[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / clang / dempart / firechan / hisrol / jenny / mde / wooo ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

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: 90e6c9e5e7b6e09⋯.jpg (538.53 KB, 720x540, 4:3, liberty_gang.jpg)


What is the best ethical justification for libertarianism? Mises used a utilitarian defence and argued that libertarianism ought to be adopted because it produces the most happiness and prosperity in the long run. This justification isn't particularly strong however, because many people have endgoals which they prioritize over liberty or prosperity. There is Hoppe's argumentation ethics, which essentially says that any action which infringes on the rights of others cannot be argued for without a contradiction, and thus that action is irrational. He also has the position that libertarianism is the best means of avoiding conflicts between people. Then there's Rothbard's view on the matter, which he explained in The Ethics of Liberty. The basic jist of this view is that it is natural for humans to exercise control over themselves and their justly-acquired property, and thus wrong for someone else to infringe on someone else's person or property and inflict their own will. There are probably other justifications which I am forgetting or unaware of as of yet, but which is the most concrete.


have you read Hayek's constitution of liberty!



Not yet. I intend to.


>To show that theories of justice based on patterns or historical circumstances are false, Nozick devised a simple but ingenious objection, which came to be known as the “Wilt Chamberlain” argument. Assume, he says, that the distribution of holdings in a given society is just according to some theory based on patterns or historical circumstances—e.g., the egalitarian theory, according to which only a strictly equal distribution of holdings is just. In this society, Wilt Chamberlain is an excellent basketball player, and many teams compete with each other to engage his services. Chamberlain eventually agrees to play for a certain team on the condition that everyone who attends a game in which he plays puts 25 cents in a special box at the gate, the contents of which will go to him. During the season, one million fans attend the team’s games, and so Chamberlain receives $250,000. Now, however, the supposedly just distribution of holdings is upset, because Chamberlain has $250,000 more than anyone else. Is the new distribution unjust? The strong intuition that it is not unjust is accounted for by Nozick’s entitlement theory (because Chamberlain acquired his holdings by legitimate means) but conflicts with the egalitarian theory. Nozick contends that this argument generalizes to any theory based on patterns or historical circumstances, because any distribution dictated by such a theory could be upset by ordinary and unobjectionable transactions like the one involving Chamberlain. Nozick concludes that any society that attempted to implement such a theory would have to intrude grossly on the liberty of its citizens in order to enforce the distribution it considers just. “The socialist society,” as he puts it, “would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults.”



In addition to Hoppe, Molymeme's thesis in UPB has some merit. The book itself is badly written and a slog to get through, but the idea that liberty is "universally preferable"—that is, that even people who don't value the liberty of others certainly value their own, and even those who care not about the property rights of others want to keep their own property rights—gets partway to showing why liberty can be seen as a moral ought.

>but aren't there people who want to submit themselves to an authority?

Yes, but if they are choosing to constrain themselves in this manner it's still an expression of liberty. And would these people still not object if their constraint was forcibly taken from them, it applied in a manner which they did not desire? A God-fearing man would not take kindly to being ordered not to follow God's will. That same man would be also refuse if told to follow Allah or Odin over God.


File: 4bc211b4c34bcf2⋯.png (470.44 KB, 648x648, 1:1, Economics in One Lesson.png)

>libertarianism is the best means of avoiding conflicts between people

This is my preferred defense desu, but I don't argue that often. Having internalized Hoppe's AE has made me less inclined to defend libertarianism at all, because the only coherent response I've gotten is "Okay, but what about people who choose violence instead of argumentation?", which doesn't exactly lead to very fruitful discussion unless it's with a military historian or something.



Everyone here has given good and valid responses. My preferred response is that liberty is the prerequisite for human virtue and dignity. It is obvious that you cannot act with virtue if you do not have the freedom to do so. Enforcing virtue is not virtue at all. There is no generosity when you force people to pay for the poor. There is no bravery in going to war when you conscript everyone for it. And so on. Of course, someone may say, you can still show generosity if you pay your income tax gladly, or if you go to war eagerly, but obviously, complying to an obligation forced on you is not the same as making a decision for yourself. Besides, the argument still works. If your outside behavior is entirely determined, then the fact that you can still choose virtue is only because at least your spirit is free. In other words, you still need freedom to have virtue. There's an intrinsic relationship between the two, and as a general thing, you don't mess with such intrinsic relationships. We have seen all kinds of attempts to do so, and they all turned out to be dead ends.

But the response I give most often, I suppose, is "look around you". We have fewer freedoms left than the subjects of Lewis XVI had, and where did that leave us? Yes, we are richer, but everyone with a modium of economic understanding knows this is because of capital accumulation, not gubmint legislating us into prosperity. Among the right-wing, I think I have noticed this, too. They kinda know that the market made us prosperous, but then they try to avoid being capitalist with some other argument, or some mumbling about "liberal ontology". Anyway, in other spheres, what has our lack of freedom given us? Our generation may be one of the more degenerate ones (not as bad as Weimar Germany and the 68's, perhaps), people have no spirituality, they are cynical about everything from warfare to their own future, we are just coming out of one of the bloodiest centuries in the history of mankind… really, there is not much for statists to brag about, besides some awesome architecture and cool military parades. Education is a mess, healthcare is a mess, the military is a mess, public morale is a mess, and all that because someone, somewhere, tried to tweak them. Isn't it time, then, to experiment with radical not-tweaking, after a century of social engineers ruining everything?



im for liberty because im INTP



Is Molyneux worth reading at all? From what I've seen of him, it seems like he puts forth mostly straightforward ideas that have been explored more profoundly by other, better philosophers but he's hubristic and ignorant enough to believe they are somehow revolutionary.


Morality is only completely known via special revelation from God in his scriptures, the Bible. The best justification is demonstrating that libertarianism is the consistent application of these moral teachings, especially the second great commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"




morality is obstruction to freedom



I'm confident you don't actually object to all moral rules.


File: bac570f8bb5c38c⋯.png (31.85 KB, 237x306, 79:102, estp.PNG)






shit meant to reply to >>99169


File: 66f6740e7181071⋯.webm (436.68 KB, 768x576, 4:3, Go_Home.webm)



>on my 8chan

INTJ, plz no bully



INTJs are the most autistic, unlikeable fuckwads on the planet. Their beliefs and logic invariably are collectivist and are only ever libertarian if they come to the conclusion that it "benefits the collective"

In short, you don't belong here.




Get this normalfag fagbook-tier personality-type bullshit off my imageboards, damn it.




INTPs are niggerfaggots who think themselves smarter than everyone else–and usually believe in socialism because they expect to get paid more for being "smarter."




t. Didn't actually take the test and is LARPing as ESTP because fag website named it "the entrepreneur"


File: 80544dafdaea28e⋯.png (146.78 KB, 818x866, 409:433, mbti-cognitivefunctions.PNG)


reeeeee neck yourself



>Their beliefs and logic invariably are collectivist

Only a normalnigger and/or feelfag is a collectivist. All INTs are INTelligent and therefore cannot be collectivists.


File: 2feb45cdd1e8af4⋯.jpg (53.32 KB, 720x480, 3:2, 2feb45cdd1e8af4cb296cbde43….jpg)


One doesn't have to be. Just because something appeals to you does not mean it immediately becomes correct.


>are only ever libertarian if they come to the conclusion that it "benefits the collective"

Nah, it's just the most convenient outcome for most capable people, resulting in a stable life with continuous development and progress that would attract people on behalf of its advantages. Also no threading on me pls. Can someone make a meme The Chad Consequentialist vs virgin Deontological



Also i can do this too:

ESTPs are sheeple that would follow the one with the biggest dick waving in front of their face because they lack capacity for reason and can only either blow someone or get off on someone's face, therefore following leftist leaders or being a leftist most of the time due to them being louder and have numbers. Also it's not collectivism to want to rule leftist horde if you're not expanding your identity on them and instead of shaping them to your liking view them as tools, material or act fueled by hatred, checkmate.



normie kys


File: 12535cd13ecf9ff⋯.jpg (53.33 KB, 795x659, 795:659, 1550116598386.jpg)

Reminder that this shitty test you're all taking only applies if you're an unenlightened pleb who still indentifies with his own mind and thinks that he is his own thoughts.

t. ascended



>t. biomass blob*


File: aa6f05f10ddf984⋯.png (117.25 KB, 960x390, 32:13, ancap_virginstatist_meh.png)


Where my fellow Chad Rule Consequentialists (basically deontology, but with a different underlying thought process) at?



statists are drone state worshippers.



>still identifies with his own mind and thinks that he is his own thoughts

You can't even say what you've said without implying you're a fucking idiot for saying it.


Libertarian ism is the passive stance. The onus is on the active stance to justify the initiation of force.


File: db81eb773853c1e⋯.png (985.63 KB, 800x600, 4:3, troof.png)


>"Okay, but what about people who choose violence instead of argumentation?

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / clang / dempart / firechan / hisrol / jenny / mde / wooo ]