/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

>>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.

not a GET

slide2.png
[Hide] (267KB, 1024x1023)

Crypto Agorism unites agorists and cryptocurrency users to build fair and free markets outside of the state, which provide necessities like food, jobs, housing, healthcare, sim cards, mail & more without censorship or surveillance.
https://agorism.blog/anarkio/crypto-agorism

Libertarians, especially in poorer countries, should make taking bribes like pulling teeth. It would be best for libertarians to withhold the money that greases the State's cogs. You will find that bureaucrats who take bribes often fit into the same mold:
Socialists believe that Capitalism is slavery and profit is theft because they get hungry. A socialist, therefore, sees himself as a serf, a rebel trying to escape his enslavement. He sees bribery as a necessity: after all, Capitalism is slavery and he is nobly fighting his enslavement. It is good that People make giving bribes a painful process, because, otherwise, it would not be worth it to any rational human being to take bribes, given the effort. A socialist, however, is not a rational human being. The bribe no longer serves the purpose of paying the bills, but instead as a psychological justification of his bizarro world. He needs to take bribes, because he takes bribes, because he is a serf, a slave. He is not obligated to work, only to make the appearance of genuinely working to please his slave masters. He is both taking bribes and the victim at the same time. I wish I could believe the same lie that a Socialist tells himself and have that same self-pity, because it works. Though a business might be his friend, he is smart in refusing to see it that way. The socialists are termites eating the wood, and when the house collapse, they blame the wood. They suggest that next time, we build t

>>69
>agorism is also how to get scammed by your local street vendor 101
Shut the fuck up city slicker. Are you truly that incompetent? What else must the state hold your hand for?

>>42 (OP) 
>not letting the government fuck you over and not letting corps fuck you over either.
What if the only way corps can fuck you over is through government?

Look at all the advertisements around you. The fact that private companies need to literally beg you to give them money is proof they have no power. The government doesn't ask, they steal your money at virtual gunpoint, and then waste it on stupid shit like bombing children in the middle east without asking you. The government is 100% the problem.

The State is far worse than even criminal gangs and cartels in my view. The criminal still have to wake up, steal some weapon, find an unsuspecting victim, point the gun and ask for the money, hoping the robbed does not attract too much attention, they then risk the products of their "labor" when sharing with their friends or even spending, all the while being wanted by the police. The politicians and high state officials just steal 50%+ of all you produce every year, either directly or indirectly, without even having to leave their comfy offices. There are no voluntary taxes, you either pay them, go to jail or the bill is included on everything you buy via VAT, in some nations the government can even withdrawal money directly from your bank account to "accomplish your citizenship duties" .

Just more scams to make insiders rich, just like crypto.
Besides, why seastead when there's still plenty of cheap, available, undeveloped land not far from where you are currently shitposting from?

>>46
>why seastead when there's still plenty of cheap, available, undeveloped land not far from where you are currently shitposting from?
I just feel like they're less likely to get Waco'd since they will be on international waters which Nation States can't own. Not saying that they still won't interfere (the Thai Navy went after a seasteading couple back in 2019), but I feel it would be less likely since there is way more ocean than there is land.

Well it's mostly scams like the first anon says. 
Success of defying government power never comes in the form of some rich guy passion project, it can be pretty ugly. For example, the amish don't pay taxes and don't have to do a lot things americans have to but they are pacifists and don't use modern tech. Multiple mexican villages removed both the cartels and the government from their homeland, but they pay in blood by having the young serve in a private militia. South america in general has this thing going on with cartels being so powerful that the state can't tax regulate or even intervene in some regions, people even report that they rather pay some local gangster than the politicians, but having some cartel act as the government is not ideal. All you have to do is ignore the state and it disappears, due to resources limitations they can barely arrest /murder 2-4% of the population of a given nation and could not even make 10% economically crippled(turns out if don't pay taxes you'll have more money). They can't also waco everybody both due to logistics and resources, the american feds are incredibly well funded even for a first world nation, we don't see wacos everyday despite all the reports of "ghost people"(no documents), even globohomo admits there are millions in the us alone(like the family of that treacherous woman that wrote Educated).
I really believe religious group with more than 200k followers would be able to set up an ancap colony no problem. Conclusion: