/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

>>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

banner.png
[Hide] (34.3KB, 300x100)

Hello, I'd like to suggest a new banner.

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.

>>1575 (OP) 
>Where do you get your news from?
reuters, associated press news, rzeczpospolita

>>1656 (OP) 
>but this seems like it would allow parents to aggress on their children and be in the right.
Yes, welcome to human society. As faulty as it seems, the alternative to that is Plato's Republic retardation with the kids being the common charge of everyone, and that works as well with kids as it does with everything else in a communist system.
If you will, I guess the solution more in line to the libertarian system would be granting them legal adulthood and emancipation as soon as they demonstrate independence (like acquiring real state with the product of their work or getting married).

Just like old times, parents should be really responsible for them until they proven they aren't stupid as a kid and responsible enough to work and contribute to society.
If a 12-14yo kid can work in a trade, let them work and be responsible. I think about ownership no one would respect until they are older so maybe the parents are still responsible at some point.

>>If you will, I guess the solution more in line to the libertarian system would be granting them legal adulthood and emancipation as soon as they demonstrate independence (like acquiring real state with the product of their work or getting married).

That makes sense.

I guess one of my questions is that if liberty is to be for all, why is that not true for all children? I guess one rebuttal to this is just that children dont produce their own economic property (money) to live off of.

>>1660

gotcha, i do like this take.

If you want to spend your time productively, work out how the globalist letches got there in the first place and then put protections in place to further keep them out henceforth. Nothing has been worse for our society. As far as England and the English-speaking people goes, this payment in suffering that we're having to pay is worse than when we ourselves arrived on the boats to exploit the weak naivety of the Romano-Briton Vortigern. The blood over our hands is worse than our tumultuous founding was pre-Middle Ages.

Liberty will mean the ejection of the globalist class and their enablers. Do it with a vote, do it with a putsch, nobody cares at this point any more.

>>389
>work out how the globalist letches got there in the first place
They control the money printers. It's as simple as that. But if you try to take your country off their fake paper standard and onto a gold standard you will get democracy'ed a la Iraq and Libya.

>>390
If the plan is to get the fish in the tank to eat each other, this being somehow more profitable than peacetime is, then it's going to be difficult in countries which still have some holdout whites left in them, since such people are more likely to notice the man with the bucket pouring the vipers into the house and go for that man instead of just the snakes he's been bringing in.

In any case we're due some fighting and some upheaving. If robots aren't available to do the job then the third-worlders aren't going to cut it, since they are disloyal and inefficient.

>>102 (OP) 
National Libertarianism is goofy and Cuckbug is retarded.

Monero might work,

fear-factor-wef-stonetoss-comic.png
[Hide] (159.7KB, 1000x500)

So, you're saying we should eat bugs?

carrots.gif
[Hide] (1.6MB, 500x500)

>>1642
No silly, he's wondering whether behavioral patterns and ideology are influenced by diet. 
I'm inclined to believe it's usually the other way around but I believe there's some merit to the idea that fat and protein deficiencies affects brain function.

>>1643
>>1640 (OP) 
Low protein, and restrictive diets in general, is a documented mind control thing.
>Jonestown Cult 
>Moonies Cult
>NXIVM Cult
>Breatharians Cult
>North Koreans
>>1642
When they say we'll eat bugs that's just part of a game to get the people to be thankful for the precious little that they currently have and are slowly losing. It stops them from asking for more, that 'it could be worse' bullshitery. Scare tactics really, indeed it is a scare tactic just as your fear factor meme image implies. Scare Tactics was a show too, though tv shows being a thing is not the point, just slightly ironic, or maybe the opposite and too appropriate/typical really. When our society is tyranicaly respect of authortiy means fear of consequence rather than admiration of leaders.

sowhatyoursayingis.gif
[Hide] (66KB, 640x360)

>>1642
>>1646
>Low protein, and restrictive diets in general, is a documented mind control thing.
That's true. I can't believe I forgot about that.

>>1640 (OP) 
Check out vitamindwiki.com

it explains how a lot the prevelance or severity of many ailments are due to vitamin D deficiency. apparently 9 in 10 people dont get enough vitamin D.

Its honestly possible that thousands of people are taking medications for things that could be solved with more time outside (due to sunlight) or a simple vitamin D supplement.

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.

blackmailer.png
[Hide] (262.8KB, 448x637)

In the modern day corporations just use regulations as protectionism. Given this, are protectionist tariffs really that bad? If the choice is between the protectionist tariffs of yesteryear or protectionist regulations of the modern day, I'd rather choose the protectionist tariffs. At least there's still some domestic competition, and more importantly at least I'm still able to purchase the other goods, even if there is an extortionist tax on it. It at least stops the whole regulatory-enshittification cycle the modern industrial economy seems to be suffering under.

>>1595

I agree, we need to revive this board...

>>1636
Is misogyny good?

>>1635
It's supposedly a single guy who's holding the line, saying that she's guilty.

hq720-26.webp
[Hide] (22.8KB, 686x386)

>>1635
That's bleached AOC.

>>1649
No, looks more like Debra Morgan from Dexter to me.

>>1650
>WHAT THE ACTUAL SHIT, DEX? YOU'RE GOING TO SLICE ME UP, YOUR OWN SIS, OVER THREE DROWNED POST-BIRTH ABORTIONS? I HAD THE BLUES; FUCK, THAT'S NOT EVEN ILLEGAL IN MIAMI.

>>1624
It really is as simple as removing the regulations that made it happen.

>>1625
To spell it out:
Remove the CAFE regulations and let people import Kei trucks
Remove the car "safety" regulations and let Brazilian cars to compete with domestic nonsense.
Remove the IWF regulations and let people import foreign washers.
Remove the '92 statute limitations on showers and toilets, and let people import Canadian toilets.
Remove the AIM act that's going to enshittify A/C in the next few years that everyone's going to blame on capitalism AGAIN.

>>1626
That'd be a good start, but you know that if a product is made too well the man that made it only gets paid once so it's really going to have to be a case of make it urself, true indendence, or get rid of money all together and not be motivated by getting paid, of which is unrealistic, both of those are. If too many people try to be a car builder then it becomes too saturated to be worth doing even once otherwise so you must have people making their own vehicles. That'd be cool actually. I fucking hate how soulless our machines are. Row of houses that are all the same and no one seems to care.

>>1624
Make shittification impossible, unprofitable and shamable.

We can't dislike any product ads and companies will sue you to oblivion if you say the truth, make it so they can be responsible for doing shit and can't talk back to consumers.
If I buy a coffee that is cold and the cup has a hole on the bottom I should have the right to say that to everyone.
Look what happened when a Chinese company delivered something cheaper and better than an iPhone, they voted Huawei out of the country. A free market would let them take over or make Apple step up.

If the free market is even freer a shit company would break, but now they get funds from investors just to keep pushing shit or go ask for help from daddy state.

>>1628
>if a product is made too well the man that made it only gets paid once
That's not what's going on. Companies realize that if their competitor makes a product too well, they'll only get paid once. Thus the lobbying.
One thing I despise about anticapitalist logic is how easily it's defeated by, "Why is it different now?" It's like you guys act like capitalism and greed hasn't been happening for centuries, and only now it is different. It reminds me of all the arguments that the 2008 crisis was caused by greed. Why don't cars last a single year before comically falling into pieces, then? Because of competition.
>>1629
>We can't dislike any product ads and companies will sue you to oblivion if you say the truth
It's interesting because some old car commercials used to do that, and they used to call out each other's shit. Then lawfare got involves, like you said.

>>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.