian tradition you'd need to push for slow, gradual change within the system because any attempt to force matters would lead to a shit ton of people dying without your changes really having any lasting permanency.


 No.7714

Funny faces, dude.


 No.7721

File: 1438052482768.jpg (34.06 KB, 336x500, 84:125, State3rdMillenium.jpg)

>(Direct) Democracy

>"Reactionary" forms of government

Why not both?


 No.7840

>>7684

An An-Cap revolution doesn't make sense, logically.

We're against the initiation of force, so storming Washington is completely contrary to our ideology.

The way An-caps would achieve a stateless society would be to find ways to live around the state, like using things they can't interfere with (I think the technical term is counter-economics). If the # of an-caps was large enough we could just stop paying taxes and the state would collapse.


 No.7842

>>7840

You should read Rothbards letter exchange with Samuel Konkin. He has some serious criticisms of agorism.


 No.7864

Who is this fluid druid?


 No.8376

Nobody likes weebshits

on /pol/ or here


 No.8377

>>7864

it's a generic animu loli. go back to 4chan /a/ you fucking autist. who giives a shit? theyy all look the same.


 No.9345

>>7684

You don't determine the revolution. The revolution determines you. Basically it has a very random causes just before you realize it, and after you realize it shit changes everything and you're forced to crawl right from the lowest state of humanity, namely its interstice with nature, because the state (of the law, of society, etc.) is itself rendered illegal.

My second objection is that the revolution/counter-revolution is like a logic of Sacrificial ritual. Basically the revolutionaries have to hold on, and surely revolutions have a big (often good) impact toward history proper, but it demands sacrifice. The sacrifices are from both sides of the conflict, which fight for something which has not existed yet, namely the Future, Freedom, or whatever you may call it. Basically both sides fight for Nothing, really, pure Will and desire. I'm not playing this big conspiracy theory game here: No, nobody secretly pulls the strings behind in an authentic revolution (because it's very chaotic and violent), but it's intriguing as to why this logic is always in repetition. I don't think the modern, 'New Testament' world should still engage with sacrificial rituals, even if the impact makes the world a better place.

Even if they're counter-revolutionaries, the very nature of revolution splits the totality of a society, and provides a possibility for an open, alternate world line. So, even if they want to roll back time just like before the revolution, their very act is still preconditioned by the revolution itself. They just choose the alternate world line which reproduces the ancient regime, simulating it, while knowing full well that both are not the same configuration/state of society. Notice how the 'Bourbon restoration' period of France couldn't succesfully roll back any changes made during the French Revolution, even if they wanted to sell it as 'going back to the good old times!, etc.'


 No.9360

>>8377

B-But she's special!


 No.9406

Who is this cum chum?


 No.9458

Who's this semen demon?


 No.9459

>>9458

She's from Umaru-chan.


 No.9466

File: 1442677782743.jpg (25.91 KB, 225x350, 9:14, 289620.jpg)

>>9459

>Kirie Motoba

Thanks leftypol-chan! :3


 No.9722

File: 1443042889927.jpg (107.88 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1443041471476.jpg)

>mfw leftypol-senpai noticed me


 No.10331

File: 1444020262772.jpg (49.84 KB, 500x389, 500:389, 1443990246103.jpg)

I guess we can all agree that starting our own revolution to make an ancap libertarian society would be a shitty idea. But what about the possibility of someone else trying to overthrow congress/parliament/whatever and we just pick up the pieces? Wouldn't that be essentially the same idea as making our own libertarian society in some unstable African country but instead it could be somewhere in post Civil War 2 America?

Pic sort of related.


 No.10333

File: 1444022050061.jpg (43.75 KB, 684x1024, 171:256, ce4d87a13f1eabe313b9867ac2….jpg)


 No.10337

File: 1444062316709.png (473.31 KB, 606x435, 202:145, 1443387318331.png)

>>10331

Not a murrican, but makes sense to me. And the population would be far more civilized to start with than some african illiterate populace more prone to tribal justice than anything else (this includes african-americans too, though).

I can't wait for cataclysm.


 No.15643

File: 1452853023647.gif (1.96 MB, 540x540, 1:1, tumblr_nsdsen2VlK1rro9xpo1….gif)

>What was yfw when you realised that you can't achieve libertarainism through democracy?

depends solely on the levell of education of the masses

>What was yfw you realised that western reactionary thought is heavily compatible with freedom?

kek

>what was your yfw you realised that it's not nazis vs communists, but the Revolution against the Counter-Revolution?

its not the 40's duh

>mfw bad post


 No.15665


 No.15672

>>15643

>depends solely on the levell of education of the masses

>state does the educating to begin with

Amazing post


 No.15674

>>15643

>the "masses"

Discarded


 No.15679

File: 1452880506178.jpg (51.58 KB, 407x407, 1:1, You_Sir_Are_A_Swine.jpg)

>>15643

Do you ever write anything of value, shithead?


 No.15686

A revolution against the state is feasible if you separated a heavily armed population onto a defendable and resourceful piece of land. Problem is, most healthy land is already occupied by other people so you can't just settle anywhere. Another way is to turn a population of normal people into a population of anarchists/libertarians by settling there and organizing a revolution against the state where everyone would just stop paying taxes. Everybody would have to be armed. The new population could then replace the state's police and government with private institutions.


 No.15690

>>15674

>>15679

>>15672

>implying an educated society wont lean towards and anarcho communist/anarcho cooperative system

sure if you spook them enough to turn them into lumprenprolers they will want to achieve libertarianism or even worse anacrap

>state does the educating to begin with

>implying a culture of self-education is something the stae is responable of


 No.15694

>>15643

>>15690

Dude, seriously? Your posts are so lazily written that I'm actually having trouble reading them


 No.15699

>>15686

>it's cool just don't call it a state.. prefix it with private and everyone will love it

My favourite meme


 No.15710

>>15699

I've seen this argument multiple times on this board, but I still don't understand how it's an argument at all. The whole point of an anarchist society is that the governing powers (the state) are not monopolized. Anarchism says that if you want to govern, you have to compete. So if your argument is "anarchists just want to privatize the state and pretend it's not the state!" then you're actually on the right track. One of the primary claims of anarchism is that a monopoly on force is immoral, hence why anarchists want to break this monopoly and allow competition. So yes, we want to replace the state with something that is extremely similar to it… that's the point. Anarchists believe that law is so important that they will hold the law itself accountable to the law.


 No.15727

File: 1453057489697-0.jpg (409.71 KB, 929x1363, 929:1363, What.Is.Government-Harper-….jpg)

File: 1453057489756-1.jpg (410.18 KB, 935x1353, 85:123, What.Is.Government-Harper-….jpg)

File: 1453057489777-2.jpg (400.81 KB, 929x1350, 929:1350, What.Is.Government-Harper-….jpg)

File: 1453057489777-3.jpg (391.55 KB, 935x1347, 935:1347, What.Is.Government-Harper-….jpg)

>>15710

No. Anarchism says that if you want to govern me, go and fuck yourself. Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists though, and they have a dictionary fetish, that's why they are content with just calling it something else.


 No.15731

File: 1453061518236.jpg (76.03 KB, 700x665, 20:19, batman sexy face.jpg)

>>15727

>No. Anarchism says that if you want to govern me, go and fuck yourself.

Funny, that's what anarchocapitalism says, too.


 No.15732

>>15731

Not really.


 No.15734

But counter-economics is revolutionary.


 No.15840

>>15727

>Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists because of my special definition of anarchism

>they have dictionary fetish

pot calling the kettle black


 No.15870


 No.15882


 No.15946

Will this shitty thread ever die?




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