/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

whAT Is THE RiGHT-WING LibErTAriAn aNSWER tO SpaGheTtIOs

1687445851604-1.png
[Hide] (118.2KB, 508x500)

>>438 (OP) 
>What is the right-wing libertarian answer to Transhumanism?
Do what you want with your own body, leave mine alone? Imagine for a second that not everyone has been exposed to the same propaganda you have and elaborate what you've been told the actual "problem" is and you might get better responses.

>>439
Spaghettios are the gastronomic equivalent of communism, say goodbye to your loved ones and step inside the helicopter plz.

>>440
>wanting the masses to be made absolutely useless

when-youre-an-anarchist-and-the-communist-party-tries-to-v0-lnxbxiw4ywza1.jpg
[Hide] (77.2KB, 625x500)

>>444
>wanting the masses to be made absolutely useless
If technology makes people redundant then how come we have both more people and more technology than at any point in recorded history? Get better talking points.

>>444
>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
>something is said to have an absolute advantage. Michael Jordan has an absolute
>advantage at basketball. For all I know, Michael Jordan may also be the fastest
>typist in the world, giving him an absolute advantage at typing, too. Since
>he’s better at typing than you, can’t he type more cheaply than you? That is,
>if someone has an absolute advantage in something, doesn’t he automatically
>have a comparative advantage in it?
>
>The answer is no! If Jordan takes time out from shooting hoops to do all his
>own typing, he sacrifices the large income he earns from entertaining fans of
>basketball. If, instead, his secretary does the typing, the secretary gives up
>an alternative secretarial job—or perhaps a much lower salary playing
>basketball. That is, the secretary is the lower-cost typist. The secretary, not
>Michael Jordan, has the comparative advantage at typing! The trick to
>understanding comparative advantage is in the phrase “lower cost.” What it
>costs someone to produce something is the opportunity cost—the value of what is
>given up. Someone may have an absolute advantage at producing every single
>thing, but he has a comparative advantage at many fewer things, and probably
>only one or two things. (In Jordan’s case, both basketball and also as an
>endorser of Nike.)
>
>Everyone Has a Comparative Advantage
>===
>Amazingly, everyone always has a comparative advantage at something...
https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html

>>440
>>447
>>451

kys klaus schwab shill

>>483
You forgot to make an argument. People modifying their own bodies does not violate the NAP.

>>485
What happens when that technology is inevitably used for ill purposes and against people who don't want any part of it?

>>502
Law will be enforced

>>440
>>447
>>485
Regardless of what you think about self-ownership, you should at least consider the concerns about digital enslavement and The Great Reset and the fact that transhumanists tend to be fucking annoying.

>>744
The only way I can see transhumanism without becoming a dystopia and without the state is if the transhumanist components are 100% open-source (both hardware and software) with enough people looking at these components to make sure that nobody is implementing any backdoors and are willing to fork these projects if they become corrupt. Ideally, the brainchips, robotic limbs, etc should be autonomous and not be controlled by a central server/computer.

You also have to deal with the people who don't want any part of it. Naturally the augmented people will perform better at their jobs than those without augmentations, meaning that the "pure" humans will be at a disadvantage in the job market. I say them forming their own covenant communities where they reject transhumanism outright.

>>745
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/transhumanism-is-not-libertarian-its-an-abomination/
https://mises.org/mises-wire/hacking-humanity-transhumanism

A lot of Mises-esque libertarians outright reject and denounce transhumanism because of how dangerous some of the ideas would be in practice when it comes to liberty.

>>438 (OP) 
You'd buy a gf rather than become the gf.

>>747
Yes but there will be some people that will embrace it, libertarian or otherwise, which is why I think it's important that intentional or covenant communities form for those who don't want any part of it because all the "pure" humans will be outperformed by the augmented humans.

>>438 (OP) 
>wadabaut tranzoomanism
>posts posthuman picture
RIP thread, dead on arrival.

>>748
Why not both?

>>816
it's the same thing blud

we need to get rid of intellectual property as fast as possible.

intellectual property necessarily conflicts with the ownership of physical private property.

also, corporations should not be treated as persons under the law.

these kinds of changes can make libertarian transhumanism work w/o creating some sort of cyberpunk dystopia.

>>869
transhumanism doesn't work because it subverts human nature. fuck it.