[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / dempart / fanfic / jewess / komica / pol3 / truebrit / vichan ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 78th Attention-Hungry Games
/bimbo/ - Plastic and Fantastic!

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
One Alacrity node crashed, but it is back online. Some threads might be 404ing as a result. As for the media server, we are looking into potential improvements.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = 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

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Ya'll need Mises.

File: 1e7c6172c015e83⋯.jpg (38.74 KB, 680x660, 34:33, pls spoonfeed.jpg)

 No.97996

Old one is auto-saging. Basic questions about /liberty/, socialist "gotchas" masquerading as basic questions, etc., go here. If you have a "what about ____" question you'd like to ask that you're really, really sure will stump everyone this time, do a quick look over this list: (http://archive.is/bbtHt) before you post–chances are, someone has asked that question before, and there's already an answer or answers available to you.

 No.98016

what happens to your property when you die and you have no kids


 No.98017

how would the NAP work if no one obeyed it or believed in it


 No.98018

>>98016

It goes wherever you will it to

>>98017

The question doesn't make sense


 No.98019

>>98016

Assuming you also have no siblings, nephews, cousins, or second cousins either, and assuming you've made no provisions in your will? It would likely fall to a McCourt to decide who the executor of the will would be among the various claimants. And even for shut-in NEETs there will be claimants–people don't turn up their nose at the opportunity for free stuff. So let's say Anon Y. Mousse, anime tiddies connoisseur extraordinaire, dies unmarried and childless. His extended family forgot he existed awhile back and don't try to make any claim to his estate. After the guy he played in CS:GO servers with and the pizza delivery guy, his only source of social interaction, realize he's dead, they realize they both want a piece of those sweet programmer NEETBux, and go to the McCourt, turning down Burger Kangz arbitration due to the long line, to make their cases. Each argues why he was the only source of companionship Anon had in his miserable life and the closest thing he had to a friend. The McJudge listens to each argument, charges a nominal fee of 14.88 BTC, and rules that CSGO is the executor, granting him 55% of his choice of Anon's assets, with the remainder going to pizza guy.


 No.98025

wouldn't companies draining resources from undeveloped countries cause an influx of migration to first world countries?


 No.98038

>>98025

Companies don't "drain resources" from third world countries. If anything, the flow is in the opposite direction, as the low startup cost of business in poorer countries causes capital to flow from wealthier economies into poorer ones. If for whatever reason you see an "influx of migration" anyways (perhaps if said country is a socialist shithole with no potential for capital growth), the answer is the same one it always is in these cases: any attempt to migrate fails rather quickly when the entrant is refused and told to get the fuck off my property.


 No.98062

>>98038

so no public property in ancap?


 No.98070

Scenario: a man is found dead outdoors somewhere. He can't be identified. In usual fashion, the local ambulance picks him up and EMS tries to resuscitate, no good. His organs are harvest-able and could save the life of another man at the hospital.

Does it infringe on any property rights to move forward with the harvesting? We don't know if he willed against it, or if he has family that would protest for some burial ceremony reasons.

The root question is, does your claim to your body end in death, and should it be considered a found item for anyone to claim?


 No.98072

>>98062

I would think that goes without saying.

>>98070

Ancap doesn't have a top-down legal monoculture, so obvioulsy different locales would have different solutions to the problem.

>The root question is, does your claim to your body end in death, and should it be considered a found item for anyone to claim?

I would rule that ownership of the body goes to either the chief executor in the will, or to the next of kin of none is named. If there isn't a way to establish ownership, like in your scenario, then it's considered unowned property and subject to the rules of emborderment. This changes of course if the true owner can be found, in which case he retakes custody of the body. For example, if the next of kin comes into the morgue the day after the organ-harvesting happens, and have proof that they are next of kin, they would retake ownership of the body, and the hospital would probably be obligated to give them monetary compensation for the lost organs if the next-of-kin asked for it.


 No.98073

>>98070

I'm not an expert, but I think it depends on the local rules and laws of the territory that the body was found on.

Maybe he was found in a place that considers dead bodies no one's property by default, or maybe the property would belong to the family first and foremost.


 No.98074

>>98072

why should the hospital give reparations?

>>98073

I'm meaning to ask how it ought to be in a libertarian society


 No.98076

>>98074

>I'm meaning to ask how it ought to be in a libertarian society

There isn't one correct answer here. If you don't want to get raped after death, try not to die on a necrophiliac's lawn, if you don't want to be cremated, try to not die in a Muslim neighbourhood.

Whoever finds your body will probably want to know what is stated in your will, because if they sell all your organs and the owner of the dead body will come to collect it, the person could sue you for damaging his property.


 No.98081

>>98074

>why should the hospital give reparations?

Because it's the next-of-kin's property. Those organs belonged to him, and, although they did so in good faith, they gave away his property without permission. Since it's not practical or ethical to extract the organs out of the person in whom they ended up, providing monetary compensation for the lost property is a reasonable alternative.


 No.98086

>>98081

Isn't there a statute of limitations on such a circumstance?

If I find a consumable product, the proper owner who lost it can't be found, and I use it up, why is their misfortune any burden on me?

Transferring organs is a time sensitive matter and such a policy would discourage the use of available organs by the hospitals, meaning more deaths.


 No.98094

>>98018

>The question doesn't make sense

The question was that in a society where some people reject the NAP how is it dealt with?


 No.98099

>>98094

People who reject the rules of the system are still tried under the rules of the system, just like now.


 No.98100

>AnCaps coup the goverment and declare the state abolished

>Workers now stripped of all concessions immediately rise up

<Do you

<A. Concede to their demands

>AnCapitalism collapses as this results in the reformation of a state or regulatory entity

<B. Repress the strikers

>end up killing / maiming / imprisoning your entire workforce and/or consumer base and the economy collapses

What do you do?


 No.98101

>>98100

we don't coup the government and leave a lawless void


 No.98108

>>98100

>workers

What workers? Assuming we're talking about the west, most of the population is bourgoisie of some kind.

Stop trying to transpose 19th century socioeconomic conditions to the modern age.


 No.98114

>>98108

>Most of the population is bourgoisie in the west

What do you mean?

Do you imply that the vast majority of the population don't sell their labor for wages?


 No.98116

>>98100

>Workers now stripped of all concessions immediately rise up

Who? Stripped of what? Rise up against whom?


 No.98118

>>98116

>Who?

Workers

>Stripped of what

Concessions given to them by the capitalist class Minimum wages state mandated education and healthcare workplace safety legislation etc

>Against whom

Against capitalism / whichever power fills the power vacuum


 No.98119

>>98118

>Minimum wages

Minimum wages actually hurt wages more

>state mandated education

<indoctrination means educated

>healthcare

government regulation drives up healthcare costs in the US

>workplace safety

employers want to look out for their workers and accidents can ways happen even with spooks like workplace safety regulations. An employer can't kill off all his employees


 No.98144

>>98118

>Minimum wages

Not a concession but mandated barrier of entry into the workforce

>education and healthcare

Already provided free or at affordable prices from fraternal societies and the market

>workplace safety legislation

third-party safety standards are provided by the market


 No.98149

Robert Murphy's arguments aren't cutting it for me. He never addressed the point. He doesn't satisfy for me that warlords wouldn't take over. Why wouldn't one company fund their own mercenaries and attack a competitor? The companies can even do it so know one will know like McDonald's paying some thugs (so it can't trace back to McDonald's) to attack burger king. Why wouldn't private militaries attack each other? What if a gang of bandits got together, started small taking money from people they killed, seize the property of the people they killed, then hire a private military to further assist them.


 No.98151

>>98149

Even if you assume it's 100% impossible for the act to be traced back to McDonald's (how does everyone in the world know that Russian troops were in Crimea if they had no insignia?), the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Sending mercenaries to attack each other is much more expensive than just making a better product, and the ramifications of such an act (even if secret, it can't be secret forever) would have immediate consequences for McDonald's. Not only would distributors and suppliers blacklist them, their insurance rates would skyrocket, as they've just proven themselves to be extremely high-risk clients. Banks would be less likely to provide them loans, for a similar reason. And unlike the government, that other roving gang of thieves, a criminal gang has no aura of legitimacy around it, which might cause people to hesitate in acting against it the way they might a rogue government, and unlike a government, such a criminal gang wouldn't have the infrastructure in place to start their protection racket, and would have to start from scratch. Finally, one other thing:

>What if a gang of bandits got together, started small taking money from people they killed, seize the property of the people they killed, then hire a private military to further assist them.

I think it's very telling that the worst possible criticism of free enterprise people think of is essentially, "what if a government forms."


 No.98165

>>98151

Damn okay. What if the rich banded together and attempted to form a police state


 No.98168

File: 12b9d2ae5fc0d1c⋯.png (18.48 KB, 430x294, 215:147, ClipboardImage.png)

>>98165

It's still debatable whether the juice would be worth the squeeze–setting up a 'police state' is extraordinarily difficult, time-consuming, and expensive, and due to the fact that you'll be facing blacklists and armed resistance the whole time, even if you succeed in setting up a police state it won't be profitable until at least a generation afterwards, when people stop actively resisting and start paying their tax. And even then, the only way you even have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding is if all the rich banded together, which brings us to the second contention: game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. Cartels and conspiracies are inherently unstable entities, due to the fact that the individual payoff for any one person betraying his co-conspirators and not following the plan is so much higher than the payoff he would receive from colluding. The greater the number of entities involved in the conspiracy, the stronger the incentive is to defect. And once any one person defects, everyone else will hurry to defect as quickly as possible in turn, as they seek to minimize their losses. Since your suggestion by its very nature requires a large number of aspiring plutocrats to conspire together to succeed, it will very quickly suffer the same fate of all such conspiracies.


 No.98177

File: be9a9d8fde5942b⋯.gif (98.9 KB, 480x374, 240:187, be9a9d8fde5942b320f5b090eb….gif)

I want to buy bitcoin while it's still cheap, but I'm kinda broke. Will the economy get completely raped by (((central planners))) in the next few months or do I still have some time to earn some money?


 No.98257

>>98177

>buy bitcoin while it's still cheap

kind of late on this one aren't you?


 No.98320

>>98257

*relatively cheap (compared to what it was)


 No.98321

>>98086

>Isn't there a statute of limitations on such a circumstance?

Why would there be? Theft doesn't stop being theft with the passage of time. There is a practical statute of limitations in that the more time passes, the more difficult it is to prove that a theft occurred, and it is also more difficult to prove that if a threat occurred, you are in fact the rightful owner.

>Transferring organs is a time sensitive matter and such a policy would discourage the use of available organs by the hospitals, meaning more deaths.

Keep in mind we're talking about a very niche, very uncommon occurrence–someone dies, can't be identified, is used for organ transplant, and is then positively identified only after the transplant is finalized. It's a very unusual circumstance, and I doubt it would happen often enough to substantially affect hospital policy. And even in those rare cases where it does happen, it doesn't discourage the use of those organs, it just induces a hospital to pay for something that they received for free. As they probably pay for a good chunk of their organs already (since organ market is a thing in ancapistan), it would fit into the existing policy rather seamlessly.


 No.98373

Is bitcoin cash superior to bitcoin?


 No.98390

>>98373

I'm not a yuge cryptofag, but I believe the only technical difference between the two is that Bitcoin Cash was designed to hold a larger number of transactions in its ledger. Which one is "superior" will depend on what you actually want to use crypto for.


 No.98395

One of the most common arguments I hear against free market capitalism is: what about consumerism? how do you usually respond?1


 No.98401

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>98395

Consumerism is a product of fetishizing consumption and "demand-side" economics. The man responsible for these ideas dominating policy isn't an Austrian school, Chicago school, or any other free-market economist, but everyone's favorite interventionist: John Maynard Keynes. Free-market economists like the Austrians in fact promote the opposite of consumerism by stressing the importance of saving for economic growth, spurring on investment, and emphasizing the benefits of maintaining a low time-preference. Hell, if you want further proof of this, just look at the most negative stereotypes of "bad" capitalists out there–characters like Ebenezer Scrooge aren't depicted as being conspicuous consumers, they're depicted as being miserly, compulsive savers.

Really, consumerism is fundamentally a socialist trait; the green-eyed socialists are the ones who are always concerned with what material goods they have compared to others, how is it they transfer a greater quantity of consumerist goods to the largest number of people through food stamps and similar programs, how can they induce men to buy more consumerist goods through giving them makework jobs.


 No.98499

why do free market advocates seem to think that mega mergers wouldn't happen and that the biggest companies wouldn't just buy out the small ones?


 No.98505

>>98499

>why are free market advocates educated in diseconmies of scale

FTFY


 No.98597

in a free market with no patents wouldn't innovation be hampered? If some company can just reproduce a drug with ease and charge a lower price right after a company puts it out. Why even enter the market?


 No.98606

File: 12a329ea3e02ec6⋯.jpg (142.76 KB, 1141x601, 1141:601, Libertarian 101 - Nukes.jpg)

File: cdbca52d9c38eea⋯.png (126.59 KB, 2200x1164, 550:291, Libertarianism 101-1.png)

Don't forget the McNuke and the Conception contract.


 No.98607

>>98118

>Workers

That's not a useful category in capitalist societies, even Bill Gates is a "worker" he didn't trip and fall into seventy billion dollars.

"Worker" is a useful category in very corrupt feudal societies, where some people actually don't work for their survival and are hereditarily born into it no matter what they do.

>Concessions given to them by the capitalist class Minimum wages state mandated education and healthcare workplace safety legislation etc

This isn't even a sentence, what the fuck is wrong with you.


 No.98612

>>98597

Innovation wouldn't be hampered, in fact it will be encouraged. Rather than resting on the laurels of a patent-secured monopoly for 20 years, companies would have to constantly innovate to stay competitive; the market devours the indolent.

People will continue to enter the market for several reasons. First, nobody's time-preference is zero; you can't wait indefinitely for somebody else to innovate so you can copy them, so you have to have your own R&D. Second, there are many ways to get market power besides holding a patent. Being the first innovator, and/or the one who holds a distinctive trademark, are far more important for maintaining sales in the long run after a patent has expired. You can see this in Advil continuing to sell ibuprofen for a higher price than generic substitutes, or Trijicon continuing to be the only manufacturer of dual-illuminated scopes despite the patent running out 10 years ago. Alternatively, you can compete on quality rather than just innovation–if your original product is of better craftsmanship, and has a better warranty, than the imitators, customers will be more inclined to continue patronizing you. Third, having a strong R&D department is beneficial in and of itself, regardless of the sales you make. If, thanks to your reputation for R&D, your company is expected to make some innovation in the future, the present day value of your company will increase, making it more attractive to potential investors (or stockholders if your stock is on the open market).

>If some company can just reproduce a drug with ease and charge a lower price right after a company puts it out

This happens already. If I walk into CVS, Rite-Aid, or some other pharmacy, I can find them selling generic versions of ibuprofen and a slew of other drugs for less than the brand name version. These products are identical in every practical way, so why haven't the discount imitators put the large company that once held the patent out of business?


 No.98659

>>98606

2nd infografic is in disagreement with biology of humans

in humans men dont take care of offspring, it is women's job to make male stay with her and give her resources and give resources to their child. but man is not obliged to do these things


 No.98681

>>98659

So? NAP is in disagreement with biology of humans. If you want to argue from biological essentialism you are on the wrong board although I would agree with a lot of what you have to say


 No.98700

>>98606

Is that you, the "implied contract" shill?


 No.98702

Majesty 2 is a great game. It teaches women about borders and mutts about taxes


 No.98713

File: f7995f063c7ed7d⋯.png (142.65 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 20190226_090054.png)

The title image is misleading, I propose it be replaced. "Welcome" means that the ideology listed is in keeping with libertarianism, but that's obviously not the case for most of them listed.

Everyone is obviously welcome to come talk, it's an imageboard, and we even have commie flags.

I think a dramaticized pic of hoppe or Ron Paul would be good, like the RMS sticky on half /g/


 No.98714

File: 5765037ae800637⋯.png (839.41 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, ClipboardImage.png)

Is he unironically /ourguy/? I know he said that he is a socialist, but no one except socialist really buys that, right?


 No.98715

>>98713

Does the BO even post here? I haven't seen any regular posters who have the same writing style as the sticky.


 No.98716

File: 2a655f76c3dba75⋯.jpg (11.6 KB, 200x200, 1:1, e700509c2554d274982f597749….jpg)

>>98715

Yes.

t. BO


 No.98719

>>98714

I think nobody explained to him about the whole calculation problem thing.


 No.98728

>>98715

He occasionally uses the gadsden flag, but he is around, just doesn't post much with his BO persona. I irregularly check claims so we don't get some reddit-tier control freak in charge like what happened to /fit/.


 No.98737

>>98728

>spoiler

Are you me?


 No.98738

File: 9921d3b292316eb⋯.jpg (335.37 KB, 1200x1800, 2:3, Hans-Hermann-Hoppe wn.jpg)


 No.98828

One of the most common argument I see many Keynesian advocates use in support for government intervention in the market place is blaming the failure of the free market for spiraling the economy into a great recession. What do libertarians believe caused such a financial crisis to happen to leave millions of people unemployed?


 No.98829

File: 6026abe958f7aac⋯.pdf (774.81 KB, Economic Depressions Their….pdf)

>>98828

TL;DR: The Federal Reserve's keeping interest rates artificially low generates a glut of malinvestment and credit expansion as far more people take out far more loans than would do so in an unrestricted market, on account of the price of borrowing (the interest rate) being lower than it should be. When the expected payoff of this borrowing fails to materialize, the artificial high the central bank caused in the economy comes to an abrupt halt. This results in defaults, firm closures, and layoffs as the market painfully normalizes to reality. In effect, by telling you that central banks need to regulate the economy to prevent the crashes (caused by central banks), Keynesians are telling you that the cure to your hangover is to just keep drinking–because if you never sober up, you never get hungover.


 No.98882

>>98401

>The man responsible for these ideas dominating policy isn't an Austrian school, Chicago school, or any other free-market economist, but everyone's favorite interventionist: John Maynard Keynes

Keynes teaches that spending means growth. But when I was reading Human Action, Mises said that consumers spending money in other sectors because free trade and automation it would create jobs and make the economy grow. So you're saying the Austrians teach that saving means growth even though mises said the opposite


 No.98922

>>98728

You mean you're constantly checking claims, hoping to be the pope of /liberty/.


 No.98926

>>98882

>Mises said that consumers spending money in other sectors because free trade and automation it would create jobs and make the economy grow. So you're saying the Austrians teach that saving means growth even though mises said the opposite

What are you talking about? Mises spends most of Human Action praising entrepreneurs, and the way in which their predictive efforts, motivated by the potential for profit, is what causes the economy to function, as they divert modes of production from less efficient roles to more efficient ones. Nor does that specific example you bring up constitute as an argument based on consumerism. Free trade and automation spur economic growth by decreasing costs. It is the burden of entrepreneurs to exploit those reduced costs, and increase production in the most profitable sector. You even mentioned "creating jobs" yourself–who is it that creates those jobs, by hiring people? Presuming it occurs in the market and not as a state handout, increasing employment is the very opposite of consumerism, for it emphasizes the growth of product capital (in this case human capital) rather than fetishizing spending.


 No.98927

>>98926

>Nor does that specific example you bring up constitute as an argument based on consumerism

It literally says it on the Mises wiki too

> any savings in labor costs must be either passed on to consumers (who then have extra money to spend or save, either of which produces more jobs)

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Automation

to me it seems like it does advocate for consumerism.


 No.98928

>>98927

You see how it says "either" in your quote, and how in the very next sentence the article goes on to describe the benefits to the producer? And you see how, in your quote, saving is mentioned as well as spending, instead of focusing exclusively on spending the way a Keynesian would? Nice quotemine, and I like how you first mentioned Human Action, then switched to using Mises Wiki—consistency is for chumps, right?

Even ignoring all that, what exactly is your point? That if anyone highlights any kind of benefit to the consumer, anywhere, at any point in time, they become guilty of "consumerism"? That's just stupid. Consumerism is focusing on consumption and spending at the expense of everything else, and neither Human Action nor the article you posted are guilty of that. Even that portion of the article that does show benefits to the consumer can't do so without emphasizing the role of the producer—it is only because of the firm's efforts to cut costs that the consumer sees a benefit. A consumerist would make no distinction between a reduction in cost from automation and a direct subsidy paid to the consumers. Are you actually this obtuse, or do you take some form of enjoyment from this pilpul?


 No.98950

>>98922

Even if the BO doesn't login for two weeks and the board becomes up for grabs. It will also be fucking weeks before anyone responds to your claim emails, and the BO will probably login within that time.


 No.99023

what does libertarianism do to stop the people who make it impossible to implement?


 No.99025

>>99023

in theory helicopters, in practice it wouldn't be very libertarian so we make an appeal to the good characters of the people


 No.99026

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>99025

> in practice it wouldn't be very libertarian

Nonsense. If someone threatens you with a gun, you don't have to wait until he pulls the trigger and the bullet has left the barrel before you retaliate; the mere act of pulling the gun and threatening you is provocation enough for you to act against him. By the same token, if a person or persons loudly and repeatedly announce their intentions to use the state as a cudgel against you, to use it to rob you of your wealth and livelihood, you are completely within your rights to prevent them from doing so. Throwing commies out of helicopters isn't aggression, it's self-defense.


 No.99027

>>99026

I know you're right, but at the same time I know we're pussies and we don't have the military power to defend ourselves, so I just delude myself into thinking that being pacifists is a choice


 No.99035

>>99025

It's a violation of the *Non-Aggression* Principal


 No.99037

>>99027

This. We can't even get rid of commies off of our own fucking board.


 No.99041

>>99037

commies on the board are good. They let us improve our arguments and maybe someone will change his mind.


 No.99043

>>99037

That's because this board has certain principles. It isn't non-existent moderation that means we get raided, that lies in the nature of small boards. That we have some retards spamming lies and slander once every while, that is for the reasons >>99041 said, and because we decided against quality control by the admins years ago, as we saw how this turned out for /pol/ and /leftypol/. We don't enforce ideological purism, but that is why we never had a problem with mods throwing half the users of the site under the bus every six months. You may not see the benefits of the policy, but you would definitely notice the drawbacks if it was gone.


 No.99047

libertarians complain about government lobbying. but wouldn't companoes just lobby private police forces?


 No.99048

>>99047

They wouldn't lobby them, they'd directly pay them for their services. Lobbying is only when one party holds a monopoly on force. If you privatize policing, there's no concentration of authority.


 No.99050

>>99047

Lobbying is only effective because a) you only need to bribe one guy that has a monopoly of force b) your bribe is only measured against the salary of one pencil-pusher instead of against the gross profits of an entire security agency c) people assign a certain kind of mysticism to state police and state officials which shields them from criticism. In a system of free enterprise, bribing one court or one police agency means absolutely nothing, because every single other actor in the market would immediately cease to see the bribed agency as legitimate and take their business elsewhere. It's easy to have the courts on your side when there's one District Court for the entire city which has authority over everyone; capturing dozens or hundreds of different courts, each of which only has authority over those consumers who deign to purchase their services, is much more difficult. Finally, state institutions are treated differently by people than private ones. No one is under any illusion of Wal-Mart being a "servant of the people" or any such nonsense. If Wal-Mart provides a valuable service to them consumers make use of it, and if it doesn't they will immediately and without mercy condemn its incompetence, both with their voices and with their wallets. No one would apologize on their behalf and say Wal-Mart is doing the best that they can, and certainly no one would suggest that they could solve the problem, if only they were given more money through a budget increase. One the courts are privatized, the attitude will be the same. Even discounting competition, even discounting the sheer impracticality of such bribes, the fact that no one except the clients have any reason to give a shit what the courts say means any bribe will be completely toothless.


 No.99056

>>99050

> you only need to bribe one guy that has a monopoly of force

so a business can bribe the property owner in a private city and make it so no other businesses can form?


 No.99057

>>99056

What do you mean "the" property owner? There would be hundreds, possibly thousands of different plots and property-owners in a city.

Nevertheless, let's assume for the moment your criticism is a plausible occurrence. What you, and anyone else making similar objects, are asking is "what if a single entity forcibly seizes monopoly control of a region, and uses its newfound power to plunder and kill?" In other words, the harshest criticism of the natural order that anyone can think of is, "what if a government forms?" That alone serves to heavily bolster the free market position.


 No.99058

>>99056

Yes. If one guy owned the entire city, he could ban other businesses from opening in his city. No one would want to live in that city though since it means others can own entire cities on the cheap and compete with him. No rational man with enough intelligence, luck, and guts to be capable of owning an entire fucking city, would willingly do this.


 No.99062

>>99058

No one would know that hes being bribed

>>99057

>"what if a government forms?" is the harshest criticism

nope this is

> Without a govt, you have no judicial system. Without a judicial system you have no property rights or laws. Without property rights and laws you have no commerce or investment. Without commerce or investment, you have no economy.

If you want to move the judicial system over to the private sector, to avoid this problem, then you haven't actually created a stateless society. You still have institutions preforming the role of govt., as such they will be susceptible to the same corruption as public officials were. There is no reason to believe your judge for hire wouldn't be corrupted, and placed on the payroll of the highest bidder (banks).


 No.99065

>>99062

> Without a govt, you have no judicial system.

You realize private arbitration exists, and is prevalent even in the current system, right? In fact, private arbitration is used far more often than the state courts, and most cases don't even make it to a judge. There's no part of the process of dispute resolution that necessitates it being funded through tax. The rest of your chain of logic is based on this false assumption and as such may be ignored.

>There is no reason to believe your judge for hire wouldn't be corrupted

https://mises.org/library/possibility-private-law

There are plenty. The reasons you don't see corruption in every other sector of the economy apply as well to the market for security.


 No.99066

File: 7e5d2d797bd5112⋯.gif (3.77 MB, 700x700, 1:1, 7e5d2d797bd51123a879ae3496….gif)

>>99062

>No one would know that hes being bribed

>Implying

>MUH ROADS

Oh, you're retarded.

We have no property rights. We haven't had them for a very long time. Until eminent domain is abolished, property taxes are abolished, zoning laws are abolished, being able to tell fags you won't bake their cake is allowed, etc. I won't begin to even PRETEND that we have an INKLING of property rights. Similarly, when judges won't even hear a conservative proposal like a temporary injunction on the bumpstock ban while they climb over each other to put an injunction on whatever the fuck Trump happens to be doing at the moment, when our judicial system knowingly lets corrupt cops go, tries to jail journalists for reporting on crimes committed by police, and profits off of putting as many people in prison as possible for them there grants and civil asset forfeiture, how can we even CLAIM that the judicial system isn't already in shambles? No, fuck you. Fuck off. Go deepthroat a cactus.


 No.99067

File: 519eb281d2ce571⋯.webm (3.54 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, KnobbySlushyElephant.webm)

>>99062

>>99066

Ah sorry, what I meant to say was

>Implying no one would notice when the guy who owns all the buildings in a sector suddenly bans everyone except one group from being allowed to be a judge or be a baker, etc.

>Implying people need to know he's being bribed to see the effects of the bribery and move out with their wallets


 No.99072

File: f9aeef8d4ab63ee⋯.jpg (375.11 KB, 2192x1566, 1096:783, 8a3ccfd47f154fa3cfdccafc7b….jpg)

>>99065

You make fanatical claims.

>yeah we'll just have private companies do what the govt does best

>private arbitration cant be bought of by bankers

>>99066

>zoning laws are bad

Are you insane? Do you want your neighbor's house falling over or collapsing? Do you even care about cities looking nice or do you just want brutalism (pic related)?


 No.99073

>>99072

I want to be able to walk across the street to work instead of having to drive to the industrial sector of my city, so yes, zoning laws are bad. If someone wants to live next to the factory or warehouse or what have you they work at, that's their business. If a farm wants the slaughterhouse next door to them, that's their god-given fucking right. If you don't want to live next to that factory or office building or whatever, then you have the option to move away from that shit to some suburb where the houses aren't going to be dirt cheap since you're paying for the luxury of not living next to a power substation or factory or whatever.


 No.99075

>>99072

>yeah we'll just have private companies do what the govt does best

>fanatical claims

You're not very bright, are you?


 No.99080

>>99072

>Complains that cities won't look nice without zoning laws

>Uses a form of architecture predominantly used by authoritarian governments as an example

What did he mean by this?


 No.99081

>>99062

You do realize part of the reason banks have so much power these days is because of central banking?


 No.99086

>>99081

>>205556378 (You)

And the federal reserve was created because bankers where leveraging money out of thin air. The secret service was actually created to prevent this fraud, over 30% of the capital in the US at that point was completely fraudulent. When larger firms bought up these smaller firms, known as "wildcat banks", they unknowingly purchased fraudulent banks that merely lied about the amount of reserves they were borrowing against and lending out to unsuspecting citizens. When capital was called in, these got exposed and larger firms, which were over-leveraged due to these fake banks, collapsed as well. This created contagions and bank runs. So in short, eliminating a central bank would not eliminate bank fraud.


 No.99087

>>99086

I never asserted that eliminating a central bank would eliminate bank fraud. But it would certainly disincentivize it.


 No.99088

>>99087

Bank fraud is what gives banks so much money


 No.99098

wouldn't companies just outsource or import labor?


 No.99111

>>99098

Comparative advantage my dude. You can't outsource everything, and without government gibs (either direct like transfer payments or indirect, as in public schools) to subsidize it importing low quality shitskins is more trouble than it's worth.


 No.99118

>>99086

>over 30% of the capital in the US at that point was completely fraudulent.

source?


 No.100298

let's say two companies dominate a market and decide to collude. they can do that pretty easily. if someone else wanted to enter the market how would they perform the R&D necessary when they are years behind in research? how could they enter the market and be an actual threat to the cartel.


 No.100327

>>100298

Why are the companies colluding at all, when game theory and the prisoner's dilemma suggest that both players will almost immediately break the collusion? Cartels are inherently unstable entities, there's a reason they aren't seen in the market outside of state-controlled markets.

But, setting all that aside for the moment: What exactly do you mean by "the R&D necessary?" What market is this, and what level of R&D is needed for another market to compete? There aren't any patent laws in the free market, which means that, if nothing else, the competitive fringe would be able to imitate the dominant firm's products, then use a comparatively small amount of R&D to differentiate its version of the product, either through quality improvement or through catering to a slightly different niche of the market. It can take advantage of the large firm's inertia and impersonality, and market itself as a boutique firm much more responsive where customer service and customer flexibility are concerned. They could develop a relatively small and cheap R&D branch, then lease their R&D department to other smaller competitors in the market for a nominal fee. Even if we assume that your not quite realistic collusion scenario were accurate, there exist innumerable methods of competition for the smaller firms. Not least of the reasons this is the case is that there are various advantages which only small firms have, as well as various disadvantages that only large firms have.


 No.100374

>>100298

You can’t even get two salespeople working for the same company to keep from undercutting each other. What makes you think two companies will work together? And if they do, that a third will definitely stay out of the market?


 No.100384

>>100298

>if someone else wanted to enter the market how would they perform the R&D necessary when they are years behind in research?

Okay, first of all, let me point out that this is an assumption, nothing more. There is no iron law that when two companies collude, their R&D advances so quickly that no competitor could possibly catch up. Startup firms frequently have superior technology as their gimmick, and that would be the case even more often if you didn't have patent laws prohibiting technological innovation just because you happen to use a patented design of screw in your newest machine.

Besides, you don't need new competitors to break up a cartel. It's aesthetically pleasing if some underdog company comes in and roughs up the stagnant market, true, but that is not necessarily better than one of the two companies simply breaking the cartel agreement, not from the standpoint of economics. As soon as one company becomes a burden to the other, the cartel will break up. That can be the case when one of the two companies is forced to share its newest research with its lazy cartel partner, for example, or when, for any reason, it notices that it can make more money by undercutting the cartel agreement. This is what happened quite frequently historically.

Your main issue here, as I can see it, is that you look at large companies as behemoths dominating the market, not as genuine actors subject to all the laws and dictates of the marketplace. That's a very common way of thinking, but it isn't correct.


 No.100392

>>98072

>Ancap doesn't have a top-down legal monoculture, so obvioulsy different locales would have different solutions to the problem.

Thank you for this. I'm sick of everyone trying to model the whole world according to "a universal (anarchist) plan" that has to work everywhere and everytime.

People were able to live without complicated polticial and economic models just fine, but for some reason every single risk and potentially negative outcome must be mapped out and must have a waterproof "solution" for it.

If I wanted to depend on a system perfectly worked out for "my best interest" I wouldn't be a damn anarchist ffs lol.


 No.100406

File: f95547ebf9ae83d⋯.jpeg (88.83 KB, 650x481, 50:37, 24275EA0-F26B-41E0-9C81-8….jpeg)

File: d2ce081d9b8d671⋯.png (234.49 KB, 640x489, 640:489, 671DEB7C-3555-40A4-B9B9-E4….png)

What’s /liberty’s/ stance on the holocaust? Do you guys believe the atrocities committed by the Nazis are true, or was the whole ordeala hoax perpetrated by the allied forces?


 No.100440

>>100406

>Do you guys believe the atrocities committed by the Nazis are true

I don't know about the other folks here, but I do believe the holocaust was real.


 No.100445

>>100406

I don't believe Auschwitz had a swimming pool, movie theater, and full-service massage center if that's what you're asking. Nor will I spend hours shoving pictures of wooden doors and back-of-the-napkin arithmetic into your face. I do think it was blown out of proportion by Allied propaganda as history is written by the victors, and we know from the Entente in WWI that the English and Americans aren't above a little demonizing propaganda to justify their wars. I also wouldn't be surprised if that propaganda involved fudging the numbers a bit, intentionally or otherwise. Postwar germany offered a monetary reparation for Holocaust survivors, any economist could tell you that incentive would cause a lot of brand new holocaust survivors to suddenly start popping up. We also already know that several ancillary parts of the holocaust were fabricated, namely: the soap, the lampshades, the masturbation machines, and the Holocoaster.

All that being said, one thing is clear. Regardless of whether or not the depiction of the Holocaust is accurate, a certain group have been milking that sucker dry for guilt and prestige. This remains a true statement whether or not the event actually occurred as described.


 No.100483

>>100392

Most people can't understand decentralization because basically all they know is top-down, centralized "organization", it's pretty sad if you think about it.


 No.100491

>>100440

I've looked into denial. After some research i realized it probably happened


 No.100499

File: 8946f616627d7c8⋯.jpg (45.71 KB, 721x960, 721:960, 1490124874364.jpg)

>>100445

Don't you know? Auschwitz also had a sauna, a bar, a strip club, a casino, a shopping mall, a football stadium, a 5-star restaurant, a few fast-food joints with free delivery, and a videogame arcade.

The kikes were having the time of their lives, but being the ungrateful Saturn-worshippers that they are, they wouldn't be satisfied until they bathed in the blood of the German People as a sacrifice to their demiurge.


 No.100568

>>100440

A better question would be to what extent is the official narrative of the Holocaust to be believed. Some "revisionists" question the death toll or question the methods employed (was malnutrition and typhus the primary causes of death or was it the gas chambers).


 No.100660

File: ac6c1bb935c3da5⋯.jpg (17.68 KB, 255x255, 1:1, ac6c1bb935c3da5c43750c5334….jpg)

>>100406

Do you guys believe the atrocities committed by the Nazis are true, or was the whole ordeala hoax perpetrated by the allied forces?

I believe most of what is said about it was true. There was a plan by the German high command to kill Jews(as well as other undesirables such as fags,Slavs,dissenters). I believe in the extermination camps. I do however think that certain aspects of the holocaust were definitely exaggerated, if not fabricated like the lampshades,masturbation machines, super out their stuff that's just plain ridiculous,but there always going to charlatans out their that want to be the victim especially if there is a financial incentive for it. That however does not make that rest of the Holocaust fake though.


 No.100679

>>100406

Most of it is probably made up. The claims don't make sense logistically and looking at the design plans for the concentration camps it they don't appear to have been built to be used as 'death camps' – for example, in Auschwitz the camp workers would have to carry the dead bodies from the 'gas chamber' up a flight of stairs to get them to the cremation ovens – plus the fact that there simply wasn't enough ovens to cremate all of the people who were supposedly gassed in the camps. And even if they were, what happened to the skeletons and ashes? Why can't we find any mass graves containing the bones of 11 million corpses? The official explanation seems to be that the Nazis used a set of elaborate bone-crushing machines (conveniently, the machines themselves were never found), but this would still leave bone shards, and make the logistics of the killing of 11 million people even more unfeasible.

Added to this the fact that Nazi officials were tortured in order to obtain confessions for the Nuremberg trials. Rulolf Hoess even signed a confession in English, a language that he didn't speak: https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/

Then we have the host of ridiculous claims that most people here are familiar with; roller-coasters that launched Jews into ovens, electric floors, Jew soap, masturbation machines, etc. This alone doesn't prove anything but it does show that the people pushing the Holocaust narrative have a history of baldfaced lying.


 No.100720

File: 76f390337faa12b⋯.jpg (923.73 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1553938432559.jpg)

Can I just open a business in a libertarian society? Like a store or a company.

Pic unrelated


 No.100728

>>100720

…yes? Why wouldn't you be able to? I'm really not sure what you're asking here.


 No.100738

yo how do I embed youtube videos?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1IVZpk_rVo[/youtube]


 No.100739


 No.100743


 No.100796

under private healthcare if someone gets hit by a car how is it ensured they get to the nearest cheapest hospital


 No.100801

>>100796

It's in the mutual interest of insurance firms to allow other firms to use their ER facilities, then settle the cost for the short-term rent after the fact. Given that such firms would already have standardization agreements in place with one another, they would likely agree beforehand to allow this kind of short-term rent.


 No.100826

How do you practically prevent a monopoly of force from taking place in a given geographical territory? And doesn't libertarianism claim that monopolies aren't inherently bad?

Also, how do you even defend such a place from CIA niggers who were sent there with stolen money (taxes) to infiltrate and subvert your ancap society?


 No.100831

>>100826

people would unsubscribe from private defence agency that breaks nap


 No.100837

>>100826

>How do you practically prevent a monopoly of force from taking place in a given geographical territory? And doesn't libertarianism claim that monopolies aren't inherently bad?

I think you are confusing legal monopoly of force and factual monopoly of force. You can have one without the other, a nation with a legal monopoly of force but a million gangsters acting against this legal fiction every day, and a society in which everyone has the full right to defend himself but only one entity has the means to do so.

Let's just say, it would be hard for a PMC to disarm all its subscribers, as it would have no legal leverage to do so under a Rothbardian framework. It would not be impossible for it to be tyrannical, but very, very unlikely.

>Also, how do you even defend such a place from CIA niggers who were sent there with stolen money (taxes) to infiltrate and subvert your ancap society?

That is a general problem, you can just as well ask how a nation state would defend itself against subversion by an anarchocapitalist secret service. You don't necessarily need a state to spy on people, infiltrate institutions, and ultimately subvert them, private entities are entirely capable of doing so, Scientology being a prime example, but there are many others.

Whether an espionage attempt works out depends on a lot of accidental factors, like an attempt at military conquest. It could be that the CIA is unmotivated, internally divided, and has fewer resources than a middle-sized company in Ancapistan. Then whatever it's gonna try will not work out. It will be akin to the secret service of Zimbabwe trying to infiltrate the USA, comical rather than threatening. Or, the CIA could be highly motivated and on a crusade, and in that case, there is no stopping it no matter what you do, whether you're Ancapistan or Soviet Russia.

My response to the military-question is quite similar, as I said above. There is no such thing as a simple formula on whether a military campaign will be successful. The Taborites destroyed the Holy Roman Empire on the battlefield because they were crazy enough to spontaneously invent guns (in the late Middle Ages!), the Nazis defeated France despite having half its number of tanks by being the first power to make use of the full potential of tanks. The next paradigm change in military history could be a technology that renders ICBM's inoperable, or that could reliably shoot down any plane or drone from thousands of miles away. What would the result be? The US would lose its military hegemony, practically overnight. It's the nature of a paradigm change that it overhauls the rules, and this is why we cannot write a formula on how well Ancapistan will perform on matters like espionage or military defense.


 No.100913

>>100837

Thanks for clearing that up. Is there something I could read about this in more detail?


 No.100916

>>100913

Hoppe's collection of essays, The Myth of National Defense, is probably the best resource that goes into detail on the private production of security. If you don't want a deep dive but a more casual overview, the Mises institute has a variety of published articles on the subject.


 No.101004

How do you prove that intrinsic, natural rights exist?


 No.101005

>>101004

They're self-evident in the fact that what we call natural rights and autonomy are things which everyone prefers to have for himself; even those who seek to restrict freedom never seek to restrict their own freedom. Evidently, the desire for natural rights is something that is a fundamental property of the human condition.

>but don't some people want to be restricted?

Yes, but people would object if you tried to restrict them in a way beyond their preferred method, and absent coercion it's a restriction they would have naturally sought out themselves, and therefore voluntary. Obeying the word of God is obviously a restriction, but a Catholic would certainly object if you forbade him from following the word of God, or if you told him he must follow the word of Allah or Vishnu instead. Anti-gunners would object if you told them they must carry a gun every day. And so on.

Beyond that, it may be shown that to argue against natural rights and in favor of a system of aggression is logically incoherent, through Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics:

>Hoppe states that because both parties in a debate propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation presupposes various norms including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed norms of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (a performative contradiction). Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction. Thus, Hoppe argues that arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.

Hoppe states that his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for deontological libertarian ethics. Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument. Argumentation ethics draws on ideas from Jürgen Habermas's and Karl-Otto Apel's discourse ethics, from Misesian praxeology and from the political philosophy of Murray Rothbard.

>Hoppe first notes that when two parties are in conflict with one another, they can choose to resolve the conflict by engaging in violence, or engaging in argumentation. In the event that they choose to engage in argumentation, Hoppe asserts that the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict. He therefore concludes that non-violence is an underlying norm (Grundnorm) of argumentation that is accepted by both parties.

>Hoppe states that because both parties propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation must presuppose certain norms, including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed propositions of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (this is called a performative contradiction). Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction.


 No.101011

>>101005

But isn't a right essentially an obligation to treat or not to treat a party in a certain way? I can see how it can be argued that every human would prefer the freedom to follow through on their desires, but how do you come to the conclusion that we are obliged to grant them that freedom?

>to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction.

This is only true if the proposition is that violence should always be used to resolve conflicts.


 No.101018

>>101011

>But isn't a right essentially an obligation to treat or not to treat a party in a certain way?

No. Rights don't imply any positive obligations, and they are not "granted" to people. You don't need to do anything for a man to grant him freedom, quite the opposite: you ignore him. In order for a man to have his natural rights, those around him must simply fail to violate them, by failing to aggress against him. You don't seem to object to the fact that these rights are natural, i.e. that the preference to not have their rights violated is extant in every man (whether placed there by God or by nature I leave up to you). Your question seems to be, then, why a man would want to respect another's rights if he does not benefit from doing so. The answer is that it is in fact beneficial to him to respect the rights of others, as well. It has been established that the desire to have one's natural right's respected is universal among man. It follows then that men will seek to interact only with those people that don't violate their natural rights. Rights-violaters are naturally excluded from these congregations of rights-respecters; if they attempt to interact with them, they are either blocked (through blacklists and physical security, i.e. locks, walls and guns), or killed in incidents of self-defense. To avoid such incidents, people are compelled to respect the rights of others. In essence, this is just an expanded form of the Golden Rule: treat others the way you wish to be treated.

>This is only true if the proposition is that violence should always be used to resolve conflicts.

No, it's true whenever anybody attempts to argue in favor of violence. Because one of the tacit assumptions when one engages in debate is that the parties will not engage in aggression (otherwise it wouldn't be a debate, by definition), it is logically incoherent to use debate to advocate for violence, because you are contradicting the first principles of debate. It doesn't matter if the contradiction happens some of the time or all of the time, it's still a contradiction. It is logically incoherent to act under an assumption of nonaggression while advocating aggression, just as it is logically incoherent for a man to declare, "I am at this moment dead."


 No.101028

>>101018

>You don't seem to object to the fact that these rights are natural, i.e. that the preference to not have their rights violated is extant in every man

I suppose I am having trouble understanding what exactly rights are. This statement seems to imply that a right is equal to a negative preference – a preference for others not to do something. Is this correct?

>The answer is that it is in fact beneficial to him to respect the rights of others, as well

But what about situations in which someone can violate someone's rights without getting caught or punished? What about societies in which the violation of rights is tolerated or even encouraged? Additionally I have trouble believing that an intrinsic quality is to be upheld solely through extrinsic means. If being treated well by my peers is really the only reason to respect others rights, it seems to me that those rights do not in fact reside intrinsically in other people but instead are just a set of rules invented by my peers to facilitate cooperation.

>it is logically incoherent to use debate to advocate for violence, because you are contradicting the first principles of debate.

Well, the established purpose of a debate is determining the truth. Conflicts can have purposes other than determination of the truth. For example, if I am mugged, I do not care about the truth at all. In this conflict, either survival or protecting my possessions can be seen as the purpose, for me at least. Or let's say even that I am not the victim but the mugger. In the conflict that I have initiated, determining the truth about something is irrelevant for me; my goal is material gain.

Unless I argue in the debate that conflicts of every nature should be resolved with violence, I do not see any logical contradiction in asserting that violence is warranted in certain types of conflicts.


 No.101030

>>101028

>This statement seems to imply that a right is equal to a negative preference

That's essentially correct. Natural rights are understood as the right not to have things imposed on you. The right to life is not the right to live forever, it's the right to not be killed. The right to liberty is not the right to do whatever you want, it's the right not to have your actions restricted. The right to property is not a license to steal and plunder, it's a right not to be stolen from.

>But what about situations in which someone can violate someone's rights without getting caught or punished?

That's where the initial premises about rights being something natural–something the creator has given to all mankind–comes in, and why any purely consequentialist argument in favor of rights breaks down. Yes, there are situations in which it's conceivable that rights are violated–either a serial killer that's really good at hiding the evidence, or a someone who uses his stellar reputation to deflect accusations of wrongdoing, or simple bad luck. This doesn't change the fact that the person being aggressed against still very much objects to the violation, and it doesn't change the fact that the violation happens. It does not follow that because rules can be broken, that rules don't exist at all.

>Additionally I have trouble believing that an intrinsic quality is to be upheld solely through extrinsic means.

Why? Your health is an intrinsic quality, it can only be upheld through extrinsic means, i.e. living in a good environment and taking in food. It doesn't follow from this that health does not exist, or that health originates externally from you.

>What about societies in which the violation of rights is tolerated or even encouraged?

Does everyone involved, including the person whose rights are "violated", agree to what is taking place, and, should they stop agreeing, are they able to stop participating? If the answer to both of those questions is "yes", then there's no violation taking place, because all actions being taken are voluntary, ergo no force is being committed. Otherwise, see the answer above. The fact that the majority happen to encourage a rights violation does not change the fact that the minority's rights are being violated.

>Well, the established purpose of a debate is determining the truth.

That's far too strong a statement to make. Debates about policy have little to do with what is and is not true, nor do debates about where to have dinner. A debate which concerns matters of truth, but is argued using purely emotional arguments from either side, will not determine the truth. The only universal property of debates is that they are a method of resolving disputes, specifically a method of resolving disputes through persuasion rather than through force. Arguing about where to eat dinner is an alternative to one man knocking the other man out and dragging him to the preferred restaurant. Debate is necessarily built on the precept of nonaggression. Because debate is necessarily built on the precept of nonaggression, any two individuals who engage in debate tacitly agree not to aggress against one another–and if that agreement is broken by one of them committing violence, it ceases to be a debate. We can say then that the "norms" of debate include nonaggression–by choosing to debate instead of to fight, the two parties have rejected aggression. The action of debate, therefore, implies nonaggression. If while performing the action of debate you attempt to say that using force is legitimate, you have contradicted yourself–your actions say that you have rejected force as legitimate, while your words purport the exact opposite. You are attempting to adopt two conflicting sets of norms at the same time. This is logically incoherent.


 No.101032

>>101030

>That's essentially correct. Natural rights are understood as the right not to have things imposed on you. The right to life is not the right to live forever, it's the right to not be killed. The right to liberty is not the right to do whatever you want, it's the right not to have your actions restricted. The right to property is not a license to steal and plunder, it's a right not to be stolen from.

How is it determined when a preference is simply a preference and not a right? Does someone with social anxiety, for example, have a right to not be talked to? If I dislike rap music can I rightfully claim that my rights are being violated if I happen to hear rap music in, say, an advertisement?

>It does not follow that because rules can be broken, that rules don't exist at all.

No, but without the ability to be consistently enforced rules don't have much of a meaning. Rights become less a thing that everyone should respect and more an optional choice for those who prefer not to take risks.

>Your health is an intrinsic quality, it can only be upheld through extrinsic means

What I mean is the effects arise extrinsically. If I fail to maintain my health I can tell that this is definitely something that is by its nature bad since the negative effects appear intrinsically, as a direct result of my action of ill-maintenance.

If, on the other hand, I am punished as a result of violating the rights of another person, it would be more accurate to say that this negative outcome, punishment, occurred because I upset other people. The rights that I violated themselves did not create this negative effect, a third party did. It can certainly be shown that the rights violation had a negative effect for the victim, but why should I care about that when it itself does not effect me?

>The fact that the majority happen to encourage a rights violation does not change the fact that the minority's rights are being violated.

Is this violation of rights necessarily a bad thing for those in the majority though? Assuming that they aren't punished for it eventually. Essentially what I'm getting at is: why should a party respect another party's rights when they have the ability to violate them without receiving retribution for it?

>by choosing to debate instead of to fight, the two parties have rejected aggression

But only for that specific dispute. You will agree that disputes of different natures exist, yes? A dispute that revolves around determining some concrete fact, such as, say, a trial to determine the guilt of a party, will be argued very differently than a debate over a matter of preference such as whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. If a lawyer gets involved in the latter argument and uses appeals to emotion to attempt to sway his audience, it does not mean that he is positing that appeals to emotion should always be used to resolve disputes. If he believed this he would be a very bad lawyer; but neither is he acting illogically in using appeals to emotion in this dispute. It is a dispute of a different nature, and therefore it's logical for him to use different methods on conflict resolution.


 No.101034

File: fb7c185a32c69de⋯.png (105.69 KB, 330x450, 11:15, calexitwhen.png)

Alright, this is probably bullshit, but I want to throw this idea off of someone.

Say that a certain state in the U.S. faces a debt crisis, like California or Illinois. A U.S. state can't inflate like the federal government. However, it also can't default. So, could it nullify its debt by splitting into two states? The debt was with the previous state government, which no longer exists, so…wouldn't such a mechanism create a large incentive for very large state governments to devolve or substates to secede?


 No.101036

>>101034

Generally they can't really "default." They just sell new bonds to pay the old bonds and the show goes on. It takes a major event for a sovereign nation to default, and a state is basically a sovereign nation with even less bargaining power.


 No.101037

>>101032

>How is it determined when a preference is simply a preference and not a right?

Rights are determined wholly by property–you have the right to make use of your property (which includes your body) in any way you see fit that does not impinge on the right of another.

>Does someone with social anxiety, for example, have a right to not be talked to?

Yes and no. You can't tape over the mouth of someone because you don't wish for them to talk to you, but you're more than free to kick them out of your home.

>I happen to hear rap music in, say, an advertisement?

You consented to hearing the music when you purchased the cable subscription it came with. If you no longer like the cable subscription you can cancel it, and if you cancel it the cable company can't force it on you. You can also call the cable company and ask them not to play the nig tunes anymore or you won't by their product. But they aren't obligated to listen to you, as you can't infringe on their rights. It's a very internally consistent idea: you (and everyone else) have a right to property. You may do anything you wish with your property, on your property, so long as it does not infringe on another's property.

>No, but without the ability to be consistently enforced rules don't have much of a meaning. Rights become less a thing that everyone should respect and more an optional choice for those who prefer not to take risks.

Meaningless semantics play. Rights still exist as something intrinsic to mankind regardless of enforcement ability. Whether or not they are "meaningful," rights clearly and indisputably exist. Although it happens that the emergent properties of economics make enforcement of said rights not only comparatively easy but beneficial for all parties involved. Therefore, even if you insist on this consequentialist relativism, the distinction becomes a moot point anyways.

>What I mean is the effects arise extrinsically. If I fail to maintain my health I can tell that this is definitely something that is by its nature bad since the negative effects appear intrinsically, as a direct result of my action of ill-maintenance.

Those effects still arise extrinsically in that they originate from outside of you, in the form of bacteria entering your body. You don't give a well-defined, internally consistent definition for the terms intrinsic and extrinsic, so it isn't particularly meaningful when you try and distinguish between them.

>Is this violation of rights necessarily a bad thing for those in the majority though?

An irrelevant question. Even if we imagine the implausible world where rights violations don't have consequences (they very clearly do), rights still exist regardless.

>But only for that specific dispute.

Irrelevant. One cannot logically operate under two different norms simultaneously, by the definition of norms, and that is what you do when you attempt to argue in favor of aggression. Your lawyer example is a false equivalence as it describes separate scenarios, with separate norms, rather than the adoption of conflicting norms within the same scenario.


 No.101040

>>101037

Alright, I will accept that intrinsic rights exist as you have defined them. But I still don't understand what the implications of this are. How is the existence of intrinsic rights relevant in how I should determine my behavior? Your already given reason that we should respect rights because it tends to influence others to respect our own rights does not seem sufficient to me; all this suggests is that we should try and garner favor with our peers, and that respecting others rights is simply a tool for achieving this aim. If this tool fails or if a better tool presents itself there is no longer any reason to continue using it.

>Your lawyer example is a false equivalence as it describes separate scenarios, with separate norms, rather than the adoption of conflicting norms within the same scenario.

But why isn't it possible to argue in favor of violence in one type of scenario while maintaining that violence is not preferable in scenarios that differ in some way? Why do these two separate classes of scenarios need to share the same norm? The lawyer was able to use separate norms for separate scenarios, wasn't he?


 No.101056

>>101040

>But I still don't understand what the implications of this are.

The implications are twofold. Once that we've established that rights are natural and intrinsic, and that men seek to have their rights not be violated, we may use this to infer how men will act in given scenarios, and this allows to perform economics (this is essentially a restatement of Mises' Action Axion). A little more economics will lead us from the initial premise to the conclusion that rights-respecting societies are not only desirable for the inhabitants, they tend to be more economically productive and thus desirable from a material sense as well.

>and that respecting others rights is simply a tool for achieving this aim.

What other implication do you want? It doesn't seem like you're particularly moved by the ethical implications of natural rights, and the following thereof, so the self-interest angle is the only one applicable to you. In answer to the threat of a better tool coming along, the economic laws which we derive from the Action Axiom rather definitively prove that respecting property rights leads to the healthiest economies, and the best material outcome for those involved. If a priori arguments don't convince you, history suggests this as well: the European societies which adopted some concept of property rights and the value of individual autonomy were far and away the most successful groups, whereas the ooga-boogas in Africa who followed might-makes-right warlordism never progressed in any meaningful way.

>Why do these two separate classes of scenarios need to share the same norm?

Because they aren't two separate scenarios, they are one scenario. The one scenario is advocating for violence while within the norm of a debate. It is not the possibility of violence existing outside of the debate, it is the very act of advocating for violence, in any context, while within a debate that causes the contradiction. Advocating for violence while within a debate is in violation of the norms of the debate by trying to introduce a contradictory norm. Holding contradictory norms is logically incoherent.


 No.101060

>>101056

I agree that organization which respect their own member's rights are generally more successful, for the reasons already given. I was under the impression that claiming that all men have rights implied that all men have an obligation to respect those rights, even if they are not members of the same organization or even allies. Is there any reason for believing that we should respect the rights of these third parties who are not allied to us if the threat of retribution is negligible?

>The one scenario is advocating for violence while within the norm of a debate.

You mean like threatening to harm the person you're debating with? Yes, I agree that's fallacious. This wouldn't apply to advocating for violence outside of the debate, like arguing that it's warranted to kill someone who is attacking you, right? The hypothetical norm that is being discussed is does not apply to the debate itself since the situation in which it is to be used is not debates.


 No.101061

>>101060

>Is there any reason for believing that we should respect the rights of these third parties who are not allied to us if the threat of retribution is negligible?

Besides the obvious ethical ones? No. If you want to be a piece of shit, you have no moral compass, and you're reasonably certain you can get away with being a piece of shit chances are you'll do it. Acknowledging natural rights and a system based on the idea of natural rights will still result in some failures occurring here and there. No one claimed ancap is a utopia.

>You mean like threatening to harm the person you're debating with?

No, I mean any advocacy for any kind of violence within the framework of a debate. Whenever you engage in argumentation or debate, you implicitly adopt the principle that aggression is not legitimate. If at any point in the process of debate, you make the declaration "In some cases, unprovoked aggression is warranted," or some variant of that declaration, you have contradicted that principle. Debate presupposes nonaggression as a paradigm, therefore one cannot logically use debate to justify aggression.


 No.101062

>>101061

>Whenever you engage in argumentation or debate, you implicitly adopt the principle that aggression is not legitimate.

What exactly do you mean by 'legitimate'? And could you please walk me through exactly how this principal is implicitly accepted?

>In the event that they choose to engage in argumentation, Hoppe asserts that the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict.

There's a very big difference between accepting that argumentation is the best way to resolve one specific conflict and accepting that argumentation is the best way to resolve every single conflict. I cannot see any way how the second statement logically follows from the first.


 No.101065

File: 9b67b425b46f213⋯.jpg (106.31 KB, 304x853, 304:853, socialismInANutshell.jpg)

I wanted to share this pic.

Sent from grandpa's iPhone


 No.101066

File: 64799f2d9b8d5b2⋯.jpg (9.73 KB, 224x225, 224:225, v428.jpg)

>>101065

And I wanted to share this one.


 No.101148

>>101062

>I cannot see any way how the second statement logically follows from the first.

It's a requirement for internal consistency, and internal consistency is a prerequisite for any coherent worldview. One cannot accept the norm that violence is not a legitimate way to settle disputes (a norm which is present in any debate), while also under that norm argue that violence is even conditionally legitimate. To arbitrarily choose to follow that norm in some instances but not others is not internally consistent, and therefore logically incoherent. The only internally consistent positions are private-property libertarianism, or might-makes-right Chad Warlordism. All alternatives are contradictory in some fashion.


 No.101192

At what point does government regulation become burdensome enough that private property rights can be considered to not really exist?


 No.101197

>>101148

>One cannot accept the norm that violence is not a legitimate way to settle disputes (a norm which is present in any debate),

You've yet to demonstrate why it's necessary to believe that violence is universally illegitimate in order to engage in debate.

>To arbitrarily choose to follow that norm in some instances but not others is not internally consistent, and therefore logically incoherent

Implying that choosing not to follow the norm in a non-arbitrary way would be internally consistent?


 No.101222

>>101192

Depends how orthodox a view you take. Strictly speaking, any regulation or restriction on non-coercive actions implies that private property rights do not truly exist in the economy, because the moment you start inserting conditionals into the NAP it stops being internally consistent, and thus loses validity as a first principle. If you want to take a less legalistic view of the matter, you could try and observe the real constraints that are imposed on the everyday lives of people living in the locality. If the constraints on property rights are firmly beyond the range of actions a person would have been willing to perform anyways, it can be said that he is still pretty free, all things considered–even though restrictions exist, they aren't binding because they haven't changed how one goes about his life. If the restrictions in place regularly and severely impede the range of non-coercive actions one is able to take, one may be said not to be free.

>>101197

It's necessary because in order for norms to be norms, they need to be adhered to unconditionally–otherwise, it isn't a norm at all, and the only norm you can be said to be following is might-makes-right. If they are picked up or dropped at convenience they cease to be norms, and without operative norms your worldview ceases to be internally consistent. If you can't see why logic demands worldviews need to be internally consistent, then we're both wasting each other's time here.


 No.101223

>>101066

That's a good one, saved.


 No.101231

>>101222

I'll accept everything that you said. However, I cannot understand how the norm in question, declaring violence itself as illegitimate, necessarily needs to be adopted by an individual in order for that individual to engage in argumentation.


 No.101234

>>101231

>necessarily needs to be adopted by an individual in order for that individual to engage in argumentation.

Because that's a necessary precept of argumentation–argumentation is the process of resolving conflicts through means other than aggressive violence. Using argumentation therefore presupposes a norm of nonaggression.


 No.101235

>>101234

But choosing to use argumentation rather than aggression to resolve a conflict does not by itself prove that any party has adopted the belief that aggression itself is always illegitimate.

Norms need not be applied universally. They must be applied consistently, yes, but consistent != universal. For example, let's say that I hold the belief that it is ethically legitimate to kill certain types of animals for meat. I may delineate these animals by listing traits of animals that are acceptable to kill; animals incapable of rational thought, animals which I have a valid claim of ownership over, etc. Does this mean that I must therefore hold the belief that killing animals for their meat is always legitimate, even if they are a rational animal like a human or an animal that another person owns? I don't think so. The norm does not need to be applied universally, only consistently.

I don't think I'm being crazy here, other Libertarians have also brought up flaws with Hoppe's argument:

https://mises.org/library/hans-hermann-hoppes-argumentation-ethic-critique


 No.101238

>>101235

I know of Murphy's criticism of Hoppe. All of his counterpoints to argumentation ethics hinge on the assumption that Hoppe was declaring not that argumentation presupposed nonaggression, but that argumentation presupposed self-ownership. He then goes on to show that argumentation does not presuppose self-ownership, but in the beginning of his article he does concede that, if argumentation did presuppose self-ownership, there would be a performative contradiction in someone presupposing self-ownership arguing against it.

>

But choosing to use argumentation rather than aggression to resolve a conflict does not by itself prove that any party has adopted the belief that aggression itself is always illegitimate.

But that isn't what's being argued. Hoppe's claim is not that choosing to use argumentation in an instance requires use of it in all future instances. Rather, he is claiming that one cannot argue in favor of aggression within the confines of the norms presupposed by argumentation. You are correct in that a consistent norm need not be universal. However, norms do need to be universal within the confines where they apply. If one of my operative norms is, "Don't kill men while in church," then of course it need not apply when I'm outside of church. But, if it is given that I am inside a church, then the norm "don't kill men while in church" becomes de facto universal, and so long as I am in church, it's indistinguishable from the norm, "don't kill men." Likewise, it is of course conceivable that a man may choose to agree to abide by the precepts of argumentation within an argument, then ignore them once outside the argument. However, as long as he is within an argument, he is bound by the norms of the argument, and cannot violate them without contradicting himself. Thus, as long as one is within an argument, one cannot advocate for things in contradiction to the norms of the argument without contradicting oneself. Advocating for aggression, even if the action itself takes place outside of the argument, is still in contradiction of argumentation norms because said advocacy occurs within the constraints of an argument. Using argumentation to advocate for aggressive acts is as self-contradictory as intimidating someone into pacificism.


 No.101258

>>101238

>…norms do need to be universal within the confines where they apply. If one of my operative norms is, "Don't kill men while in church," then of course it need not apply when I'm outside of church. But, if it is given that I am inside a church, then the norm "don't kill men while in church" becomes de facto universal, and so long as I am in church, it's indistinguishable from the norm, "don't kill men."

This is the part of the argument I cannot wrap my head around. It seems to me that the conclusion that advocating for violence in argument is contradictory hinges on this assertion that localized norm can be considered equal to a universal norm so long as it is being examined in a situation where the localized norm is applicable. So the localized norm, "don't commit aggression while in an argument" is considered equal to "don't commit aggression" for all intents and purposes while in an argument. If this were true, then advocating for violence outside of the argument would be equivalent to advocating for violence inside of the argument which would be advocating for going against the accepted norm (does advocating for breaking the norm itself break the norm, by the way? I'm not sure we've established that it does).

But the thing is, we've already accepted that the actual act that is being advocated, violence outside the argument, does not actually go against the accepted norm. Having an argument and then the next day shooting someone in the head is not itself contradictory. For this reason I cannot believe that localized norms really can be considered entirely equal to universal ones while inside the localized situation. To use the church example, it would be like saying that if I sat in church and planned to kill someone while outside of church, it would violate my norm of not killing people in a church (or at lease establish intent to violate my norm) – even though I have not actually killed anyone inside a church. This does not make sense to me.


 No.101261

>>101258

The thing that I don't think you're emphasizing enough is that advocating for an act is itself an act, separate from the act which is being advocated. The only other way of explaining it I can think of is this:

Taking it as a given that engaging in debate implies a norm nonaggression, advocating for aggression within the framework of debate implies you believe all or part of the nonaggression norm to be invalid. But, by the very act of engaging in argumentation, you also imply that you do think it's valid, since argumentation requires that you accept this norm. So which one is it? Do you consider it a valid norm, and enjoy the benefits of argumentation, thus rejecting your calls for aggression? Or do you reject the norm, and with it reject argumentation in favor of solving things through aggression? If you think the norm is invalid, why are you engaging in argumentation at all? If you think the norm is valid, why do you call for it to be broken? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There are also difficulties with a conditional application of the norm because the implication of such a conditional statement is that "I only follow this norm when it is convenient for me." And the implication of that is that you follow a greater norm of might-makes-right. And if you follow a norm of might-makes-right, why are you engaging in argumentation in the first place? Non-universal norms may not be contradictory, but making this particular norm non-universal creates contradictions.


 No.101271

Here are some basic questions. Consider them gotchas if you wish to.

What is the relationship between different /liberty/arian ethical principles (non-coercion, right of ownership, others?) and what to do when they contradict eachother?

Is /liberty/arianism dependent on human-defined abstractions like rights literally, objectively existing?

How loudly does my neighbour have to hear music from my property on his property for it to violate his rights? What if I think he's lying about hearing it at all? Suppose he needs to sleep but can't because of the noise, and talking to me didn't work. What is a justified response from him?


 No.101290

>>101271

>What is the relationship between different /liberty/arian ethical principles (non-coercion, right of ownership, others?) and what to do when they contradict eachother?

They don't contradict each other. The two that you mentioned are in fact just two different ways of expressing the same principle: to preserve right of ownership other people cannot be allowed to initiate force on the things you own. If libertarian principles contradicted one another they wouldn't be principles, and they wouldn't be nearly as effective as they are.

>Is /liberty/arianism dependent on human-defined abstractions like rights literally, objectively existing?

Yes, a philosophy based on the preservation of rights needs said rights to exist in order to preserve them. I believe it can be shown that the things which we call rights exist in that they are extant in all men.

>How loudly does my neighbour have to hear music from my property on his property for it to violate his rights?

Take it up with your homeowner's association or the local McCourt. Chances are the HOA will have local ordnances in place that govern the specifics of this sort of thing, giving maximum decibel levels for different hours. In absence of such precedent, a judge will likely rule that the magnitude of the sound your neighbor hears must be noticeably louder than the ambient background noise of the neighborhood. Ancap won't have a monolithic code of statutes that is applicable over all of time and space, so the exact resolution to this dispute is going to depend a lot more on you, your neighbor, whatever insurance companies you are clients of, and the judge you hire as arbitrator than on legal theory.


 No.101301

>>101290

>They don't contradict each other

They do. Whether my initiating violence on you when we are on my property is justified or not depends on which principle takes precedence. In fact, both priciples contradict themselves, so conviniently defining them in terms of one another doesn't help. Either my owning my property and you owning your life/body/self are in conflict or the non-coercion on my property and the non-coercion on you are in conflict. The music example also illustrates this self-contradiction: the principle says that both 1. I can play music as loud as I want and 2. I can't play music as loud as I want. Were there no contradiction, no totally-not-government-court-ltd. would be necessary.

>I believe it can be shown that the things which we call rights exist in that they are extant in all men.

Please do. Does treating the existence of abstractions as a fundament not violate my freedom not to believe in it and living accordingly?


 No.101303

>>101301

>Either my owning my property and you owning your life/body/self are in conflict

We both own our own stuff. Where is the contradiction?

>or the non-coercion on my property and the non-coercion on you are in conflict.

What does this even mean? Is this meant to be in the context of your "loudness" nonsense? If it can be proven in a court that your behavior is harmful to your neighbor or his property (which generally includes health) then you will likely be made to pay amends. There is no conflict here. You have no right to harm others.

>The music example also illustrates this self-contradiction: the principle says that both 1. I can play music as loud as I want and 2. I can't play music as loud as I want.

The principle? Which principle? The NAP? The A in "NAP" is "Aggression" and the N is "Non". The Non-Aggression principle dictates that it's morally fine to do anything that doesn't aggress against anyone else. This is to say, to do no harm is to do no wrong. This is to say that you can play music as loud as you like so long as it harms no one other than yourself (remembering, of course, that property damage is harmful). There is no contradiction. If you still disagree you'll need to define what exactly you're talking about because you're being extremely vague.


 No.101305

>>101301

> Whether my initiating violence on you when we are on my property is justified or not depends on which principle takes precedence

No, it doesn't, for one simple reason: self-defense is not the initiation of violence, it's self-defense against someone else's initiation of violence. There's no contradiction, you've just redefined self-defense as violence to make it appear as if one exists.

>the principle says that both 1. I can play music as loud as I want and 2. I can't play music as loud as I want.

The principle says neither of those things. The principle says, "I can play music as loud as I want on my property." There is no contradiction between "I can play music as loud as I want on my property" and "I cannot play music as loud as I want on another's property."

>Please do.

See >>101005 and start scrolling down.


 No.101310

>>101303

>We both own our own stuff. Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction is that my owning my stuff (the property we're both on in this scenario) and your owning yourself dictate opposite rules on how I can treat you.

>court

Come on. Now there are objective standards to 'harm' which describe how much I'm objectively to 'pay amends'? Just don't call it a state.

>The principle? Which principle?

No clue, tbh. I was just told that there is only one principle. Again, I can play music as loud as I want on my property. Except if it's so loud that it can be heard on your property, but how audible? Is the slightest amount a violation of your rights? Or does it have bother to e certain degree? Who has the authority choose these amounts and the levels of punishment for levels of noise? How is it guaranteed that objectivity and fairness are followed? This is already state-tier shit.

I should add that if you don't support abolishing the state altogether, I don't mean to fuck with you with the 'just don't call it a state' stuff.

>>101305

>No, it doesn't, for one simple reason: self-defense is not the initiation of violence, it's self-defense against someone else's initiation of violence.

I never said 'self-defense'. I said we're on my property, let's say I invited you, and then I suddenly attack you (or maybe you insulted me or something). It isn't self-defense. It's initiation of violence.

>There is no contradiction between "I can play music as loud as I want on my property" and "I cannot play music as loud as I want on another's property."

Hence my not using that example. Sufficiently loud music on my property can be heard on your property. The principle does not and can not prescribe when I go too far, and what is a fair punishment for each level of infringement. And then we get state-tier arbitration except with no semblance of a guarantee of fair representation.


 No.101319

>>101310

>It isn't self-defense. It's initiation of violence.

Someone who initiates violence forfeits any protections the NAP may offer, that's why it's called the nonaggression principle; the moment my guest becomes a trespasser I reserve the right to kill or evict him. Trying to suggest a contradiction when one of the parties has broken the rules you're examining is simply asinine.

>Hence my not using that example.

That's the example that applies, whether you want to use it or not. No part of the NAP implies you can play music "as loud as you want," therefore it's an exercise in futility to try and show a contradiction from that premise.

>The principle does not and can not prescribe when I go too far, and what is a fair punishment for each level of infringement.

So what? The NAP isn't an instruction manual for making every little decision in your life. It's a deontological method for determining whether a rights violation has occurred, no more, no less. There's nothing "state-tier" about choosing an arbitrator on a per-case basis, nor is a code of conduct provided by a voluntarily chosen insurance company. There's nothing stopping you from seeking the advice of legal counsel, either, if you want representation.


 No.101353

>>101319

>the moment my guest becomes a trespasser I reserve the right to kill or evict him.

No further questions.


 No.101355

File: c1ae60645786763⋯.jpg (13.38 KB, 180x198, 10:11, rememberliberty.jpg)

What's the economic cause of Japanification?


 No.101357

>>101355

>burger and euro cartoons stagnate in quality due to extensive censorship from Marxists in Hollywood and constant repition of same good goy themes and storylines again and again

>Jap creators exposed to Disney cartoons, learn of good

>create superior substitute good due to lack of self-censorship

>even mediocre substitute goods become immensely popular due to sheer variety compared to domestically-produced goods

>old, big, slow, over-regulated industry declines while younger industry rises

It's the usual economic turnover that occurs as profitable firms replace nonprofitable ones. It seems to have reached some kind of stability now, as Jap cartoons have been around long enough to stagnate a bit and develop their own tropes and repetition (e.g. beach episodes). But, since they're still free from Western censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, they continue to produce a greater variety of cartoons which allows them to remain popular.


 No.101362

>>101357

I appreciate the answer, but "Japanification" is a term being used in blogs recently to describe being mired in multiple "lost decades" with incredibly low rates of real growth to stagnation along with decades of low to negative real interest rates–similar to what has been the case in Japan for over two decades now and is the case in Europe and looks like it will be the case for the U.S..


 No.101371

>>101362

Ah, my bad. In that case, aren't the low-to-negative interest rates the answer? Systematically destroying the incentive to put off gratification in favor of a higher return will destroy most if not all productive behavior in an economy. And once your recession hits, Keynesian fagolas will tell you the answer to your problem is to print more money and make the interest rates even lower, because something something aggregate demand. And unlike the United States, Japan isn't the world reserve currency, meaning they have no ability to export their inflation overseas, so they're hit by the full brunt of inflation and near-zero interest rates instead of only part of it the way the US is. As for why the US appears to be approaching a similar situation, I think that's because the US is no longer certain to be the world reserve currency. More and more countries are going off the petrodollar, more and more countries are buying and selling oil in Euros and yuan. As a result, we've been less able to outsource our inflation to other countries by them taking dollars from us, and we're less able to escape the worst of our massive credit expansion.


 No.101381

>>101371

Is the Euro actually that worthwhile given all the EU shenanigans? The Yuan I get since the Chinese have been buying gold and all that but I can't see the EU lasting more than 10 years at most.


 No.101398

>>101381

>Is the Euro actually that worthwhile given all the EU shenanigans?

Not really, no. Fiat currencies are held together with nothing more than spit and prayer after all, and the Eurozone doesn't have much prayer going its way. At least the US had a fairly substantial productive surplus to whittle away over the years on which it backed the value of its monopoly money, and a fair amount of global prestige/military might in addition to that. The EU has none of those things, and next to zero productive surplus as they've already been whittling it away through social policies. Add in the fact that most of their security production (i.e. national defense) is subsidized by the US,and they're in an even worse position once that goes away.

I personally don't see the yuan as much better in the long run. Buying gold or no, they've been constantly devaluing their currency to subsidize all manner of non-productive investments, like those "ghost cities" you always hear about. I wouldn't count on it being stable forever.


 No.101402

Do you think it will ever reach a point where the left and right in the U.S. look at each other and say, "You know what? It's time to get a divorce," and then finally just go ahead and secede from each other?


 No.101403

>>101402

We tried that already, and the Union turned out to be a very jealous lover. Once people have power, they get very touchy about losing it, especially when the form of that power loss is a large number of people saying the men in charge aren't good enough and leaving. All that being said, I do think the only viable path to liberty is a secession from the current order. But it won't come without a lot of bloodshed as the original government tries to reconquer the seceding party, unless the federal government has gotten so weak that it's unable to stop anything.


 No.101446

>>101371

I thought low-to-negative interest would only influence the credit cycle crediting artificial booms and busts–but that longer-term semi-permanent malaise was a consequence of large government bureaucracies and regulatory capture? Otherwise, you would have expecting interest rate manipulations to have resulted in this outcome long ago.


 No.101447

>>101446

The two factors don't have to be mutually exclusive–entrenched bureaucracy, overregulation, and regulatory capture all contribute to long-term malaise as well. But over repeated periods, consistently low interest rates will do something similar. Low interest rates incentivize consumption and immediate gratification over savings (which drives investment) and delayed gratification. Further, if the economy periodically goes into recession due to the results of the central bank's credit expansion, starting a new business or expanding an existing one becomes riskier, as there's always the chance that your investment will go under in the next recession. This makes economic growth riskier, and if it becomes riskier to expand production it will happen less often. In addition, you can point to low interest rates as an indirect cause of the failure of Japan to recover from their recession. The Japanese government responded to the crisis according to Keynesian theory, and continued to repeatedly attempt to stimulate the economy through various government stimulus packages. These served only to further drain resources from the private sector, and pump them into the unproductive dumpster fire that constitutes a government budget. Instead of being invested into productive activities, money either went into bureaucrat's paychecks, or was spent on failing companies that would not exist were it not for the government–insolvent construction companies to build various public works, or direct bailouts of failing banks.

>Otherwise, you would have expecting interest rate manipulations to have resulted in this outcome long ago.

Isn't that what's happened? There's a lot of growth that could have happened but hasn't, thanks to either manipulated interest rates, or to the government's response to the resultant crash. The fact that the economy has managed to continue trudging forward with a 1-ton weight chained to its ankle doesn't mean the weight isn't there.


 No.101889

Do you think there is a difference between markets and capitalism? I know some left wing market anarchists try to differentiate themselves by saying markets are different from capitalism as a system but I wonder if there's any truth to that.


 No.101891

File: 4c1058453ed06d1⋯.png (66.73 KB, 752x1668, 188:417, left libertarianism doesn'….png)

>>101889

Realistically speaking, there isn't any difference. Market anarchists are generally in favor of exchange markets but are against the idea of a credit and capital system, i.e. banks and loans, because they consider lines of credit to be a form of exploitation. There are a number of practical arguments to be made against market anarchism–given that loans are a highly sought-after service, for consumptive and productive needs alike, and given that all participation is voluntary, how exactly does one prevent market anarchy from becoming anarcho-capitalism without the establishment of a state? However, market anarchism doesn't make very much sense as a proposition even if we assume that it is enforceable. Suppose that, somehow, the market anarchists are able to completely prevent the creation of banks and the giving out of loans through voluntary means, so that they still have a market anarchist system. Suppose they've also managed to eliminate person-to-person loans that occur outside of banks as well, just for shits and giggles. Even if these restrictions exist, and even if they're 100% enforceable, you still have a capitalist system, because capital still exists, and loans still exist–it's simply that the only creditor with whom you are allowed to trade is yourself. You give your future self a loan by saving money now with the intent of spending it later. And you're still paying interest on that loan in a sense, through opportunity cost. Every dollar that you save for the future could have been spent in the present, and the temporary decrease in quality of life which you suffer for saving is equivalent to paying interest on a loan. Loans, banks, credit, and interest all still exist in market anarchism because they are a fundamental aspect of markets and human decision making–I would go so far as to say these things exist even in Crusoe economics, due to opportunity cost. As a result of this fact, even a perfectly enforced market anarchism system is still capitalistic–just with the division of labor arbitrarily removed from a certain sector for reasons of muh feels.


 No.101920

File: bed44659025bf97⋯.jpeg (406.77 KB, 849x1200, 283:400, KurokiConfession.jpeg)

What's your Watamote OTP?


 No.101922

>>101889

Was just thinking about that today. "Capitalism" is term carrying a lot of historical/sociological baggage, so I would just say you support free markets, or free enterprise if you want to be less abrasive. People who call themselves "market anarchists" are basically left-leaning ancaps who are counter-signaling other ancaps.


 No.101923

>>101922

I personally tell people that I support capitalism, which is the ability to self-organize in the absense of government.


 No.101924

>>101922

>"Capitalism" is term carrying a lot of historical/sociological baggage

I used to think that, which is why I preferred to say "free enterprise," or take a leaf out of Hoppe's book with "natural order." However, have you ever considered that the use of the word capitalism was by design? I think Rothbard intentionally picked two slurs–"anarchist" was a pejorative against certain types of leftist, and "capitalist" was a word used most often by Marxists to decry the right–for the sake of being provocative. He knew that calling to abolish the government and supply all of its functions through the market was a radical claim. So, instead of sugarcoating the term, he made it as radical and as attention-grabbing as possible.


 No.101925

>>98118

>Minimum wages

Prices of everything get cheaper immediately and those of an enterprising bent offer cheaper labour costs to outcompete current ones to get their foot in the door, forcing people to bid lower, forcing costs of things to get cheaper when nobody can afford said item. As a result of this (greatly simplified) example of deflation, the people who benefit most are the ones who can squirrel away their cash the most.

You're presuming people will rise up in unison, when there's people like me more than willing to take a major pay cut if it means a longer term overall gain.


 No.101934

>>101924

I mean, Rothbard is right. the only reason why I would ever call myself an "anarcho-capitalist" is to piss off leftists. I don't want the FBI on me because I use the "A" word, and I think anti-statism and libertarianism are much better suited.


 No.101935

>>101923

capitalism isn't really the absence of government though. I feel like using this descriptor, we alienate our misguided quasi-statist allies as "socialists".


 No.101938

>>101934

The thing about using "libertarianism" is that most people associate that term with the LP. And yes, it sucks balls that degenerate hacks like Gary Johnson have co-opted the term, but when I'm speaking to people, I like to get my point across quickly and clearly. If I say anarcho-capitalist when describing my views, anyone with whom I'm talking has a fairly good idea of what that means and what I believe. If I say I'm a libertarian, I have to immediately qualify that with another explanation, to clarify that my views are completely distinct from the pot-smoking crypto-hippies in the LP.


 No.102014

hgjhghj


 No.102019

File: 76701babcb408ae⋯.jpg (6.04 KB, 267x188, 267:188, 76701babcb408ae60c3f79cd43….jpg)

I am new to this board so feel free to tell me to fuck off and read a book if this comes off as stupid:

How would land disputes be solved in a libertarian society, what happens if one commune / micro-society makes an unreasonable claim to X amount of land?

How would land be divided up in the transition of a country to libertarian? Would it stay as one nation until a group wishes to secede? Would everything be divided up right off the bat? How would this be done in a way that best minimises chaos?

What happens if a group of people has formed a new commune that violates the traditions/ethics of other groups in a very extreme way? They aren't directly violating the NAP, but they are acting in a way that is likely to provoke anger. Would other parties just be expected to let them continue?


 No.102020

File: 7b7e58e5f0aaf56⋯.mp4 (5.16 MB, 480x360, 4:3, allabunchofsocialists.mp4)

>>102019

>I am new to this board so feel free to tell me to fuck off and read a book if this comes off as stupid

Nah, anon it's all good.

>How would land disputes be solved in a libertarian society, what happens if one commune / micro-society makes an unreasonable claim to X amount of land?

Well first and foremost they'd actually have to prove that they have some sort of claim to it. I can sit and say "I own all the hills over there" but if there's nothing there and there's no real sign of any activity or homesteading then it's safe to say that I don't actually own the hills in any real capacity. and even if I do have some property on the hills, that doesn't suddenly mean that I actually own all of the land on the hills, just what I was able to build or appropriate (ie: A house, a pool, a fenced area, etc). A private security enforcement agency may have to step in and try to solve any given conflict occurring in the area and with that, a private court might have to get involved. (although granted this is more of an anarcho capitalist answer rather than a Libertarian one).

>How would land be divided up in the transition of a country to libertarian?

Depends.

>Would it stay as one nation until a group wishes to secede?

Realistically, yes. There's no need to secede Massachusetts from the rest of the United States if Massachusetts never had any problems with being in the United States to begin with.

>Would everything be divided up right off the bat? How would this be done in a way that best minimises chaos?

Depending on the nation there might be direct division that's been a long time coming, for example, Should Spain go Libertarian tomorrow, the Basque may very well leave along with the Catalans and under a Libertarian government, they have the right to do so. However in a place like say, Germany, secession would be a very unrealistic scenario.

>What happens if a group of people has formed a new commune that violates the traditions/ethics of other groups in a very extreme way? They aren't directly violating the NAP, but they are acting in a way that is likely to provoke anger. Would other parties just be expected to let them continue?

Well, yes the parties would be expected to let them continue, but that doesn't mean that they can't physically remove them from their society, which is to say to not associate with them, sell products to them, or even allow them within businesses or the property of people who vehemently disagree with them. So let's say I'm a shop owner and do not like this new community in any capacity, should an individual or multiple individuals from that community come into my store I will just kick them out as they are not welcome in my property.


 No.102021

>>102019

>How would land disputes be solved in a libertarian society, what happens if one commune / micro-society makes an unreasonable claim to X amount of land?

In ancapistan, land is claimed through a process of emborderment. You homestead land or other unowned property by putting a border around it, either by building a physical fence, or making it distinct from the surrounding unowned land, e.g. if you till the soil into neat, organized rows and plant crops in it, that plot of tilled land is clearly owned property and distinct from the wild, unowned fields surrounding it. Since you need to emborder land before you can claim it, it's not possible for some firstcomer to appear and declare, "everything that I see is now mine," or a similar unreasonable claim. Emborderment is also tied to enforceability: even if you set out planting fenceposts like a madman in an effort to emborder as much property as humanly possible, if you've claimed so much that you can't hope to enforce the borders you've established, it's debatable whether those distant fringes of your property claim is enforceable.

If there is some dispute regarding property (or anything else) between yourself and someone else, you have several options for arbitration. If you're already acquainted with the disputer, the two of you might just decide to pick a mutual acquaintance to arbitrate, and agree to follow his ruling. Or, you would go to a professional arbitrator at the McCourt instead. If you can't agree on one judge, each of you might pick a judge, who together pick a third. Or if you're both clients of security insurance firms, chances are your firm will have a pre-established policy for selecting judges for disputes.

>How would land be divided up in the transition of a country to libertarian?

It depends on a lot of possible factors. Ideally, all stolen goods (government property) would be returned to the rightful owners, but that's almost never practical as it's usually difficult to figure out what the government stole from whom. Rothbard proposed that government buildings and services would pass in ownership to the employees in charge of them—e.g., the general manager of what used to be the local post office would become the owner of that building. It's far from ideal for a wide variety of reasons, but I don't really have a better alternative. In some cases, such as a small region seceding from a larger reason, the government that ruled before the might retain ownership and sell off all of its assets in the seceded region to private individuals.

>What happens if a group of people has formed a new commune that violates the traditions/ethics of other groups in a very extreme way?

You can't aggress against them, but you can retaliate through some very powerful voluntary means: freedom of association. The undesirable individuals can be publicly blacklisted, and the community refuse to hire them, rent to them, sell to them, drive on their roads, enter their stores and homes, and so on. In effect, this banishes the undesirables from your community and forces them to leave for greener pastures.


 No.102022

File: bcd73dff225ca44⋯.jpeg (80.1 KB, 800x800, 1:1, smilingbro.jpeg)

Thanks guys, these were all really thoughtful and enlightening answers.

>>102020

>I can sit and say "I own all the hills over there" but if there's nothing there and there's no real sign of any activity or homesteading then it's safe to say that I don't actually own the hills in any real capacity.

Couldn't this lead to aggressive expansion? People building pointless structures just to stake a claim?

>>102021

>You can't aggress against them, but you can retaliate through some very powerful voluntary means: freedom of association.

This is more of a theoretical question but could someone become fully "unpersoned"? (as in blacklisted from all communities). As I understand it, in current international law it is illegal to make someone nationless.


 No.102023

>>102022

>implying anyone complies with "international law"


 No.102024

>>102022

>This is more of a theoretical question but could someone become fully "unpersoned"?

I suppose it's theoretically possibly for you to earn the ire if every single person on Earth such that not a single one, not even the worst criminal, wants to associate with you. In that instance, you could homestead some unowned land and live a life of seclusion. It is quite limited choice, but if you're so unbearable that nobody on earth wants you around I find it hard to be sympathetic. A more realistic example would be someone that's blacklisted by almost everyone "respectable," but not the nether regions of society. In those cases, you'd see slums and "pirate's republics" of these people form.


 No.102025

>>102022

>Couldn't this lead to aggressive expansion? People building pointless structures just to stake a claim?

In theory sure, but in practice no. Building pointless structures has a cost associated, first and foremost with the cost of building those things and secondly owning assets that are just that, pointless. Hence why a more rational course of action for people is to buy land, build a house on it and then sell that, or perhaps mining the land, etc. And there's of course the question as to whether these pointless structures are sufficient enough to 'stake a claim', etc.

Tl;DR: People trying to own massive quantities of land for the sake of owning that land while a possibility isn't really a profitable course of action and should someone attempt to do so, it will probably just blow up back in their face.


 No.102077

>>102022

Would it be more profitable to build pointless structures and proceed to do nothing with the land or sell the land to someone who anticipates making productive use of it?


 No.102081

What happened during Kansas tea party experiment? What went wrong?


 No.102205

do you guys not care about workers' rights?


 No.102206

>>102205

We believe in the rights of individuals to freely choose for themselves whether or not to accept an employment contract, free of coercion.


 No.102208

>>102205

Nope, I hate workers and make sure to spit on at least 15 blue-collar men every day.

More seriously, worker's rights are just individual property rights–the right to own property, freedom of association, and so forth. There is nothing stopping a theoretical group of workers from forming a union in the free market if they so choose. However, it's unlikely that any such union will last for very long, and even those unions which exist tend to be more detrimental to the well-being of employees than beneficial.

Fundamentally, a union is a cartel. It is several producers of a good conspiring to restrict their output and raise their prices. And like all cartels, they are inherently unstable due to the nature of the incentives they face. While it might be to the worker's collective best interest (assuming for the moment no response from employers) to cartelize, there's no individual incentive to collude–since everyone else is restricting their supply, there's a very strong incentive for just one member of the cartel to reduce his price ever so slightly and to expand his output as much as he possibly can, screwing over the rest of the cartel. Nobody wants to get screwed over, so once one member stops colluding everyone will scramble to stop colluding, and sell their product at market prices. In game theory, this is called the Prisoner's Dilemma, and it's the most significant barrier to collusion in any industry. Because of this reality, labor unions aren't stable, and in the long run they can't continue to exist unless they're propped up by the federal government. But even if the union is able to remain active in spite of this instability, it faces a demand response from businesses. Rather than attempt dealings with the cartel, businessowners will fire everyone and hire a new set of workers. Or, if none are available, they'd simply close the factory down and outsource to another country entirely. So as negotiation tools, unions aren't all that effective in an unrestricted market. Ultimately, businesses either work around them, or are forced to increase the price of their products to account for the increased price of labor–and that's unquestionably bad for the everyday consumer. The labor market is a market like any other, and like all other markets, the price system is the most efficient way and effective way to make both parties better off. Workers are offered a high enough price that they don't make a fuss, as making a fuss complicates things for the business.


 No.102210

>>102205

Fuck workers, and fuck poor people!!!

Now, how do we help big corporations make the lives of the 99.99999% worse, my fellow ancaps?


 No.102256

>>102210

lets privatize everything


 No.102266

Are think thanks inherently bad? I know there's plenty of think tanks for the establishment but we also have some of our own. We got shitty ones like Cato but then I guess you could say the people at FEE count as one? Is it just as bad for our side to use think tanks like the establishment? I feel kind of torn on this because there is one in my home state that I find kind of interesting but I have some subconcious fear they may be controlled opposition.


 No.102267

>>102266

>think thanks

*think tanks.


 No.102270

>>102266

They're not inherently bad anymore than universities are inherently bad. But like universities, they just happen to be very effective tools for controlling policy and discourse, which is why they so often end up as tools of the feds and elite. But in a vacuum, there's nothing wrong with the organization that is a think tank; it's just a consultancy firm.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / dempart / fanfic / jewess / komica / pol3 / truebrit / vichan ]