Welcome to /liberty/. This board is home to all discussion of libertarianism and economics.
1. Adhere to global rules.
2. Keep discussion on-topic: economics, politics, memes.
3. Low-quality posts will be deleted.
4. Namefagging will get you banned.
5. /liberty/ is a SFW board. Spoiler all NSFW content.
Complementary helicopter rides are available for visiting lefties.
STATUS OF ID FUNCTIONS - Apparently, IDs are not functioning properly due to "ISP fuckery" and this may or may not mean that different posters can share the same ID. Also, GeoFlags aren't working. I have contacted site administration and been informed that there is no way to retroactively wipe IDs. Until these 2 issues are resolved, we will have to make do with sus ID fuckery.
Also went ahead and implemented suggested font color changes.
Again, feedback is always accepted.
I didn't even recognize that there were lines previously. Thanks BO.
How should the board be improved?
More fun posting. It's all doomposting, depression, or bitter arguments.
Where did the hoppe open letter thread go?
What did you guys think of the interview. Some various thoughts of mine:
1 - The MSM's response and spin is so over-the-top it's both insulting and hilarious. It's also really interesting what they don't report on. E.g., the BBC doesn't report about the claim that Boris stopped the peace talks. The German DW doesn't talk about Putin saying that he thinks he's fighting the U.S. _and Germany_--he names those two countries in particular. They also make it sound like Tucker made Putin look like a saint and was unprofessional when in fact...
2 - I think this interview made Putin look terrible. Like on the level of "I'm surprised both Putin and the Kremlin were completely O.K. with this, what the fuck?" I was expecting more of a propaganda spin for their Ukraine war. Instead, it kind of makes me root for Ukraine more.
3 - Man, the first half of the interview is a real slog, picrel. However, it makes it plainly evident that Putin really honestly believes in irredentist foreign policy. It surprised the shit out of me since I kind of thought we left that behind in the previous century. This was the biggest takeaway for me.
4 - He's clear that the war was for Black Sea access.
5 - He doesn't see the U.S. as the most powerful country anymore, he sees China as the most powerful country now and therefore is just seeing what he's doing as moving into their alliance block. He talks about Chinese trade and waning U.S. influence to a surprising extent that it feels like he do
>If China funded the drug cartels to overthrow the Mexican government and then tried to bring the new puppet regime into a military alliance against the US
This is literally what Putin doing in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014.
>russia fighting a war 500 miles from moscow. This is life and death from their perspective.
Not Russia. Putin's regime.
>a civil war against the russian side of ukraine for 8 years after that.
This war started by Putin's gangs.
>to terrorize the russian people on east ukraine for 8 years
People was terrorized by Putin's gangs only in Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, controlled by Putin sponsored gangs, but not in Odesa, Kharkiv, Mariupol and other Russian-speaking majority regions of Ukraine.
>Always has been. Make USSR great again.
Yeah, but, I was expecting the usual doublespeak. Not for him to so blatantly say it and go into a two-hour EUIV monologue about it.
>Not for him to so blatantly say it
This is russian domestic narrative.
>Yeah, but, I was expecting the usual doublespeak. Not for him to so blatantly say it and go into a two-hour EUIV monologue about it.
That's because you've been propagandized into thinking that a politician who cares about his own people and his own country is weird or unacceptable somehow.
No, it is pretty unacceptable. The reason why is because irredentist foreign policy doesn't have a stellar track record, as it is littered with warmongerers.
Why did libertarianism die so fucking hard since '08?
>Having no domestic grain harvest, exactly like how Canada and the EU wants to do
>is not a great idea.
If one can import grain cheaper than one can produce it then it would be foolish to produce it.
In libertarianism the choise between production and importing is not made on state level. In libertarian country everyone would be free to produce and/or import grain if they have means to do it legally.
The farmers lit up a big pyre of shit outside the Brussels EU HQ buildings. Everyone not a part of mainstream media has begun to notice them.
You being at liberty to plant your own potatoes is fine and all, but just about every other nation state on Earth is providing their farmers with a subsidy. Libertarian doctrine on this is "if they want to be fools and make things that our nation doesn't produce and has to buy remarkably cheap for us to obtain, then may as well let 'em" but you then have no insurance against farmers going bust or against world shortages creating a blanket "refuse to sell" famine-scenario.
You also have to account for how much influence your political opponents have and how far they're willing to go. A run on the pound can be made to the point where 97 pence of it's worth is lost, the pound coin (or "dollar note" if foreen) in your pocket being resultantly worth 0.03p/¢ to buy things with instead.
I'm sorry but at that point I'll envy America's "government cheese" and the fact they've still a policy of redistributing wealth just to stash it all in a cave somewhere or give out some as part of a social safety net.
I would rather farmers paid into a mutual insurance trust and the wealth redistributive thefts stop, but then a bad year is a bad year and such a trust would need reserves to be able to pay potentially every single farmer/member of that trust to keep them sustained.
You don't even know how old the meme is, do you? Are you too retarded to do a reverse image search and see how many, many times it's been used?
This is why no one takes you people seriously. You and your ideology are fundamentally unserious.
>no egalitarian suffrage in libertarianism either
Until they outnumber you, decide they want your stuff, and organize to take it away from you, amirite guise? ("Nolite de lege vocare nobis, qui gladios ferimus.") I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Leftists don't grasp human nature. Their ideology requires a constituency who are not human in their psychology, for whom neither kin preference nor Dunbar's Number exists. It requires bugmen who are content to be fungible, interchangeable, expendable units of economic production and consumption. They're retarded.
Your ideology requires an isolated, resource-rich, high-trust society--which is to say, a monolithic ethnostate--with little or no internal population pressure. It can't work outside of one in which there are no consequences, either immediate or in the long term, for choosing to be the other kind of bugman-- an isolated, solitary consumer, who chooses to be a completely disconnected unit of economic production and consumption and calls this "freedom." It also requires that no outsiders enter to loot and subvert. But your ideology preven
I just want borders, cultural homogeneity and deportations, and forming a privateer militia to do the work is a little too messy, sporadic and slow for my sensitive palette.
Apart from that, arguing with libertarians will just be set dressing around the edges since we agree on a bunch of things already. It's more to steel man their argument into pragmatic blueprint. They keep claiming internationalist free markets will come and fix everything like a magic wand and you'll never need to touch a state lever or to lift a finger. I'm sorry but you need to spell out the practical means precisely because that claim is too exceptional or out there.
>Things get worse and worse and worse every year.
>Hyperinflation, massive unemployment, government completely corrupt.
>Argentines vote for a libertarian only because they're so sick of the current system. Even with the current political party spending nearly 2% of GDP on advertising for the mainstream parties campaign. Thing have just gotten that bad.
>Meanwhile in Public Education Land...
>Covid remote schooling antics have turned out kids with incredible poor metrics.
>Basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills are absolutely appalling.
>Kids spend their time talking about gender and sexuality.
>Home schooling, fuck now even UNschoolers are performing better.
>Parents keep their kids in public schools.
How bad do things have to get?
-being taught wrong things, and having the ability to reason sabotaged for the sake of dogma presevation, thus preventing them from learning the right things.
- being taught nothing, and being left with one's natural empircial/rational faculties, thus allowing them to learn the right things on their own.
What? You said government schools are "doing worse" than unschooled kids. How are you measuring that and where is the data?
1 - He isn't me.
2 - What data do you want? Every time I've heard someone say, "Show me the data," I'll show them it and then they'll cherrypick and say this doesn't apply to them, that doesn't work, this is a biased study, "that isn't the definition of X," etc. and ignore it anyways. You tell me what standards you even want first.
>Other option is educating people so they become libertarian before things get that bad.
As someone who knows nothing about the US, this is something that I feel is non-existing in the US when it comes to libertarianism.
The libertarian party (if existing) would be more cozy talking on academies to people from their own circle, never really going anywhere beyond a circlejerk, instead of going toes to toes in left-wing spaces and willing to show them how wrong they are, always on the move to spread the ideas of liberty even in the most polarizing spots
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.
What is the right-wing libertarian answer to Transhumanism?
>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
kys klaus schwab shill
You forgot to make an argument. People modifying their own bodies does not violate the NAP.
What happens when that technology is inevitably used for ill purposes and against people who don't want any part of it?
Law will be enforced
Most 'ex-libertarians' weren't truly libertarian to begin with. The ones that went fascist were impulsive control freaks who want to mold society in their perfect image regardless of what anyone else wants. If you're about that, you're not a Libertarian. You're just a LARPing fagola.
>From there to transition to fascism lay in the simple question of "who/what does the nap apply to?", the anawer is obviously not "everyone/everything" because we must suspend it extending to criminals in order to enforce those law
False. We do not "suspend" the NAP for criminals.
The Non-Aggression Principle means do not initiate force. If force has been initiated against you then you may use a proportional amount of force in self defense. Self defense is part of the NAP it is not an exception.
I don't have time to read the rest of your post especially since you already got such a basic libertarian principle completely wrong.
So someone steals from me while my back is turned, what happens then?
Am i to be the one in charge of defending my rights, and then only in the momment?
What lf someone had wronged me in the last week, can i never get justice?
Do you just endorse a world of "might nakes right" when the offender is stronger or otherwise advantaged over me in terms of application of force?
I am obviously talking about our punitive/rehabilitative system that deals with criminals.
Like any laws, We must enforce the NAP otherwise it doesnt matter, and like any laws, their endorsement requires the violation of them agsinst those who violated them.
Explain to me how the NAP is to be enforced, in detail. Maybe im getting your positions wrong here.
>i don't know anything about anarchy therefor it can never work
Ignorance and lack of imagination are not an argument. Go and read Chaos Theory or Ethics of Liberty or something.
>So someone steals from me while my back is turned, what happens then?
You figure out who did it and get your property back. Using force if necessary. You can also pay somebody to help you. If you were smart you would get insurance first and then the insurance company will pay you what the stolen item was worth and it is now their problem to find the thief and get their money back.
>What lf someone had wronged me in the last week, can i never get justice?
Your property is your property. It doesn't matter when it was stolen. Things get complicated if the stolen property changes hands and then a person who thinks they are the new owner makes changes. But like I said there are entire books written about private law, it's not like nobody has ever thought about this shit.
>Do you just endorse a world of "might nakes right" when the offender is stronger or otherwise advantaged over me in terms of application of force?
>I am obviously talking about our punitive/rehabilitative system that deals with criminals.
That's not your business. You have to the right to use reasonable force to protect your property and extract compensation from somebody who has damaged your property. What happens to the criminal after you got your shit back is not your problem.
>Do you just endorse a world of "might nakes right" when the offender is stronger or otherwise advantaged over me in terms of application of force?
Keep in mind that's the world we live in now. The government does whatever the fuck they want and you just have to bend over and take it. If your best argument against anarchy is that we might end up back where we are now then you've already lost.
Are you ready for muh soggy knees, /liberty/?
Are women less likely to be libertarians because:
>Of "empathy blocking."
E.g., due to sexual diphormism differences in the human brain, female brains have a larger limbic system, causing certain logical conclusions to be less likely to reach them. The slightly more positive way of phrasing this is "Females are so empathetic [that it blocks their cognition]."
>They are less likely to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Women are able to escape living conditions caused by policies they support either by marrying up, or otherwise using their overall cultural appreciation to make their decisions seem less bad to them on the margin.
>Women actually admire totalitarianism because they admire those traits sexually, and this manifests in the kind of government they likewise support.
Alternatively, "Because men are weaker today, they look to government to be their strong man."
>They don't have the centuries of cultural tradition that men have.
In the scope of human history, women have only received suffrage relatively recently, and therefore have been making poor decisions because cultu
>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.
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?
License Plate Surveillance, Courtesy of Your Homeowners Association
Flock Safety works with police to market scanners to hundreds of private community groups — which have no privacy safeguards.
At a city council meeting in June 2021, Mayor Thomas Kilgore, of Lakeway, Texas, made an announcement that confused his community.
“I believe it is my duty to inform you that a surveillance system has been installed in the city of Lakeway,” he told the perplexed crowd.
Kilgore was referring to a system consisting of eight license plate readers, installed by the private company Flock Safety, that was tracking cars on both private and public roads. Despite being in place for six months, no one had told residents that they were being watched. Kilgore himself had just recently learned of the cameras.
“We find ourselves with a surveillance system,” he said, “with no information and no policies, procedures, or protections.”
The deal to install the cameras had not been approved by the city government’s executive branch.
Instead, the Rough Hollow Homeowners Association, a nongovernment entity, and the Lakeway police chief had signed off on the deal in January 2021, giving police access to residents’ footage. By the time of the June city council meeting, the surveillance system had notified the police department over a dozen times.
You negotiate a refund first and then you do those things.
There is no such thing as "illegal information". Just leave it at that.
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.
Tor is open book
Your mom is open book.
>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.
Post your best.
Power lies in violence, the willingness to use it, and the wisdom to use it well.
See through the illusion of morality and you will find the reality of strategy.
bump because I keep coming back to this
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?