/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

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.

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

LIBERTARIAN_READING_LIST.jpg
[Hide] (4.6MB, 3202x4994)

>>8 (OP) 

bump because I keep coming back to this

>>9
I hate this long lists of books that the poster obviously hasn't read. Nobody needs to read 20 books on austrian economics.

If you're looking for one good book for each category
Economics: Bob Murphy's Choice
AnCap/Libertarianism: Roathbard's Ethics of Liberty
Anti-Statism: Hoppe's Democracy the God that Failed
Anti-War: Scott Horton's Enough Already

For fiction, Larry Niven's non-mainstream stuff tends to be very libertarian, Anansi and Red Tide for example. And F. Paul Wilson is a full ancap author you might not have heard of. If you really like Ayn Rand's stuff and wish there was more than Stephan Molyneux has some Randian inspired fiction.

Who /Palelolibertarian/ here?

>>411
Could someone explain to me what everything in this post minus the last question is in response to?  Is there someone else/a different thread this poster is replying to that I don't have context to?  Everything except the last sentence reads like a complete non-sequitar.

GvOB71sl6TgA.jpeg
[Hide] (88.3KB, 1170x1103)

>>412
>who is he quoting / referencing?
No idea.

>>411
>If you say that democracy has so much wrong with it, then what do you propose instead?
If you want democracy you need to weigh the votes against how much stake the voters have in the property being voted on. For example look at how companies handle big decisions. Shareholds get a number of votes determined by how much they have actually invested in the company. There's no way they would let 1000 africans walk into the board room and starting voting on shit. This is not your property, your vote is meaningless, get the fuck out.

Hoppe talks about this in What Must Be Done. One way to handle the transition from statism to anarchism is to spin off all public services as private companies but then give citizens voting shares based on how much tax they have paid in their lifetime. That also solves the immigration problem because new arrivals who have paid zero tax and purchased zero shares get no voting rights.

>>411
>If you say that democracy has so much wrong with it, then what do you propose instead?
This is a thread for tier ranking different libertarians, not tier ranking different forms of government.  Although, that would be a cool idea for a thread.

>>416
>then give citizens voting shares based on how much tax they have paid in their lifetime.
Tax cucks > agorist chads.

>>411
I'm not fascist either but even I can see democracy is rule by mob.

>>281
>"excessive centralization" can't happen without governments
Yes.

Lenin «The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It»

Compulsory syndication, i.e., compulsory association, of the industrialists, for example, is already being practised in Germany. Nor is there anything new in it. Here, too, through the fault of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, we see the utter stagnation of republican Russia, whom these none-too-respectable parties "entertain" by dancing a quadrille with the Cadets, or with the Bublikovs, or with Tereshchenko and Kerensky.

Compulsory syndication is, on the one hand, a means whereby the state, as it were, expedites capitalist development, which everywhere leads to the organisation of the class struggle and to a growth in the number, variety and importance of unions. On the other hand, compulsory "unionisation" is an indispensable precondition for any kind of effective control and for all economy of national labour.

The German law, for instance, binds the leather manufacturers of a given locality or of the whole country to form an association, on the board of which there is a representative of the state for the purpose of control. A law of this kind does not directly, i.e., in itself, affect property relations in any way; it does not deprive any owner of a single kopek and does not predetermine whether the

(((Libertarianism))).jpg
[Hide] (477.5KB, 1899x1079)

e8b1de355d93e5e91433ab75ec828141f0d48eeb5fecace1f231a36da7bbbab9.jpg
[Hide] (217.1KB, 720x714)

>>376
Projection.
Rules post features: Murray Rothbard with text saying "get in we're privatizing everything"
Core libertarian literature is authored almost exclusively by jews.
This entire board is dedicated to judeophiles acting as golem.

>>374
OP uses rhetorical questioning to lead posters to draw similar conclusions on ideological opponents so that he can ask a question which reinforces his intellectual superiority:
>How the fuck do socialists not see this?

Libertarianism is a distraction to occupy autists that aren't entranced by hormones and flesh shapers.

>>380
>first pic
god fucking damn it

>>380
>Core libertarian literature is authored almost exclusively by jews.
Hoppe, Hayek, Ron Paul, SEK3, Bob Murphy, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell....

>The Free Market will solve this
As long as government has exclusive control over money we don't have anything approaching a free market.

>OP uses rhetorical questioning which reinforces his intellectual superiority
OP asked a serious question and got serious answers (until you came along). It's obvious that you are the one who is obsessed with "intellectual superiority" and you're projecting that onto everyone else.

>>380
>Libertarianism is a distraction to occupy autists that aren't entranced by hormones and flesh shapers.
I don't know about others but understanding real economics and personal responsibility has made me far richer than the kids I went to school with. Individualism is also a nice escape from dumb partisan bullshit since I can just agree with leftists on things I agree with them on and agree with rightists on things I agree when them on. There's no pressure to be an obnoxious faggot who ignores facts and logic and just throws shit at people because they're not "your" group.

>>349
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.

>>354
I came to a place where lolberts congregate and explained the facts of life to you.  tl;dr  Wise up.  The Non-Aggression Principle is not viable in a society run by spiteful childless women who stay up into the wee hours of the morning, flicking the bean to fantasies of leading a platoon of Red Guards to your door.  They say so.  They can't shut up about it.  They've been saying the quiet part out loud more and more the past decade.  They feel safe doing so because in Western nations almost all the levers of power are already in their pudgy little hands.  Quoting Gallatin or Gandhi to the goon squad when they kick down the door isn't going to end the way you think it will.  Picking up a gun to make a solitary deracinated individualist last stand is unlikely to be better.

Lolbertarians like to do the Ghost Dance for Muh Constitution.  The Constitution is deader than the Treaty of Casco and didn't last much longer.  You'd better think hard about what even the normies are starting to see coming.   Refusing to decide is still making a choice.

>>349
Also, >>356
>Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.
When you say shit like that, you also make the entire movement look dumb when others read that comment.  There are a lot of other dismissive one-liners I would suggest to use next time.  E.g., "This reads like something out of Timecube."

Anyways,
>>356
You're bringing up a lot of stuff people wouldn't even have the background to understand what you're talking about unless they lurked on manosphere blogs for hours a day.
>spiteless childless women flicking the bean
>Quoting Gallatin to the goon squad
>"Deracinated"
>Unironically using the word "muh," "lolbert," or "normies."
Arguing points aside, and on a completely personal level, I think you need help.  You can go ahead and take this as an ad hominem I guess, but I'm serious.  When I read your post I feel like I'm reading a schizophrenic like Timecube or a serial killer in the making.  The reason I say this is because your vocabulary is so far outside of the norm that it's disturbing, and indicates a high degree of being terminally online.  Nobody speaks like this or uses these terms outsi

>>357
But anon, even if it's cringe the extent of your argument is that of "I don't like your tone" or "wrong thread here".

>>356
You say the gulags are coming for the wrongful thoughts, but it's really just the poorhouse that's coming for the materially poor serfs. Put it in these terms; the dollar you earned will be worth 90¢ by the end of the year, 80¢ by the end of next year and so on, until the system of "make GDP go up by hiring more government employees" stops working. The pink haired hamplanets don't need to be dragged out to be hanged or beheaded. They are eating themselves out of their own houses. They grow so fat they die. I don't really know why you think even one libertarian bullet is going to need to be fired off before the problem eats it's own children.

Now the manosphere problems, those I think are caused by *too much* liberty. Particularly for women. Since women have been afforded all these legal and state protections, and since men are in particularly desperate positions, good men have found themselves simping for women to get some of what they want. For these same women, who admit that the ideal situation for them is to have both a "good" marriage and a "bad" marriage (misuse of the term "marriage" there is by their own inner workings). Once you give women this power, strong men will use violence to take it and form monopolo

>>358
This isn't "wrong tone," this is on the level of "you're practically speaking gibberish."  He's like a Pentecostal speaking in tones or a schizophrenic homeless vagrant on the street yelling obscenities into someone's face.  Like I said, most people here haven't lurked on manosphere blogs 24/7 and don't even have the vocabulary to understand what he's saying, including myself.  It's not "Speak normal because I don't like your tone" it's "Speak normal SO WE UNDERSTAND YOU."

Also, "wrong thread here" is completely legitimate.

>>356
>I came to a place where lolberts congregate and explained the facts of life to you.  
If you want us to listen to you then you need to listen to us first. You have no idea what we're about you are just fighting a made up enemy inside your own head.

1629375636747-2.webm
[Hide] (2.2MB, 360x360, 00:17)

>>234 (OP) 
>I'm just curious how anyone here could make the case that the US was ever freer than ancient rome
You can't.
Ancient Rome before the collapse had a tax of 1 day's work out of the entire year.

Everything in the US is taxed, such that the lowest tax you'll pay is 60%.
>muh fees aren't taxes
If you have to pay a fee to use public services, or land, it's a tax. (entrance fee to state park, fishing license, hunting license)
If you have to pay an additional fee to the government on top of whatever the seller wants, it's a tax. (sales tax, 911 tax, etc)
If you have to pay a fee to a government representative to use something or "own" something, it's a tax. (property tax, vehicle registration)
If a subsidy is used to control a market, every product of that market is automatically taxed because your money is used to subsidize that product. (corn, milk, soy)
If a service is mandated by the government to own or operate something, it's a tax. (auto insurance)
Westerners pay their governments a large portion of their income (income tax), and their governments use some of that money to import foreign workers who send their income to their home countries. That's cuckoldry.

And then the laws.

e9b14a4d2122cb3fd87636d20b537469db4c0ca6da9dc698b1f4f7d0116fe215.mp4
[Hide] (1.2MB, 480x480, 00:06)

>>253
>tax
And to add to the insanity, Social Security is taken out of your paycheck and supposed to be invested by the government so that you can use it in your old age.
But when you start drawing from Social Security, they tax it as income.

These kikes double and quadruple tax every cent you get from them.

>>251
>Local states have done virtually nothing against the federal government infringing on their rights in America.
Drugs, abortion, guns, pick one. Any combination of issues has been pushed at the federal level and resisted by some state or another.

>None of the "distributed power structures" have done anything significant against the federal government 
Not since the civil war no.

>The federal government has ultimate authority of what is allowed to happen state to state
Yes but your influence on the federal government is microscopic. The president can do whatever he wants with executive orders but the chance of you being president are the same as you shitting a unicorn egg.

>Modern day America is tyrannical and you'd still have to do something to this affect to make any meaningful difference.
You just need a state to succeed from the union without triggering another civil war. Texas seems to be the most likely.
https://mises.org/library/common-sense-case-independent-texas

>>252

>>253
>Everything in the US is taxed, such that the lowest tax you'll pay is 60%.
The modern state doesn't live on taxes. They print money through the central bank and just give it to themselves. The point of taxes is to control inflation by removing the excess money from the economy after the important people have already spent it.

>Ancient Rome before the collapse had a tax of 1 day's work out of the entire year.
I don't know much about ancient rome but I'm pretty sure they debased their currency to the point of worthlessness at some point near the end.

>>257
>The president can do whatever he wants with executive orders but the chance of you being president are the same as you shitting a unicorn egg.
Authoritarians always assume that "their guy" will be in charge. You'd be a fucking retard if you helped build a totalitarian superstate if you thought there was any chance that some violent psychopath could take it over and use it against you.

>>74
The worst part is the people who pay all the taxes and make this all possible are the biggest supporters.

I've been working on an NPC exploit for Blue city libtards. Ask them how much tax they pay. Then ask them to guess how much tax the average toothless deplorable redneck school shooting trump voter pays. Then try to get them to connect those dots between paying tons of tax and then being permanently outvoted by people they hate more than anything.

>inb4 the average democrat will just want to put trump voters into gas chambers and keep democracy as it is
I'm kind of expecting that response but we'll see.

Socialism Isn't about Creating Economies. It Is about Amassing Political Power

...

The Soviet economy was wasteful and chaotic. Besançon believed that economic planning induced irrationality in the system. Terrified managers couldn’t report failing the plan, and consequently any subsequent economic planning would be even more divorced from reality than previous planning had been.

Both Besançon and Mises knew that socialism could not discover market prices. Both knew that this would lead to widespread corruption. However, Besançon realized that the state not only tolerated but also used the black market for price discovery in economic sectors critical to the regime, like defense and certain prestigious cultural and sport endeavors (Bolshoi Theatre, gymnastics, eventually hockey, etc.).

However, there is a critical difference between Mises and Besançon. While Mises believed that the goal of the Soviet economy was to produce usable goods and services, Besançon believed otherwise. The Soviet economy, he posited, was never about producing goods and services for consumers, but rather had other goals.

The Soviet economy existed to keep the Communist Party in power, and that was the sole criteria party leaders used to evaluate its performance. The “production” of political power was supreme, and anything else was secondary, subordinated to the main goal for the Soviet economy.

Soviet political leaders did not want an economy that produced goods abundantly because abundance separates the citizen from the state. The state would lose its power over its subjects if they became wealthier. Homo sovieticus—the Soviet man—had to be dependent on the state, barely living from one day to the next on state-issued ration cards.

If a Soviet manager managed by some miracle to produce well-being, despite absurd planning orders and a lack of market prices, he might well have been punished for failing to produce what he really needed to produce: state power over simple people. Abundance and well-being always were and still are the true enemies of socialism; people cannot be able to ignore or to forget the power of the state.

>>97
>Abundance and well-being always were and still are the true enemies of socialism

>>74
>democracy and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
After the Americas had been discovered, Isabella and Ferdinand organized trade between their new colonies and Spain via a guild of merchants in Seville. These merchants controlled all trade and made sure that the monarchy got its share of the wealth of the Americas. There was "no free trade" with any of the colonies, and each year a large flotilla of ships would return from the Americas bringing precious metals and valuable goods to Seville. The narrow, monopolized base of this trade meant that no broad class of merchants could emerge via trading opportunities with the colonies. Even trade within the Americas was heavily regulated. For example, a merchant in a colony such as New Spain, roughly modern Mexico, could not trade directly with anyone in New Granada, modern Colombia. These restrictions on trade within the Spanish Empire reduced its economic prosperity and also, indirectly, the potential benefits that Spain could have gained by trading with another, more prosperous empire. Nevertheless, they were attractive because they guaranteed that the silver and gold would keep flowing to Spain.

...

As Habsburg absolutism strengthened in the eighteenth century, the power of all non-monarchical institutions weakened further. When a deputation of citizens from the Austrian province of the Tyrol petitioned Francis for a constitution, he responded, “So, you want a constitution! . . . Now look, I don’t care for it, I will give you a constitution but you must know that the soldiers obey me, and I will not ask you twice if I need money . . . In any case I advise you to be careful what you are going to say.” Given this response, the Tyrolese leaders replied, “If thou thinkest thus, it is better to have no constitution,” to which Francis answered, “That is also my opinion.”

...

At the center of Habsburg economic institutions stood the feudal order and serfdom. As one moved east within the empire, feudalism became more intense, a reflection of the more general gradient in economic institutions we saw in chapter 4, as one moved from Western to Eastern Europe. Labor mobility was highly circumscribed, and emigration was illegal. 

>>97
>Abundance and well-being always were and still are the true enemies of socialism
When the English philanthropist Robert Owen tried to convince the Austrian government to adopt some social reforms in order to ameliorate the conditions of poor people, one of Metternich’s assistants, Friedrich von Gentz, replied, “We do not desire at all that the great masses shall become well off and independent . . . How could we otherwise rule over them?”

9cb6aec59f43016f1a28110db12a3b94697d6ec7.jpg
[Hide] (63.6KB, 405x507)

>>146
You don't belong here

>>111
>rap battle
round 2 was better fight me

>>106 (OP) 
>but Rothbard hated everyone.
I thought he got along with both Hoppe and Konkin quite well, only disagreeing with the latter on praxis and the Agorist ideal of having an economy of mostly self-employeed entrepreneurs.

>>120
This debate is still going on now.
Is it better to run as LP, a party you fully control but has little traction.
Or is it better to run as Republican, a party that has lots of traction but you have little control.

>>123
Neither. Political parties will get you nowhere.