/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

Whybis nobody talking about the Assange's sabotaged hearing?

>Which has had a bigger impact on ending slavery
>1 - The abolitionist movement
>OR
>2 - The industrial revolution
>?
The abolitionist movement. Without it slavery would still be legal.

>>554
Nobody has made a thread about it yet.

Sage for OT.

>>555
>The abolitionist movement. Without it slavery would still be legal.
If slavery was commercially profitable then no amount of legislation or moral fagging would stop it happening.

>>559
Slavery still happens, they just make you sign a contract first.

>>559
>If slavery was commercially profitable then no amount of legislation or moral fagging would stop it happening.
It was commercially profitable and abolitionists stopped it from happening with legislation and enforcement of that legislation.

>>561
>Slavery still happens, they just make you sign a contract first.
That's not what slavery means but you are correct that some forms of slavery still exist where it is profitable, for example prostitution and human smuggling. Legislation cannot reverse basic laws of reality and economics. If you disagree then tell us how the "war on drugs" is going exactly.

>>570
Slavery is never profitable in creative activities. It was somewhat profitable in extremely predictable and mechanical labor such as factories and farming. But as OP implies, slaves became superfluous once the industrial revolution introduced actual machines which are far cheaper and more productive than unwilling human labor.

This is obvious if you look at another data point which is that collective wealth in general has only increased since slavery was abolished. If what you are saying was true then society would have slipped backwards into poorer times after abolishing slavery for purely moral reasons.

>>573
Isn't there a similar argument w.r.t. minimum wage?  E.g., they only raised minimum wage well after individuals were making above minimum wage?
>If what you are saying was true then society would have slipped backwards into poorer times after abolishing slavery for purely moral reasons.
An interesting argument.

Do you >>573 think arguing about politics or the morality of libertarianism is at all worthwhile, then?

st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg
[Hide] (41.5KB, 600x600)

>>578
>Isn't there a similar argument w.r.t. minimum wage?  E.g., they only raised minimum wage well after individuals were making above minimum wage?
Not really. Large corporations like wallmart lobby for higher minimum wage to kill off smaller competition and centralize the market.

Minimum wage laws don't solve anything anyway. The reason cost of living is so high is because bankers print money out of thin air and give it to themselves and everytime they do that it lowers the purchasing power of that currency and that's what causes prices to go up.

If you're a lefty then you understand that the mainstream media is owned by the 1%. So you have to read between the lines. They bombard you with headlines about "corporate greed" and "record profits" but they never ever talk about bankers or currency inflation. That's the kind of gap you need to look out for if you are serious about "eating the rich" and not just eating their propaganda. The 1% are not corporate CEOs they are bankers.

>An interesting argument.
They can't have it both ways. If slavery was so profitable then why did basically nothing happen to the economy when it was abolished.

>Do you >>573 think arguing about politics or the morality of libertarianism is at all worthwhile, then?
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. The problem is that most people get their "morality" from mainstream media.
>good people support the NHS
>good people wear a mask
>good people get injected with experimental medical treatments
>good people support the Science
>good people support ukraine
>good people support israel
>everyone who disagrees is a bad person
For whatever reason people are so desperate to as seen as a "good" person. They will virtue signal for just about anything as long as it gets them Likes on social media. So yes if a person's idea of morality is just supporting whatever the $current_thing is then talking about morality is pointless.

If you want to boil down libertarian morality it is as simple as
1. You own your body
2. You own the output of your labor
3. You don't fuck with other people's property
4. You defend your own property if it's being fucked with

Incidentally 1. and 3. are why slavery is not compatible with libertarianism. You cannot "own" a person because a person always owns himself. Or to put it another way it is not possible to transfer your conciseness to another person. The slave is always in control of their own body they just get tortured into compliance.

>>570
>It was commercially profitable
Forgot to specify to whom. It generated a profit to the owner of the slave. But the net benefit of society in exploitative relationships is always lower than in voluntary ones. Hence why slavery was bad for the economy and good for a subsection of people.
It's the same as saying taxation is profitable, or theft is profitable.

ancap_chika.jpg
[Hide] (188KB, 1125x1500)

>>The 1% are not corporate CEOs they are bankers.
Arguably, statesmen and their associates hold more power than the banking sector. Seriously, what's with the hate directed towards the financial sector?

>1 - Ideas
>OR
>2 - Technology
What is more important: what you think or what you do?

>>588
>Seriously, what's with the hate directed towards the financial sector?
Because they literally print the money we all use. The 1% are not corporate CEOs with access to billions or trillions of dollars. The 1% have infinite money because they are the ones who print it in the first place.

>what's with the hate
What's with the love why are you defending this exactly?

>>595
>Seriously, what's with the hate directed towards the financial sector?
People who are not angry about the finance industry simply don't understand how it works.

Remember that Marx died before Keynesianism, the Federal Reserve, the end of the gold standard, Bretton Woods and basically all of the modern finance industry. That's why leftists ignore banks and finance and generally try to pretend the 20ths century didn't happen.

>>597
>That's why leftists ignore banks and finance
2011: Occupy Wall Street, We are the 99%

>>606
>achshually some leftists briefly protested against banks one time over 10 years ago
What's your point?

If a gay black trans CEO and a straight white male plumber were both drowning and you could only save one then 99% of leftists would pick the CEO.

>>597
>That's why leftists ignore banks
Lenin: >>71
>Without big banks socialism would be impossible.
>The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;
>A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus.

>>619
>That's why leftists ignore banks
Go to a /leftpol/ or reddit and ask them what they think about banks or the fed. They'll say something like get lost lolbert corporations are the only enemy.

booster.jpg
[Hide] (43.1KB, 497x640)

>>624
>corporations are the only enemy.
Ask them what they think about the big pharma covid vax conspiracy.

What libertarians actually do to become ungovernable?

The elites have turned everyone into criminals, liars, hypocrites, and cowards.

The only good thing about living in a police state is that no one can take the moral high ground on anything.

>>626
>Ask them what they think about the big pharma covid vax conspiracy.
They say it was a government project with "scientific" oversight therefor shutup and take your boosters nazi.

>>628
>What libertarians actually do to become ungovernable?
https://medium.com/@Kallman/a-21st-century-introduction-to-agorism-5dc69b54d79f