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.
This thread is also a good place to discuss board aesthetics. Custom CSS and banner suggestions go here.
Did you come from an imageboard that died or are you so naive to think a following for /liberty/ is just going to poof out of nowhere and post on your board? Or do you think that zzzchan's current userbase would all jump on the idea of /liberty/ so quickly? No trolling intended, just really curious why you think this board is necessary
The /liberty/ board on 8chan was usually active and there used to be a /liberty/ board on the webring. No idea what happened to it, I think the site that hosted it went down.
Hail and well-met to our brethren of /liberty/! It's nice to see you fags again.
Checking in. Never went to any of the libertarian boards on cripplechan but will post on here.
is libertarian gay?
8chan died back in 2019. It's 2023. There is not a chance the userbase will ever return, you find yourself in the exact same boat as /fascist/, but without the christcuck witchhunting.
Hello /liberty/! It's been a hot minute since I've used this board but I'm glad to see you back on the web ring. Does /liberty/ still exist on blacked.moe? I can spread the good word that across here to tell everyone that our favorite autistic private property lovers are back in action.
I don't know if you've been to /fascist/ since then but they've definitely evolved beyond christian witchhunts, although in my opinion, it's not for the better.
What is this board? Is it just to leash in failed normies so they don't go the way of the noticer.
Fascist died in 2022, nothing even matches the activity it had then.
I remember this board from 8chan. Fuck the 2016 elections.
I was thinking, my beliefs are sort of a strange syncretic mix of /liberty/, /monarchy/ and /fascist/. i.e., nationalist, distributist Jeffersonianism with a semi-meritocratic nobility Has that happened to any of you anons?
Arguably /fascist/ died with the death of 16chan, since that was the last place where there was any coherent, decent discussion to be had, before it disintegrated into purely being "Christcucks bad" they are, but that's besides the point, "muh Ethnoglobe" and just being an Aryan version of /fringe/. No ideological discussion about fascism itself, no discussion about cool shit like architecture or philosophical questions about futurism or primitivism, just that garbage.
>Has that happened to any of you anons?
In a way, it has. I'll go ahead and explain my thought process on this.
So, in any transaction, voluntary or not, there is an implied contract. Voluntarists will kvetch and say, "I didn't sign any piece of paper," but implied contracts are everywhere in a society: from honest, hard-working people who do any kind of business with another in an unofficial capacity, to when thieves steal from others (i.e. retribution). Individual and State transact with one another on a daily basis. The question regarding this tacit agreement between individual and State is, if the individual, in using the goods and services the State provides them, by calling emergency services or using The Roads™, steals from the State. Or, does the State steal from the individual through its mandatory collection of taxation? Then, whom, under Libertarian restitution theory of property/theft, is indebted to the other. Do I owe the state compensation, or does the State owe me?
As an anarchist, I believe that taxation is theft. Therefore, the State, being a tax estate, as long as it exists and I live within it, owes me my claim in its assets and, by extension, owes me the preservation of my claim. This means the State has a duty, before doing anything else with its stolen funds, to fund a military, to protect the stolen assets from larger States. It owes it to me to import higher-skilled immigrants as opposed to lower-skilled immigrants, who will also have a claim in the estate, as to not detract from the value of the estate. This also means that the State should protect its assets, like public parks, from, say, vandalism. These are all reasonable positions for an anarchist to hold regarding the State's duties.
I recently read "Industrial Society and Its Future," by Ted Kaczynski. Its a good read for an anarchist. Mr. Kaczynski's position is commonly known as "anarcho-primitivism." To me, anarcho-primitivism is not an anarchist school of thought or philosophy, its a strategy to achieve a stateless society. It is recognizing that "large-scale technologies," such as the internet, the military-industrial complex, and their supply chains are what support the continued existence of the State. My conclusion, after reading his work, is that in order to abolish the State, Industrial-Technological Society, the "large-scale technologies" described by Mr. Kaczysnki, need to be torn down.
In reading his work, I have lost significant faith in the anarchist cause. I am one of the people who benefits most from the Industrial-Technological system and the State that it's supporting. I will one day work in Silicon Valley, (which, coincidentally, enjoys substantial economic support from the U.S. government) and I can't support destroying the system that benefits someone like me most of all.
So, to answer your question: yes, this too has happened to me. My political position went from anarchism to that an aristocratic minarchy is ideal. This is optimal autism.
An acid dropping psych patient told you anarchy means giving up your laptop and all your porn so now you're not an anarchist anymore?
>Or, does the State steal from the individual through its mandatory collection of taxation? Then, whom, under Libertarian restitution theory of property/theft, is indebted to the other
Read Hoppe. One way to undo the state is to add up how much tax everyone has paid in their lifetimes and convert that amount to shares in the newly privatized state services (you will own 1% of the police, 1% of the firedudes etc.).
>As a taxpayer I want the government to....
But as a taxpayer you have no control. You don't even get more votes. You could pay 100K a year in taxes and your vote is cancelled out by 2 crackheads on welfare. The reason you want everything to be privatized is because when a private company does a shit job you don't pay them. And they are forced to either get their shit together or stop existing.
There is truly only one master over man, and that is the supremacy of force, aka violence or the threat thereof.
Never has any human interaction ever been resolved by any means that lacks a solid foundation of force supremacy, because there is nothing else to negotiate with.
The only question is how many steps removed from violence a given conflict or human interaction is, all politics has barbarity at it's core..
Once you recognize this, everything makes sense, the dejure world of ideals is an illusion, a mask placed over the truth tat the world is a defacto one of the concrete.
Just because things are nominally supposed to be a certain way doesn't mean they will actually work in that way, regardless what the rules are, their enforcement is entirely in the hands of those who hold the reigns of power in society.
This is why the left wins and the right loses, again and again, the right lives within the illusion, the left within the reality.
The right will judge the defendant based upon the evidence of his case, the left will judge them based upon the benefit it has to their interests.
The rules are only as good as the consequences for not following them, the system is only as good as the people who enforce it are at playing their roles.
The foundation of all civilization is violence and the hierarchy of it, all the things we condemn in systems of power (such as anything to do the manipulation of minds) were the things used to establish the systems of power which those people live.
There's only one best way of organizing people and managing their behavior, the brutal process of natural selection ensures that those who do not seize upon this ideal are eliminated from the competition all humans inherently exist as a part of.
There are all these psychological studies on the ways in which totalitarians have shaped human behavior and beliefs, but these studies fail to realize that all of these events were not aberrant, they were the initial processes by which ALL new regimes had formed themselves, including the ones they live in, it's just that the society they re used to has had that part of it's development in their pasts and are long forgotten.
They didn't find the way a certain kind of human organization comes about, they had found the way that all human organization was created, and to a degree these conditions haven't completely vanished, we just don't notice them because this is the society we see fro the inside out, other societies are seen as being more or less like ours, or are seen as allied to our own (our leaders are friends with their leaders).
We only see the "problematic" psycho-sociological behaviors when we do not favor the groups engaging in them and/or when we are not a part of that group ourselves.
In reality there's only what works best for your goals, and everything else. All good guys started out doing what the bad guys do until they became the status quo or the champions of it, then they set the standards that favored the maintenance of their positions in power.
Evil is what we call out competition when they make the best moves for themselves.
When we do likewise we give ourselves a pass.
People do what they do because it is pragmatic, game theory and books of strategy reveal exactly why all the great atrocities of history occurred the way they had.
All nations and empires began by using those techniques that psychologists condemned as pathological, just as all religions or political ideologies began using the techniques we associate with cults or abusive relationships.
But let us look a little more closely at this omnipotent “force” of Herr Dühring's. Crusoe enslaved Friday “sword in hand”. Where did he get the sword? Even on the imaginary islands of the Robinson Crusoe epic, swords have not, up to now, been known to grow on trees, and Herr Dühring provides no answer to this question. If Crusoe could procure a sword for himself, we are equally entitled to assume that one fine morning Friday might appear with a loaded revolver in his hand, and then the whole “force” relationship is inverted. Friday commands, and it is Crusoe who has to drudge. We must apologise to the readers for returning with such insistence to the Robinson Crusoe and Friday story, which properly belongs to the nursery and not to the field of science — but how can we help it? We are obliged to apply Herr Dühring's axiomatic method conscientiously, and it is not our fault if in doing so we have to keep all the time within the field of pure childishness. So, then, the revolver triumphs over the sword; and this will probably make even the most childish axiomatician comprehend that force is no mere act of the will, but requires the existence of very real preliminary conditions before it can come into operation, namely, instruments, the more perfect of which gets the better of the less perfect; moreover, that these instruments have to be produced, which implies that the producer of more perfect instruments of force, vulgo arms, gets the better of the producer of the less perfect instruments, and that, in a word, the triumph of force is based on the production of arms, and this in turn on production in general — therefore, on “economic power”, on the “economic situation”, on the material means which force has at its disposal.
Force, nowadays, is the army and navy, and both, as we all know to our cost, are “devilishly expensive”. Force, however, cannot make any money; at most it can take away money that has already been made—and this does not help much either—as we have seen, also to our cost, in the case of the French milliards. (Engels means the protracted economic crisis of 1873-79 in German industry, in spite of the seizure of Alsace and East Lorraine and the 5,000 million francs of war indemnities that France paid to Germany under the terms of the Frankfurt peace treaty (1871), after her defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71.) In the last analysis, therefore, money must be provided through the medium of economic production; and so once more force is conditioned by the economic situation, which furnishes the means for the equipment and maintenance of the instruments of force. But even that is not all. Nothing is more dependent on economic prerequisites than precisely army and navy. Armament, composition, organisation, tactics and strategy depend above all on the stage reached at the time in production and on communications. It is not the “free creations of the mind” of generals of genius that have had a revolutionising effect here, but the invention of better weapons and the change in the human material, the soldiers; at the very most the part played by generals of genius is limited to adapting methods of fighting to the new weapons and combatants.
At the beginning of the fourteenth century, gunpowder came from the Arabs to Western Europe, and, as every school child knows, completely revolutionised the methods of warfare. The introduction of gunpowder and fire-arms, however, was not at all an act of force, but a step forward in industry, that is, an economic advance. Industry remains industry, whether it is applied to the production or the destruction of things. And the introduction of fire-arms had a revolutionising effect not only on the conduct of war itself, but also on the political relationships of domination and subjection. The procurement of powder and fire-arms required industry and money, and both of these were in the hands of the burghers of the towns. From the outset therefore, fire-arms were the weapons of the towns, and of the rising town-supported monarchy against the feudal nobility. The stone walls of the noblemen's castles, hitherto unapproachable, fell before the cannon of the burghers, and the bullets of the burghers’ arquebuses pierced the armour of the knights. With the defeat of the nobility’s armour-clad cavalry, the nobility's supremacy was broken; with the development of the bourgeoisie, infantry and artillery became more and more the decisive types of arms compelled by the development of artillery, the military profession had to add to its organisation a new and entirely industrial subsection, engineering.
Frederick Engels “Anti-Dühring”
This response is way too late.
>An acid dropping psych patient told you anarchy means giving up your laptop and all your porn so now you're not an anarchist anymore?
I have no idea how you imagine anarchy is supposed to work in a globalized society. I don't see how the State is supposed to collapse in a society where they are armed to the teeth and can effectively control the internet and all the supply chains. It's like they can just endlessly spend money and write a bill to raise the debt ceiling and nothing will probably ever change. 350 million Americans, along with me, are going to be debt slaves for the rest of our lives to the $23 trillion and counting debt clock.
>But as a taxpayer you have no control. You don't even get more votes. You could pay 100K a year in taxes and your vote is cancelled out by 2 crackheads on welfare. The reason you want everything to be privatized is because when a private company does a shit job you don't pay them. And they are forced to either get their shit together or stop existing.
This is why you want the State to be privately-owned. If the executors were selected from a noble class and actual owned the State as an estate, they would better have the proper long-term interests of the State and its People in mind.
So basically, I think that ancap society, which would kinda be like an official supreme legal system + law insurance, would be very economically prosperous. However, that being said, it would be very hard to imagine such a society having proper measures in place to, say, fund and preserve the arts--art would still be priceless, as per wealth inequality, and museums would charge exorbitant fees; they would not be museums for the common people but rather for a class of militant archaeologists and they would reflect that and not the history of the People. It would be very hard to imagine such a society would be capable of implementing measures to counter mass immigration, as it would be very at odds with the nature of the freedom of that society. Such a society would not have any history or a cohesive People without a State to bind them together. It would be a strange endeavor into creating a very free and prosperous society for a People that would inevitably be not themselves.
>I can't think how this could work therefor it's impossible
Ignorance and lack of imagination is not an argument.
>This is why you want the State to be privately-owned.
You kind of skipped the part where you need a state in the first place but ok. It sounds like you read Democracy the God that Failed at least.
>it would be very hard to imagine such a society having proper measures in place to, say, fund and preserve the arts
You mean it would be hard to fund art that nobody wants. Cry me a river because a transexual genderswapped dragqueen feminist rendition of Romea and Jiuletto loses all its government funding. If somebody finds something valuable they will pay for it voluntarily.
>museums would charge exorbitant fees
If they charge fees nobody can afford then they won't make any profit. This is capitalism 101.
>It would be very hard to imagine such a society would be capable of implementing measures to counter mass immigration
If everything is private there is nowhere for these invaders to exist without trespassing on somebody's property and being subject to the legal system. The only immigration that would exist are people who can pay for themselves or have a sponsor.
>Ignorance and lack of imagination is not an argument.
A privately-funded military market is an awful idea because they'll be competing for glory. They will be incentivized to sabotage each other. What's your response to that?
>You mean it would be hard to fund art that nobody wants. Cry me a river because a transexual genderswapped dragqueen feminist rendition of Romea and Jiuletto loses all its government funding. If somebody finds something valuable they will pay for it voluntarily.
If you ever visit Paris, check out their museums. Priceless history line the walls of the Louvre and nothing of the things you're talking about.
What I am suggesting is anarcho-capitalism + a centralized State. It will be more than just a minarchy, because the police forces will be voluntarily funded under a free market. The Law, that being the State, will collect a per-capita coverage tax fee on those who impose the law (insurance companies, private defense agencies, etc.). You could actually protest your "government" by refusing to pay your taxes, you may be economically disadvantaged, but you will not actually endanger yourself in the process. The police forces are economically incentivized to assist you, because they can collect damages from the offender.
And we will still have a common good:
a public military
public universities and museums
>A privately-funded military market is an awful idea because they'll be competing for glory. They will be incentivized to sabotage each other. What's your response to that?
The purpose of a private company is profit. And fighting is expensive. The real incentive will be deterrence and diplomacy with violence being the last resort. Chaos Theory is a good short book to learn how fully anarchist police and military might work https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory-two-essays-market-anarchy-0
>Priceless history line the walls of the Louvre
If it is good art then people will voluntarily pay to see and sponsor it. You only need state coercion to sponsor things that nobody wants.
Well isn't that the point. Why don't you use an art museum founded after the welfare state as an example.
Arguing anarchy vs minarchy is like vegan vs vegetarian we're basically on the same side here. Two things you might want to consider I guess:
<1. If decentralized market competition yields superior outcomes to centralized bureaucracy in every other industry why would police/military/courts be an exception?
<2. Once you have a group of people with a monopoly on police/military/courts how do you prevent them exploiting that power to grow the government back to the imperialist-scoialist-leviathen we have now?
Sounds like a good idea
Do blocking ads violate the NAP?
That is a very good question. I asked a friend who is a libertarian and this is what he said.
you're actually taking away the ad from the company every time it is blocked and therefore stealing and therefore within reasonable means of force ala tactical nuclear payload to protect their property
Is this true, /liberty/?
Why It's OK to Block Ads https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-block-ads/
It honestly sounds no different than piracy which most libertarians are okay with since intellectual "property" is not real property. A website is basically just information at the end of the day, and blocking ads would be no different than viewing an archived or mirrored version of a website/video.
>that the webmaster should be allowed to dictate how you
>the shop owner has a right to tell you to leave
Everyone is your master. Freedom!
So freedom is when shop owners don't have a say what goes on in their shop, or when the webmaster is forced to not be able to put certain texts in his code? Is that seriously what you believe freedom is? A system in which people are subjugated to literal violence unless they agree with you on how they should do stuff.
And don't meander about violence part. That is essential. If a store owner is penalized, then they either steal from him from violence, or make him pay under a threat of violence. If his shop is put out of business, then that is done by force.
Ultimately, there is a threat of institutional violence in the end. And that is what you call "freedom"? When others with property that you don't own don't bend to your will or the mob's desires. If you suppose a non-violent ethic (like boycotts or protests with full consequences as to employment and other contracts/interactions with fellow men), then you just supposing a libertarian ethic. But no, double standards all the way, rights for me, but not for you. Consistency is your enemy because there is no Hegelian dialectics without a synthesis. Communists, fascists, statists, "an"coms like in a constant state of logical contradictions, making policy on a whim based on either aesthetics or a chase of a higher truth,
I want to buy my Libertarian father a gift for Christmas. Does /liberty/ have any suggestions for that?
The standard libertarian model of a community is one of individuals who, instead of living physically separated and isolated from one another, associate with each other as neighbors living on adjacent but separately owned pieces of land. However, this model is too simplistic. Presumably, the reason for choosing neighbors over isolation is the fact that for individuals participating in and partaking of the benefits of the division of labor, a neighborhood offers the added advantage of lower transaction costs; that is, a neighborhood facilitates exchange. As a consequence, the value of an individually owned piece of land will be enhanced by the existence of neighboring pieces of land owned by others. However, while this may indeed be true and constitute a valid reason for choosing a neighborhood over physical isolation, it is by no means always true. A neighborhood also involves risks and may lead to falling rather than increasing property values, for even if one assumes, in accordance with the model under consideration, that the initial establishment of neighboring property was mutually beneficial, and even if it is further assumed that all members of a community refrain from criminal activity, it might still happen that a formerly "good" neighbor turns obnoxious, that he does not take care of his property or changes it so as to negatively affect the property values of other community members, or that he simply refuses to participate fuck your freedom! in any cooperative effort directed at improving the value of the community as a whole.
Hence, in order to overcome the difficulties inherent in community development when the land is held in divided ownership, the formation of neighborhoods and communities has in fact proceeded along different lines from those suggested in the above mentioned model.
Rather than being composed of adjacent pieces of land owned in severalty, then, neighborhoods have typically been proprietary or covenantal communities, founded and owned by a single proprietor a Master who would "lease" separate parts of the land under specified conditions to selected individuals. Originally, such covenants were based on kinship relations, with the role of the proprietor performed by the head of a family or clan. In other words, just as the actions of the immediate family members are coordinated by the head and owner of the household within a single family household, so was the function of directing and coordinating the land uses of groups of neighboring households traditionally fulfilled by the head of an extended kinship group.
What is the most /liberty/ tier drug?
>Begin with the night-watchman state, the absolute minimal government you need to remain stable (sorry ancaps, but anarchy of any kind lack stability).
>Remove the legislative branch and all legislative powers from government, we have the non-aggression principle, we don't need to make any changes to the laws. Our government would be composed of overseers, not lawmakers, they would only be able to enforce the laws as they were written at the time of the nation's founding. Ownership of Intellectual property will not be recognized by law, neither would the "personhood" of corporate entities/institutions (these two policies caused a lot of issues for our countries down the line, didn't they? and in retrospect, they were flat out retarded, just as bad as welfare/social-security/pensions).
>In it's place put the national banking system, it will operate in all kinds of banking, and be regulated by law to adhere to a policy of full monetary reform (no charging interest, no fiat currency, no fractional reserve, etc.). For any country to maintain it's sovereignty it must maintain full and exclusive control over it's money.
>Instead of sentencing them to a set duration of time in prison, criminals will be punished by sending the convicted to rehabilitation, to be released only upon expert determination that they are reasonably unlikely to reoffend. Those who are unable to be reformed may be sent to a prison for permanent incarceration, exiled to a penal colony to the same effect, or simply executed by the state. Victims of crimes will be financially compensated by the state, as it is the defining role of the government to prevent crime.
>Taxes are necessary for state functioning, but with limited services provided by the government (just enough to enforce the law, defend the nation, and run their financial system) taxes need not be collected in an unfair way. A percentage will be taken out of every domestic transaction that uses the national currency, an additional percentage may be taken out of transactions using the national currency that occur across borders, a tax will be taken annually from all landowners in the form of a percentage of the value the land holdings had at the time of their acquisition, crossing the borders will cost a sum to be paid for each person crossing. In addition to the percentage taken out of every account with the national bank, and the shares of the profits purchased by the bank in enterprises, this should be more than sufficient to fund the operations of the government.
>If you want there to be a more fascist libertarianism, limit the NAP to apply only to living adult male humans of white race. Anything/Everyone else would lack personhood and rights, becoming a defacto outlaw and dejure slave. Their only protections under the law would come from being the property of someone who does fit the criteria, and it would only protect them from anything their owner doesn't consent to. The owner would also assume legal accountability for the actions of their property.
We could also institute a policy that requires military/police service or land ownership for participation in the electoral process (voting or running), assuming we even had an electoral system. Perhaps we could require a term of service to own land, and landholding to participate in the political process. BTW, if we did have elections, I'd like them to be conducted through a system that does not fail all the standards of arrow's theorem, and also meets the condorcet standard as well (it's possible), we could add an additional tweak to make elections even more difficult to meddle with by adding the detail of the minority rule, or having the basis of selection be lowest amount of votes rather than the greatest number of them.
>I'm basically taking ideas from all over for this, but one thing I'd like to to have an empire, for whatever nation implements these policies to conquer the world and unite them under this system.
>Two last details, first as a pre-emptive response to the "flashlight dilemma" with regards to the NAP, I believe that the consistent physical effect of the flashlight vs lazerbeam on someone's house well establishes the criteria for determining if the NAP has been violated by an act, and in such a manner that does not include the concept of harm being done by words or images.
>The solution to the "bad neighbor" is the concept of nested laws. In it's simplest form, the government owns all the land within it's borders, and as such it can institute a broad set of laws to regulate the behavior of the people within those boundaries, these are the laws of the NAP and are the most essential laws to maintain social-political-economic stability.
>Of the land within those borders, some may be owned by a private citizen, who may open the land to those willing to live on it, and if they do, h may impose upon them another set of rules to regulate their conduct, and the only limitation is that his rules may not conflict with those of the government, the government will enforce those rules along with their own laws.
>Now, someone who purchases a home on this privately owned land owns the specific property they paid for, and they get to set the rules for what happens within that space, imposing a third set of rules on any guest who stays there for a time.
>The laws of the government, laws of the landlord, and laws of the tenant, the guest must follow all three, and each in the chain must obey the rules of those on the level above themselves. Each set of rules may com with a penalty, to break the highest and least limiting set of laws may get your into the criminal justice system, breaking the second set may get you evicted from that land, even if you had a home there, the landlord takes it back, braking the third set gets you evicted from the home of the homeowner, you might still be permitted to stay within the area around the home, perhaps within a home that you own or another that would take you in as a guest, but you may not trespass upon the home you got kicked out of. The government will enforce every set of rules at the behest of the ones who instituted them.
>How does this solve the "bad neighbor" issue? Because I predict conflicts such as those will result in people living on lands tat are owned like apartments are, and these will come with rules that must be followed by those who live in these places, rules that were made by the owner of that land.