/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

does exists a biological variation of intelligence?

five bucks is five bucks

>>315 (OP) 
>despair that libertarianism would ever be possible politically
We don't need everyone to be libertarians we just need one geographic space where we can be free.

>>319
Like the Free State Project or the Seasteading Project or the Honduras ZEDEs or so on?

>>315 (OP) 
All I think this proves is that if a man has leverage on the wealth you've got coming in, then he will use the leverage to take for himself a payout and make it better for him/more equitable for him particularly  since in this example you've literally done nothing/no more than this example man has, to actually earn the money more than he's earned it.

In other words in isolation it appears to be bollocks like the trolley problem.

Maybe you could explain to me again how it disproves libertarianism? I've no skin in either proving or disproving it particularly with this or not, I just want to understand the rationale behind it.

>>321
>Like the Free State Project or the Seasteading Project or the Honduras ZEDEs or so on?
Those projects haven't been particularly successful so far but yes in principle. All we want is to be left alone. We are not the problem, it's the people who won't leave us alone who are the problem.

>>327
>Those projects haven't been particularly successful so far
That's extremely rhetorically unfair.  They're more than "haven't been particularly successful," they're abject FAILURES.

>>328
>they're abject FAILURES
I don't know about Honduras.

Seasteading failed because they wanted people to buy/rent a cabin inside a cruise liner when 99% of libertarians would instinctively rather have their own self powered vessel instead of being trapped on somebody else's boat.

New Hampshire is not a total failure they've achieved some based things like constitutional carry and getting a succession movement going. They get a lot of resistance from the corporate media and other usual suspects though. They also get a lot of friendly fire from woke libertarians who care more about racism and trannies than freedom.

I remember some podcaster I think Reed Coverdale made an argument about New Hampshire being a bad choice for cultural reasons. His point was basically that all the tough liberty loving pioneers landed on the east coast and immediately moved west into the unknown. All the pussies stayed behind on the east coast.

>>315 (OP) 
Any philosophy or set of principles that is contrary to human nature is empirically proven false by definition and doomed to failure from its inception.  Is it ethical to hold up a set of principles that will destroy everyone who upholds them?

Because I'm in a pedantic mood fonight, I'm going to explain it to you.

You say you want to be left alone.  There are people out there, people who are your enemies, whether you grasp it or not, whether you use that word or not, who do not want to leave you or anyone else alone.  If you're confused about what I mean, visit your local community college campus any weekend when they're having guest speakers there to talk about muh civil rights, muh equity, muh environment, muh movement for justice, and look around for tattooed morbidly obese white women with hair in colors that do not exist in nature, vocal fry, eyeglasses with thick frames, and permanent sneers.  Smile and nod and observe their body language.  When they tell you what they want and how they intend to accomplish it, listen to them, because they mean it.  Not all of them are shrill purple-haired SJW childless women by any means, but it''ll be an educational, and sobering, exposure to the mindset of people who want you dead, your wife in a gulag, your kids raped by trannies, and think all of this is absolutely hilarious to the point of being unable to shut up about it.   Anyway, they organize.  They infiltrate and take over organizations that allow them to wield power over you, from your local birdwatching club to the US government.  They've picked up that nice big heavy bludgeon that you disdain and they aren't the least bit squeamish about swinging it around.  In fact they enjoy it a great deal.  They'll tell you.

Some would say refusing to do likewise is noble.  I'd use other words to describe it.

Because there's going to be a government.  There's not going to be the Jeffersonian ideal of all-but-lawless society of ordered liberty and respect for law and custom, where every man is a landowning yeoman farmer who reads Plutarch, in the original Greek, by candlelight, after a hard day in the fields.  It's a couple centuries late for that, if it was even possible in the British colonies in North America in 1776.  Or 1676.  There isn't going to be a polite, mutually-agreed-upon anarchy where everyone follows the polite rules, each man his own master.  It's fantasy.  Human nature doesn't work like that.  Human beings don't work like that.  To the extent that it ever looked like it could have been possible the necessary prerequisite was a high-trust society, and the necessary prerequesiite for THAT is a monolithic ethnostate.  Diversity plus proximity equals war.  Ask the Yugoslavs.  Ask the Romans.

All of which is preface to give you context for this next bit, which is really, really important.  Ready?

There will be laws pertaining to public morals, which will be applied with great vigor and enthusiasm, either to pink-haired sexual deviants in dresses who fondle little boys in public, or to people who question muh global warming and muh pronouns and muh magic dirt.  There will be law.  Oh, yes there will.  Will it be a weapon in their hands, or in yours?  There will be a state--or, to use the German formulation, a State.  Will the State nourish and support and uphold civilization, or will it destroy it?   There will be--already are, if you're paying attention--knocks on the door at midnight, scoffers, mockers, badthinkers, and troublemakers led away in the shiny bracelets, under the pitiless eye of television cameras.  There will be prisons.  Will you be a prisoner or a guard?  Saying "I don't like this game and I don't want to participate" means you get to be a prisoner.

Lolbertarianism is the "I don't like this game, I don't want to play" position.  That's understandable.  However, the experiment has been done, the results are in, and the only thing refusing to play the game will get you is a show trial.  And if you're unwilling to do what you have to do--and spare me the fantasies about muh gorilla warfare against a 24/7/365 totalitarian surveillance state that won't be nearly as hesitant or squeamish in dealing with huh-WITE! men within its own borders as it was is with illiterate little brown goat herders on the opposite side of the planet.  Refusing to make the Long March through the Institutions and use that power guarantees that you will always lose, and that the history books will be written by people who hate you.

And if you were wondering why no one else on any portion of the political compass takes you people seriously, this is why.  Lolbertarianism isn't a coherent philosophy.  It's a suicide pact.

>>341
>zero greentext
You just had a two hour argument inside your own head and then typed it down. Nobody has any reason to read all this let alone respond to it.

>>349
It's only 9 paragraphs, calm down.

That said, I did read all of >>341 and I have to say that your comment:
>You just had a two hour argument inside your own head
Is spot on.  It really reads like >>341 is responding to a completely different person or maybe even a completely different thread.

>>329
Fair points.

>>349
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.

>>354
I came to a place where lolberts congregate and explained the facts of life to you.  tl;dr  Wise up.  The Non-Aggression Principle is not viable in a society run by spiteful childless women who stay up into the wee hours of the morning, flicking the bean to fantasies of leading a platoon of Red Guards to your door.  They say so.  They can't shut up about it.  They've been saying the quiet part out loud more and more the past decade.  They feel safe doing so because in Western nations almost all the levers of power are already in their pudgy little hands.  Quoting Gallatin or Gandhi to the goon squad when they kick down the door isn't going to end the way you think it will.  Picking up a gun to make a solitary deracinated individualist last stand is unlikely to be better.

Lolbertarians like to do the Ghost Dance for Muh Constitution.  The Constitution is deader than the Treaty of Casco and didn't last much longer.  You'd better think hard about what even the normies are starting to see coming.   Refusing to decide is still making a choice.

>>349
Also, >>356
>Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.
When you say shit like that, you also make the entire movement look dumb when others read that comment.  There are a lot of other dismissive one-liners I would suggest to use next time.  E.g., "This reads like something out of Timecube."

Anyways,
>>356
You're bringing up a lot of stuff people wouldn't even have the background to understand what you're talking about unless they lurked on manosphere blogs for hours a day.
>spiteless childless women flicking the bean
>Quoting Gallatin to the goon squad
>"Deracinated"
>Unironically using the word "muh," "lolbert," or "normies."
Arguing points aside, and on a completely personal level, I think you need help.  You can go ahead and take this as an ad hominem I guess, but I'm serious.  When I read your post I feel like I'm reading a schizophrenic like Timecube or a serial killer in the making.  The reason I say this is because your vocabulary is so far outside of the norm that it's disturbing, and indicates a high degree of being terminally online.  Nobody speaks like this or uses these terms outside of whatever darkweb wizchan you've been lurking on for the past ten years.

The way you repeatedly post throughout the board calling people "lolberts" tells me that you have a caricature of what people here are actually arguing.  Instead, you just continually complain about fifteenth-wave feminism that you've regurgitated from your pro-white MGTOW manifesto.  It sounds like you just want to wretch about that, but are shoe-horning it into libertarianism and making it their fault for not raiding for your men's lib movement???  I don't know man, but I'm worried about you.

>>357
But anon, even if it's cringe the extent of your argument is that of "I don't like your tone" or "wrong thread here".

>>356
You say the gulags are coming for the wrongful thoughts, but it's really just the poorhouse that's coming for the materially poor serfs. Put it in these terms; the dollar you earned will be worth 90¢ by the end of the year, 80¢ by the end of next year and so on, until the system of "make GDP go up by hiring more government employees" stops working. The pink haired hamplanets don't need to be dragged out to be hanged or beheaded. They are eating themselves out of their own houses. They grow so fat they die. I don't really know why you think even one libertarian bullet is going to need to be fired off before the problem eats it's own children.

Now the manosphere problems, those I think are caused by *too much* liberty. Particularly for women. Since women have been afforded all these legal and state protections, and since men are in particularly desperate positions, good men have found themselves simping for women to get some of what they want. For these same women, who admit that the ideal situation for them is to have both a "good" marriage and a "bad" marriage (misuse of the term "marriage" there is by their own inner workings). Once you give women this power, strong men will use violence to take it and form monopolous use of their women. Once strong violent men are in control, further violence is needed for beta boys to topple them and negotiate their own more equitable treatment. Basically you're seeing the social dynamics go back to amoeba/caveman stages, then re-evolving again, and the process is a bloody one that hurts all of humanity but particularly so the meek and the fair.

It particularly pains me because my religion forbids violence, but I have to offer at least the illusion of it to give security in a marriage.

>>358
This isn't "wrong tone," this is on the level of "you're practically speaking gibberish."  He's like a Pentecostal speaking in tones or a schizophrenic homeless vagrant on the street yelling obscenities into someone's face.  Like I said, most people here haven't lurked on manosphere blogs 24/7 and don't even have the vocabulary to understand what he's saying, including myself.  It's not "Speak normal because I don't like your tone" it's "Speak normal SO WE UNDERSTAND YOU."

Also, "wrong thread here" is completely legitimate.

>>356
>I came to a place where lolberts congregate and explained the facts of life to you.  
If you want us to listen to you then you need to listen to us first. You have no idea what we're about you are just fighting a made up enemy inside your own head.