/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

th-3906009258.jpeg
[Hide] (42.1KB, 474x355)

>>557
>The police are the true government, without them the politicians are just men in suits with opinions that matter only to them.
After Jan 6 they didn't call the cops they called in the military. And while some middle aged trump fans taking an unguided tour around the capital building is a funny meme, try that shit at the federal reserve building and I have no doubt they will go tiananmen square on your ass.

>>543
>Not every corner of the Earth is that deep in Orwellian shit. Look at Afghanistan. 
Is The Taliban Creating A Surveillance State In Afghanistan?
https://www.rferl.org/a/azadi-briefing-taliban-surveillance-state-afghanistan/32574507.html

The Taliban said it has installed around 62,000 security cameras in the Afghan capital, Kabul, a city of some 5 million people.

The Taliban’s Interior Ministry said on August 30 that it planned to expand the surveillance network to the rest of the country in the next four years.

>it's self defence. 
The Taliban has banned women from visiting one of Afghanistan's most popular national parks, in the latest attempt to shut out women from public life. The ban has prompted widespread anger, with one Afghan woman telling RFE/RL's Radio Azadi that it was "illogical and inhumane."

LGBT activists say the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan has resulted in discrimination, torture, and even murder. One gay man told RFE/RL that he had to quit school to protect his identity while another said he and his boyfriend were tortured by the Taliban and had to vow to renounce same-sex relationships.

>>558
There's no distinction between police and military, originally they were one and the same before further specialization. 
Even now,  they are the same thing, They both serve the same purpose.

>>586
The enemy is the establishment, which is cops and soldiers both, along all the rest of the uniformed guys with guns who serve the state as its emforcememt and defence. Remove them, overcone them, them the entire system collapses as a new one rises to fill the vacuum and replace ir.

>>552
May is the ultimate libertarian waifu.  Loves guns, hates ATF, and is a loli.

>>575 (OP) 
This guy's been fighting the good fight against the U.S. for more than a decade now.  I don't know what else to say other than, "It sucks."

>>575 (OP) 
Good OP.

>>589 (OP) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism
>Notable proponents and organizations
>Murray Rothbard, American anarcho-capitalist and Austrian economist.
>Lew Rockwell, associate of Rothbard, advocate of secession, and founder of the Mises Institute.
>Hans-Hermann Hoppe, German economist, anarcho- capitalist, and cultural conservative.
>Stefan Molyneux
>Javier Milei, President of Argentina
>Mises Institute, founded by Rockwell to advance Paleolibertarian and Austrian economic views.
>Mises Caucus, faction within the American Libertarian Party
These are all people I follow anyway. What other kind of libertarianism is there?

>>598
There's Cato libertarians aka Gary Johnson/Koch people

>>591 (OP) 
I don't have time to read all this so if you want a better response then quote the parts that you find particularly convincing.

>The Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle is typically defined as an ethical rule prohibiting aggression (or actions that violate negative rights). But there are lots of disagreements among Libertarians regarding what the NAP prohibits, allows, and mandates since “aggression” is not clearly defined. 
The literature is very clear that the NAP only applies to property rights. People who try to argue that racism or misgendering is a violation of the NAP are confused leftists or agents trying to fracture the movement.

>Most libertarians are deontologists, so they view morality as a list of rules that shall never be violated. The justification for these rules is that at a macro-level these rules have consequences that cannot be considered at a micro-level. To put this in perspective, let’s take the example of lying. If a drug addict lies to a police officer about the presence of cocaine in his house, he can avoid getting arrested. But if too many people lie, then people won’t trust each other. Here the micro level concern is getting arrested, and the macro level concern is social trust. 
The NAP is only about when is it legitimate to use force against someone (e.g. they are stealing your stuff). That doesn't mean lying is a good thing or should be tolerated. If somebody lied with regards to a business transaction (fraud) then that is a form a theft and falls under the NAP. If somebody just lied and hurt your feelings then you have to find a peaceful way to deal with that. In most human societies once somebody gains a reputation as a liar they generally get shunned by their neighbors, which is perfectly consistent with the NAP. You don't have to associate with somebody you don't want to.

Like most criticism of libertarianism/anarchism this is not a brand new problem that humans have never had to deal with before. It is certainly not something the state can magically fix even if it tried.

>Negative rights require positive rights for their enforcement. The right not to be assaulted implies the right to justice if you do get assaulted. Negative rights requires positive rights to: the labor of the police, detectives, lawyers, and the entire justice system.
This is not true at all. You have the right to defend your property. You can enlist the help of others either voluntarily or through payment. If you're such an asshole that you cannot find any friends or family to help you then that is somewhat your fault. Although as the article says at the top but conveniently forgets to mention here, this is a simple problem to solve with insurance contracts. You don't have to pay the full price of a swat team if you offset the risk with premium payments.

>2.2. Every Existing Organism Can Only Exist At The Cost Of Another

homeschooledisWINNING.png
[Hide] (140.3KB, 1986x698)

I kind of this the point about how hard homeschoolers have been WINNING recently really needs to be emphasized.  It's one of libertarianism's greatest wins in COVID fiasco, and I think it's going to become more and more apparent in the years to come.

The thing about libertarianism is that it makes things worse right away, but then creates a trend where everything gets better and better.

Socialism does the opposite, everything improves, but then a trend is established where everything just gets worse and worse.

>>530
Most of the time, probably, particularly with monetary policy.  But things like cutting red tape or tax cuts most of the time just immediately make things better.

>>498
>What data do you want?
I want you to have some kind of argument that is not just "it's true because I want it to be true". Just because we're on the same side doesn't mean we should have zero standards with each other.

>>545
I don't know about hard stats but The Case Against Education is a good book for exploring the general ideas.

Since you still haven't addressed all the "tu quoque" callouts, maybe you don't understand what that means, and maybe you guys understand this as "whataboutism" instead.

>>562
>Could you please give an argument that does not rely on Tu Quoque fallacy?  Thanks.
It is not whataboutism because you are you one who setup this dichotomy in >>525. Your argument is that leaders who put their own country first are bad because doing so leads to war. Since you use MAGA as an insult you agree that most american presidents do not put america first. And yet america has had significantly more wars than putin. So given the facts your statement in >>525 is objectively false.

I would actually argue the opposite is true. War is a way for politicians to siphon money from the working class to the shareholders of defense corporations. A politician who put the wellbeing of his own country first would avoid war as much as possible.

>>569
>lah-di-dah let me condescendingly explain to you the fancy words I googled 5 seconds ago
I can see that being "the smart guy" is important to your identity. Just to be clear I'm not calling your stupid I am just calling you uninformed. If you get all of your news from reddit and other corporate media platforms then it is perfectly reasonable that you will not be aware of the things 

>>571
>It is not whataboutism because you are you one who setup this dichotomy in >>525. Your argument is that leaders who put their own country first are bad because doing so leads to war. Since you use MAGA as an insult you agree that most american presidents do not put america first. And yet america has had significantly more wars than putin. So given the facts your statement in >>525 is objectively false.
This isn't even strawmanning, because strawmanning involves at least approximating what the other person said.  This is just completely making up what the other person said.

>>560
>tried to overthrow the democratically elected government of ukraine in 2004 (failed)
Not failed. In 2004 Ukrainians successfully did «Stop the Steal». 

>overthrow the democratically elected government
Being democratically elected don't allow the president to be an asshole. Anyway, you hate democracy, so why you are complaining?

The Revolution of Dignity https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/123/ 
The Euromaidan protest, that would eventually become the Revolution of Dignity, began on 21 Nov, 2013 as a peaceful demonstration of 1500 people, summoned by a Afghan-Ukrainian journalist Mustafa Nayyem.

Only a week later Yanukovych ordered the state riot police, Berkut, to violently disperse the protest. But a few days later the rioters came back, which resulted in more violence and ultimately to a new anti-protest laws that would make future protests much more difficult.

But this law only agitated the people, and the protests weren't happening only in Kyiv - large anti-Yanukovych and pro-EU protests were also seen in other cities around Ukraine, including Lviv, Kharkiv, Ternopil, Sumy, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Mariupol and Luhansk.

>>576
>This is just completely making up what the other person said.
If you think there is a mistake then feel free to clarify.

>>580
>Being democratically elected don't allow the president to be an asshole. 
He wasn't an asshole he just wasn't pro-NATO enough.

>>542 (OP) 
Wrong. Everybody knows that price Inflation is caused by global warming and comparative advantage is white supremacy.

>>488 (OP) 
>Why are women so politically different?
Women are conformist first of all and therefor far more vulnerable to propaganda. That's why they got the vote. It wasn't some feminist battle for equality.

Women are conformist for evolutionary reasons. When a tribe gets raided the men are killed and the women are taken as slaves and wives. The women who abandoned their old culture and embraced their captors spread their genes the furthest. (Women can always land on their back).

Also women can't really survive without men to protect and provide for them, especially during pregnancy. Women are malleable to the beliefs of whoever is putting food on the table and for most women now that is the welfare state (Women are married to the state).

My last point is that egalitarianism is a maternal instinct. Mothers can't say you kids go out and compete for resources and whoever gets the least gets the least. The maternal instinct is take food from the big kid and give it to the little kid so they all grow up healthy. (Socialism is inherently feminine)

Materialism is another reason why getting (unmarried) women involved with politics is a disaster. Because they start thinking of immigrants as children who need extra help and those damn selfish white men who actually worked hard for their money should give some of it to the weak little kids because that's what fairness looks like to a mother.

>You need to encourage a more welcoming, diverse, and inclusive environment and the problem with libertarians are posts that denigrate the female mind and perspective just like the supposed "options" from this misogynistic post.
Libertarians are against both men and women voting so there's no issue there. Women should be married to men not the state. That's why there is a massive political divide between married and unmarried women.

>>492
The reasons you list in the first half of your post, are those evolved cultural norms that you think are somewhat malleable, or do you think they're evolved biological dispositions that are unmalleable?

>>488 (OP) 
Women can escape the conditions men have to live through by being sluts. They can use their bodies to survive by offering sexual favors even if they are ugly. Plus society in general is far more sympathetic to bonus holes than it is to men.

>>444
>wanting the masses to be made absolutely useless
Even if someone is better than you at everything you are still not useless.
Learn you some basic economics

>What Is Comparative Advantage?
>===
>A person has a comparative advantage at producing something if he can produce
>it at lower cost than anyone else.
>
>Having a comparative advantage is not the same as being the best at something.
>In fact, someone can be completely unskilled at doing something, yet still have
>a comparative advantage at doing it! How can that happen?
>
>First, let’s get some more vocabulary. Someone who is the best at doing

>>440
>>447
>>451

kys klaus schwab shill

>>483
You forgot to make an argument. People modifying their own bodies does not violate the NAP.

>>485
What happens when that technology is inevitably used for ill purposes and against people who don't want any part of it?

>>502
Law will be enforced

sKGbB67rKsbP.jpeg
[Hide] (117.8KB, 1170x1587)

>>433
You negotiate a refund first and then you do those things.

>>432
There is no such thing as "illegal information". Just leave it at that.

>>442
Obacentity laws are like laws upholding decency codes are like laws against slander and libel are like laws protecting intellectual property are like laws against hate speech are like laws punishing holocaust denial and calling for an isreal boycott are like laws punishing whistleblowers who expose government corruption are like laws of various other kinds which i am certain exist to infringe upon freedom of speech,  and expression, and information.

God damn the first amendment has a fucktonne of exceptions to it.

>>138
Tor is open book

>>456
Your mom is open book.

>>454
>God damn the first amendment has a fucktonne of exceptions to it.
None of which should exist. I can sympathize with the conservative case for libel laws because you don't want people fighting duels over every minor insult. On the other hand, 3rd parties trying to insert themselves as the arbiter of truth is arguably worse.