/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

contract.jpg
[Hide] (63.2KB, 640x280)

>>149
>the webmaster should be allowed to dictate how you can access the site

>>1168
>the webmaster should be allowed to dictate how you can access the site
If you are so weak you get addicted to stupid shit like youtube then that is your problem, not mine and certainly not the government's.

>>13
Why do the biggest assholes use this phrase?

>>1206
Accidentally highlighted over my copypasta. This phrase:
>just really curious

Make sure to buy Monero to help against 51% attack pls thx

Firefly_Terradrome_333149.mp4
[Hide] (7.1MB, 720x1280, 00:08)

[iCKoniCiconic_by_David_icke]_David_Walliams_-_Road_map_by_David_icke_2025_(2026)_-_libgen.li.pdf
(8MB)

It’s all unknown known. Look within.

https://rumble.com/v35waq4-rt-news-livestream-247.html

It depends on the subject, for example I read cannabis and other drug-related news from marijuanamoment, gambling regulations news from iGB, et cetera.

Otherwise I just check Wikipedia's current events portal for relevant happenings worldwide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

>>1596
I also love the theory under Wikipedia, but it's runt by leftists mostly, nowadays. Some articles are blatant propaganda. There's no neutral point as they would like it to be.

>>1575 (OP) 
>>1617
Wikipedia is perfectly fine ... if you directly check the firsthand sources at the bottom. If the firsthand sources say six gorillion jews got turned into soap bars despite less than one million changed from two decades in zero source sources, then you infer that the first and secondhand sources lied. Simple inferences.

>>1607
Having a hierarchal power structure is antithetical to libertarianism and slavery and wages and relgiion all go hand in hand. Only a fool would question this. It's not natural as we were hunters and gatherers for the majority of our existence and so this goes against our psychology, the ones that have automomous thought patterns and that can reflect anyway, the 50 to 30 percent with internal dialogs.

*autonomous 
*religion

>>1607
>The government was simultaneously operated by all three forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) as represented by their king, the house of lords, and the house of commons. For whatever reason, having all three function at once stopped any form from grasping full control. And it is almost like the negatives cancelled each other out, and so the nation got to enjoy the benefits of the positives of each form of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
I don't know if you typed all that instead of just saying "we used to have a proper separation of powers" because you found most people encounter it as a novel concept so you're trying to speak to the lowest common denominator, or because this isn't being taught in schools anymore.

>>1606
Man, this post can be aggressively summarized. Let me do that.
>I agree. I would say that people realized that libertarianism, or freedom and liberty in general, can only exist as an in-group standard, but attempting to apply it as a universal standard can only lead to bad things. And I think a lot of anons realized there needs to be some form of power structure to support and protect it which is why to drifted into authoritarian ideologies (socialism, fascism, neo-liberalism, monarchism etc.) 
Only white men support libertarianism. So you need to stop immigration and/or enforce emigration and/or stop females from voting. So that made some people authoritarian.
>And I don't think they are completely wrong. Here is an observation I made recently in thinking about England, old England, which was respected by all the other European nations for its standards of liberty, rights, and freedom. So, the question I asked myself is why did it exists. From what I could see, if the England had a government/political structure that stopped centralization. The government was simultaneously operated by all three forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) as represented by their king, the house of lords, and the house of commons. For whatever reason, having all three function at once stopped any form from grasping full control. And it is almos

>>1613
I could have used separation of power, but these days, it basically means "I want your side to have no power, even when it should, and my side to have all the power, even when it shouldnt". It like how separation of church and state essentially means "there should be no church, and everything should be controlled by the state". So, I just have to write like I am introducing new concepts so there can be no confusion.

BTs1I2Y4OK5i.png
[Hide] (114.9KB, 514x250)

It is as if the E.U. and the U.K. are handing their publishing industry over to the U.S. on a sliver platter at this point.

frenchman.jpg
[Hide] (44.4KB, 574x745)

Are there any libertarian spaces online that aren't fedded to hell, where one can discusses the finer points of liberty? there genuinely seems to be no good forums, discord servers, or imageboards of people who still believe in libertarianism, that arent atleast completely dead like this place.

On that same note, i think we should aggressively shill this board to online political spaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Upf_B9RLQ
I bet you they're going to blame everything on monopolies, and not the regulations incentivizing massive centralization and enshittification.
https://storage02.forbrukerradet.no/media/2026/02/breaking-free-pathways-to-a-fair-technological-future.pdf
I fucking called it.
Nothing about the digital dots and registration requirement laws for printers that make them shitty.
Nothing about the water conservation laws that make washing machines and dishwashers have bullshit control boards and wifi to work.
Nothing about the new safety regs on cars (c.f. the automatic driving regs in the states) that make it so every car HAS to have an enormous amount of software on them. Or how they all HAVE to have remote stop capabilities.
Nothing about all the data privacy laws that require ridiculous customer data retention.
Nothing about the mere talk of age verification laws that have recently made every online site even shittier and REQUIRE logins.
ZERO TALK about that.
It's ALWAYS ONLY capitalism's fault.
They NEVER see the government's hand in this. They can't even know that this POV exists!

chester.jpg
[Hide] (19.2KB, 250x328)

Did the spoils system help limit the size of government? The thought process is if the spoils system is in place, then the next party can potentially wholesale eliminate/not staff entire agencies whereas in the Pendleton system they're from the public away from differing party opinions as an entrenched and protected bureaucratic class.
E.g., if the Spoils system existed, would DOGE've been able to eliminate more of the payroll? If the answer is that it could've gone in both directions, then would we have less payroll and bureaucrats simply because of the short-term, tenuous natures of their jobs?

>>1595
>Are there any libertarian spaces online that aren't fedded to hell, where one can discusses the finer points of liberty? there genuinely seems to be no good forums, discord servers, or imageboards of people who still believe in libertarianism, that arent atleast completely dead like this place.
I legitimately believe this is it. This dead board is all we have left.

bourbonforbreakfast.jpg
[Hide] (70.4KB, 667x1000)

I feel like this is a good book to start out with. Back then, the word 'enshittification' hadn't entered the lexicon, but a lot of what Jeff was talking about is the same. It's one of the books that stuck in my memory and made me think recently, "Oh hey, what everyone is calling enshittification now is really what Jeff was talking about nearly a decade ago." Examples, and causes (solutions where possible)
>Showers & Toilets
Older showers you used to be able to get higher pressures out of. This was regulated to be less in the Energy Policy Act of 1992
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg2776.pdf
There were many updates on the bureaucratic as opposed to legislative side that have made this more restrictive over time.
Low flow toilets, and low flow faucets are a fault of the same regulation.
It was done out of "water conservation". However, given how much more water you have to run to get the same level of cleanliness and how many more times people have to flush, it's very arguable how much this has saved.
<Solutions
Jeff has a solution to hack showerheads in the book. However the solution to toilets is--unfortunately--to just "buy an old one." Personally, I don't really see this as a solution, because logistically that's goi

>Washing and Dishwashing Machines
There's a thing called "Integrated Water Factor" defined by https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/05/31/2012-12320/energy-conservation-program-energy-conservation-standards-for-residential-clothes-washers . The regulation was promulgated in 2012, but didn't start getting enforced until 2015. This is the law that forced all the software onto washing machines. Washing machines can sort of 'optimize' their soil sensor/cycle extension/temperature management/etc. in order to hit how IWF is "defined" by the EPA.
What's MORE interesting about this is that this is the period of time in which you could FINALLY look up how corporations commented on these regulatory changes. And this is where you can start to finally have proof to critics that these major corporations are the ones PUSHING for these regulations. For example, here's Samsung not arguing  to do away with the regulation, but to write the numbers in just the right way to keep them in business and their competitors out:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0025
Serious

>>1599 (OP) 
I really dont know what to say. You obviously understand Regulatory Capture. Large institutions use regulations as a moat to destroy competition. But why make products worse instead of better? When few massive corporations control the entire market because regulations killed their competitors, they have no incentive to make good products. They can make things cheaper, shittier, and more expensive because you have nowhere else to go. Now, I have a theory about the regulatory/bureaucratic aspect as well. I call it the midwit takeover of bureaucracy. So not only will they do everything they can to justify their existence to protect their jobs, but they always want to add and increase controls in order to "do good and make the world better". I always think this is the part that isn't discussed enough. If we are dealing with Regulatory Capture in the marketplace, we are dealing with Midwit Ideological Capture in the bureaucratic world. 

Now, I think the Midwit Ideological Capture is worse because it punishes (in order to protect itself, which means the people protecting their jobs) spontaneous organization. I call it the "lads digging a hole theory". You see a young lad digging a while, and other lads will just join in, and its like they spontaneously understand what is being done, what the method is, and they begin accomplishing things. Good fun. Well, if a group of lads tried to dig 

>>1602
>Midwit Ideological Capture
I mean, I think bureaucracy is full of midwits because of selection bias. Instead of "If you can't do, teach," it's become, "If you can't do, bureaucrat." In other words, it's just where you end up if you can't get into a private sector job.
Also, I guess I'm still at the level of simply teaching regulatory capture. Speaking personally, it took me like a decade to understand what the hell it was because I never heard a libertarian say a single goddam CONCRETE, SPECIFIC example (I instead had to piece it together myself when some car nut explained CAFE regulations to me).
I mean, baptists and bootleggers was the only concrete example I heard of, and it isn't actually regulatory capture--you don't see cartels writing that they're all for a regulation to the DEA. You don't _see_ (I'm sure it happens, but there's no hard proof) example of cartel in the DEA solely to police themselves and their competition. You don't see cartels trying to keep themselves legal and "above board" in the same way that corporate regulatory capture works.
I really do think that something simple like this might help just a little bit against everyone and their cousin assuming deregulation = pro corporation that every liberal news media source spouts with no counter opinion.
Also also, I come from the Browneout school of thought. So, in my head, a regulation is worth

lindell_SS.png
[Hide] (1.3MB, 1114x1102)

sure he does...

>>1013
Yeah he doesn't

>>1013
I saw someone post this elsewhere like a week or two ago and thought it was a joke. Checked his website and had a good, long laugh. Hilarious to see WN dogwhistles in marketing.

>>1011 (OP) 
This didn't age well.

>JD Vance
literally who
>cellphone screenshot (of twitter?)
>bumping the news from 2024
homosexuality

51bfef3ed2cf71e255475239b58a2ca4ab84dd83f9f9e66d917f787b6c5a5667.png
[Hide] (1.6MB, 1080x2460)

598e98e26afd6a54be0b301bdb6ad20938d76a0c40f70cff99f28ad8c1c61f02.png
[Hide] (1.4MB, 1080x2460)

How

>>1496
>>1495
Lighting
ya retard

>>1497
Yet none of the white cops turn black dumbfuck

OMG HE GOT SHOT WHILE DEFENDING THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

>>1487 (OP) 
He's a Martin Luther King figure.
They made him to be a sacrifice. The problem is he started to go outside his programming and question certain "truths" so they may have pushed forward his martyrdom.

>Electing a politician will never give you freedom
...but like...isn't it pretty clear in Milei's case that Argentina is WAY more free and prosperous than what was happening before? Isn't there some qote from Rothbard talking about how if you have two bills you have to choose between, you choose the one that gives more liberty?

>>1455
As long as the state exists there can be no freedom.

>>1464
O....k.....? Are we talking about the same thing anymore? Why is your response a response to what I said?

>>1448 (OP) 
id be inclined to agree, thats why im influenced by vanguardists

>>1448 (OP) 
2 words: neurotechnology.

>>1567
>>1420

>>1568
Upgrade your IQ to understand the point of my post and also to learn to sage. Hookers are allowed in libertarian scenarios and in such anarchist scenarios women are only allowed to be either some man's property or a hooker generally, or both rather. It's the 'oldest profession' as they say. Women today hate hookers as today we hate freedom and love to trade freedom for safety. Hookers die of stds and bastards being born is problematic, so is drowning infants as she will evolve to become more sociopathic. When women want to be more than somebody's  property then you've got too many rules catering to her needs. 
>the rights of women, such as to vote
Voting is retarded. Any enlightened libertarian would know this. You don't have any rights except to be  killed  because I felt like it. If you were nicer you'd still be alive. That's the nature of libertarianism. The hooker is beaten to death if she sucks at sucking dick, the cowboy is shot for being too drunk, and you get told to stop being a nigger for linking my post just because I didn't spell it out for you that women are not supposed to have rights and thta to be libertarian their natural habitat is literally to be freedly sucking on cocks. Egotistical feminist leaders tell women it's bad but nobody is born that way. They don't want your 'rights'. Rights don't exist. People that like rules and hate freedom cater to 'rig

>>1569
Thank you for actually explaining yourself. Some constructive criticism: your previous posts were not the height of brevity, because I was wondering if a schizo or a GPT bot was on the board. It kind of shows how little you've been socialized. I don't say that as an insult, by the way, I say it out of pity. You remind me of a guy I knew who got fired because he kept doing things that appeared random to everyone else. If you talked to him and asked him to explain himself, his logic made SOME sense, but each step was such a wild leap, and each phrase he uttered was so out of the normal lexicon, that his boss thought he was honestly mentally ill. In a way he was. The truth was that he talked with people so little that he had no idea what was common sense. He had no idea what were the common words you use. He had no idea what the other person's thought processes were to show where he had to speak more to justify a point or less.
Sage went in the name field because I just fat fingered it, but the fact that you felt so bereaved you had to point it out twice makes it apparent to me that I'm guessing you're crying out because nobody listens to you. My guess is that you're caught in a vicious cycle where you remain poorly socialized because you are poorly socialized. Don't worry, some day you'll figure it out.

>>1570
I feel like I need to break down why I thought you were legitimately schizophrenic. The standard signs are certain markers of disorganized thought. Namely, your response exhibited: tangenitality, loose associations, and inappropriate affect. 
>>1564
Was a broad question about women's rights and libertarianism.
>>1567
You replied by immediately talking specifically about hookers. This is very loosely thematically linked (because it still at least relates to women), but makes no explicit mention to rights, thereby expressing 'tangentiality.'
You went on to "Open legs and get paid" followed immediately by "drown baby in the river later." Those thoughts are connected in your mind, and they are very very loosely connected, but to an outside listener they are fragmented. This is the 'loose association'.
Finally, we were talking about women's rights and you rather quickly jumped to talking about drowning babies in the river. This is so jarringly out of sync with the social context and mood of the conversation that it is apparent that the emotional response does not match the situation. This is the 'inappropriate affect'. A broader example of this is that brevity tends to be expected in faster boards, but not on slower ones, but you seem to have trouble picking up on social cues li

>>1570
>common sense
Collectivist

>>727
>did you read it?
No why would I read something that's more than 10 lines.

>libertarians can learn a lot from traditionalists something something theocracy
No. On the surface traditional values like family first, gender roles etc. are superior to progressive values like everyone should be a gay trans feminist. But then the jesusfags start talking about demons and nephilim and muh prophecy and everything-I-don't-like-is-satanism and you realize they are just as mentally ill and detached from reality as the rainbow cult.

In my mind they are equivalent at this point. If you want to cut off your dick and pretend you're a woman then go ahead. If you want to worship your childish sky daddy then go ahead. Either we work together on the principles of liberty and then you fuck off. Or you skip straight to fucking off part now. Either way I don't give a fuck about your so called "culture".

I do like your picrel though

>>702 (OP) 
The libertarian to fascist pipeline was just a psyop to get libertarians back into statism.

Nolan_chart.png
[Hide] (54.3KB, 288x279)

"Libertarian/Fascist pipeline" was a crazy idea from the start.

>>702 (OP) 
While I've heard of the Libertarian to Fascist pipeline I've definitely heard of the Libertarian to Monarchist pipeline

>>1562
While I've *never* heard of the Libertarian to Fascist pipeline I've definitely heard of the Libertarian to Monarchist pipeline. 
Made a mistake my bad