/lit/ - Literature

What?

>>3405839

What do you mean

Human Action by Ludwig von mises is pretty good. I wish more politicians would read it.

Libertarians don't read, don't be stupid.

babby's first post-capitalist worldview

>>3405951
>>3405951
>>3405951

come back when you find something worth actually reading about

>>3405960

Such as?

What are you trying to imply? That libertarianism isn't a juvenile, simple-minded philosophy?

>>3405967
Settle the fuck down now, kid, adults are talking.

>>3405969

I'd love to hear you answer the question without resort to insults.

>>3405974
The answer 'yes' should have been easily inferred from my insult.

>>3405964
>>3405972
>"Keynesian thought is redundant"
>We still need the state.
Libertarians confuse me.

>>3406005
>We still need the state.
We need the state for military and police. That is something we can't do on our own

>>3406028
And the market can't handle that?

>>3406028
im under the belief the market could handle those. military would be unneeded if we lived in a stateless world. Wars are expensive and the only reason governments can wage them is because they have the luxury of stealing money from the population. Private businesses have no power and are at complete mercy of the consumer.

>>3406045
>military would be unneeded if we lived in a stateless world. Wars are expensive and the only reason governments can wage them is because they have the luxury of stealing money from the population

lol

this is the kind of reasoning that ancaps subscribe to, ofc

>>3406032
>And the market can't handle that?
The military, not really at the moment. Not while other external political systems exist. The financial gain from war is too big - Not saying that the state is any better here, though. And I don't think the legal system ever can be. I could be very wrong, but I just haven't seen any way for it to work.

>>3406052
But there wouldn't be a military in a private market.
Why should there be?

>>3406055
because people are effed the eff up

why do you think existing in a stateless society would fundamentally change human nature?

>>3406055
but there would be
every private company, with it's individual scorched earth policy, would have a military

The word "libertarian" comes from the French word "libertaire" which means anarchy.

Which you want is right-libertarian/fusionist literature. That shit is an abomination.

>>3406062
What*

>>3406056
So they'll be private contracts for law enforcement firms at the individual's choice.
A system of law doesn't go out the window, and people aren't 'effed up'; they're rational.
>>3406059
War is not profitable; you're working on an supposition that's entirely false.

>>3406055
>But there wouldn't be a military in a private market.
I said 'Not while other external political systems exist'. Obviously a stateless world is a different situation. I was talking about removing the state power in our current culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fveMHVuf4

>>3406067
>War is not profitable
It is if I'm manufacturing the weapons.

>>3406067
>War is not profitable
wow you made me sage with an image

>>3406072
And who will buy these? Nobody will trade with a company known to support violence; customers will refuse service
>>3406073
In the private market.

War is radicalised by the state as a tool for profit.

>>3406071
Norman Chompsky sounds like he smokes frogs.

>>3406049
pretty sure almost every war throughout history has been financed in large part by taxes. In a stateless world It would be more profitable to solve issues diplomatically. Any war you tried to start would have to be financed by your own money, and thats just bad business.

but please, continue to laugh at my points without any sort of retort.

>>3406075
>Nobody will trade with a company known to support violence
my god you people are unbelievably utopian

>>3406067
>people aren't 'effed up'; they're rational.

people are fuckin' complicated, and do things for a lot of different reasons. i mean, i generally agree that people are usually at least somewhat rational, but i don't think it's a wise move at all to found an entire political system on the assumption that they will constantly continue in that state.

>>3406075
>And who will buy these? Nobody will trade with a company known to support violence; customers will refuse service.
If there are still countries with a state:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_3Qg-SY

If there are no states then we will still get resistance groups; socialists, monarchists, anarchists, people rebelling and wanting a new system.

>>3406072
its only profitable to that company because the government is paying them. it wouldn't be profitable if the company was itself waging a war. The state is an enabler.

>>3406082
If your local fast-food chain were found to have been pushing arm sales to customers, would customers still use the fast-food chain? It's rational and sensible. Preconcieved notions of some idealistic fantasy are a strawman argument to the real issue which is displayed by idiot:
>>3406081
With a heavily distorted misunderstanding on who 'people' are.
>Political system
You have never read a single piece of literature of Anarchist thought, have you?

>>3406075
>Nobody will trade with a company known to support violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Indiaompany

You guys are more utopian than some communists I know. Jesus. Surely if Stalinism can be used against communists, than Victorian England can be used against libertarianism?

>>3406075
>Nobody will trade with a company known to support violence; customers will refuse service

Any observation of the world as it is would show this to be categorically absurd. If people don't refuse service to companies that support violence now, why would they in a stateless utopia?

>>3406077
First off, your historical perspective is wrong - or at least, it depends on what you mean by "taxes", there's been plenty of wars that were financed by things that would be totally alien to our present system of taxation and state economics. I don't see why a war couldn't be financed as an investment proposition, with rational investors paying money to be repaid out of the profits from plunder and booty.

Second, even were I to grant that war would be unprofitable in a stateless society, you're still relying on the assumption that everyone is going to continue to be a rational, profit-maximizing, reasonable person - that no one will be unreasonable or deluded or have an ill will, and that the fundamental ends of every person in society will be sufficiently compatible to be resolved by market forces. And those assumptions are not, I think, a sufficiently stable ground on which to found a political society.

>>3406090
>You have never read a single piece of literature of Anarchist thought, have you?
if all you read is the damn austrians then you certainly haven't either

>>3406077
>pretty sure almost every war throughout history has been financed in large part by taxes.

Not true

>In a stateless world It would be more profitable to solve issues diplomatically.

True if you presuppose power symmetry between the two parties. Since this power would be determined by their ability to buy an army and arms in a competitive market, symmetry would be rare. Otherwise it's inevitable that there will be a time when it's more profitable to murder the people who have something you want until they give it to you. I'd imagine wars over scarce resources would be commonplace to the point of near perpetual status.

>>3406090
Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.

>>3406091
Social and cultural conditions were the same 300 years ago as they were today.
>>3406094
Due to the fact that the private market not only prevents government distortion, and subtler contemptious facade political schemes, but also enables customers to respond rapidly, by choice, by the greatest act possible: the refusal to purchase. In the truly competitive market, it'd be a death sentence, unless change were to occur.

Arms sales are subsidised by the government, and large oligopolies, with percentile shares, who hold a foot in government in turn. The conditions of today's political system and the private market from scratch are separate.
>>3406102
Anarcho-capitalism is the only kind of freedom. Go to bed Bakunin.

>>3406107
>Social and cultural conditions were the same 300 years ago as they were today.
They're not all that different either.

>>3406107
>Anarcho-capitalism is the only kind of freedom
like the freedom to starve, be unemployed, homeless, ect.

>>3406032
Entrusting the market with military and police matters sounds like the worst idea ever.

>>3406110
You're a moron.

>>3406107
>the private market from scratch

This will never happen. You're defining your theoretical prescriptions based on a laughably implausible hypothetical world.

>>3406113
Unlike the freedom to go to my one school, eat my same meal, and live like every other 'individual'.

Sounds like you don't understand free-market economics.
Commie.

>>3406107
>Social and cultural conditions were the same 300 years ago as they were today.

So then your argument is that anarchocapitalism only works given the right social and cultural conditions?

>but also enables customers to respond rapidly, by choice, by the greatest act possible: the refusal to purchase. In the truly competitive market, it'd be a death sentence, unless change were to occur.

You're assuming that customers would necessarily disagree with the violent action - that all the citizens of your anarchocapitalist utopia share your anarchocapitalist views and would be willing to let those political views, and a principled and rational opposition to the use of force, play a determining role in their decision making process. In other words, once again, you're assuming certain cultural and social conditions to make your stateless utopia work - so it's not the absence of the state, but the absence of the state AND the right attitude of all its citizens, that's the necessary thing. That's why your vision is a utopia - because at bottom it relies on the assumption that everyone in society will have the right point of view, and so everything will work fine. It's ultimately a very nice dream but only a dream.

>>3406120
and it sounds like you don't have the first clue about the ideology you oppose

>>3406113
those are more like choices. Plus its just basic nature. Every living thing fights to survive. get over it.

>>3406126
I'm implying that the conditions under the free-market enables a society to progress from violence. And no, I am not attempting to define the social conditions neccessary for a utopia, because the realization of the Anarcho-cap-utopia is far off; something only used as a critique parallel to the choice of two evils in the modern day society.

Do you like violence? Do you like being shot? Do others? What percentage of the population enjoys being shot at, or shooting other innocent humans?

Western society tried to use a state-legal system to abandon notions of violence, and now, we have interventionist agendas for a superpower.

>>3406131
Proof of this?

>>3406139
>Every living thing fights to survive.

Human beings set up civilization to minimize the effort expended in this fight. Social darwinism is naive at best, and a self refutation for someone who's entire existence was wholly dependent on the existence of the state and "statism".

>>3406150
>Proof of this?
the post that I was referring to

Libertarianism is a tremendously complex but ultimate faulty way of the rich to justify tax evasion.

>>3406157
Even more naive is the notion that under this impossible self-order, a civilization is sustainable.
>>3406160
In your opinion.

>>3406161
>In your opinion
explain how anything you said actually pertained to communism or socialism
or can I simply write you off as a troll

>>3406161
The concept civilization predates liberal "statism" by thousands of years and will long outlast the braying of libertarian asses. Your ideology is the dingleberry of the ruling class one that thinks labor unions and regulations are Literally Hitler.

>>3406173
Its amazing how they can think that the only form of oppression to ever exist is from the government when the industrial revolution damaged so many peoples lives for so long.

>>3406150
>I'm implying that the conditions under the free-market enables a society to progress from violence. And no, I am not attempting to define the social conditions neccessary for a utopia, because the realization of the Anarcho-cap-utopia is far off; something only used as a critique parallel to the choice of two evils in the modern day society.

Fine, fine. As a critique of the present day system, that's fine; but you should be careful to maintain that attitude throughout your argument. All too often, ancaps seem to say "get rid of the state and everything will follow."

And you're still being utopian, but at least you're aware of it; and I still think you're wrong, and kind of an ass, but c'est la vie. It's basically true that there are some ways in which the state is harmful and we should be aware of that.

>>3406173
This is also true though.

>>3406164
It's only complex because it raises so many absurdities. It's theology, more or less.

>>3406180
In fairness, the state was the instrument of repression for capital in the Gilded Age. Still is, too.

>>3406173
Yes, it is. But a modern democratic government isn't, it's based on, in respect to the entire development of humanity, a very insignificant proportion. You can't validate the claim that a civilization guided by a government can exist, even thought you refer to civilizations that have existed without a modern form of democracy.
>>3406169
The main objective of revisionist socialists is the prospect of full employment. The statement 'commie' was made as a satirizing of your post, but for about three posts now, I was hoping you'd understand what irony meant.

>>3406196
A sustainable civilization with a democratic government*

>>3406196
>The main objective of revisionist socialists is the prospect of full employment
so you are just a troll
pity

>>3406203
There is no logic to that statement.

>>3406203
Full employment is a mandate of the Federal Reserve. Are you calling Alan Greenspan a socialist?

>>3406190
'The Gilded Age' has no relevance to me, I'm British. We've seen what completely unregulated capitalism can do, putting millions and millions of people at the mercy of the workhouse. We've seen with companies such as the East India Trading Company that corporations can not only have complete monopolies for hundreds of years, but also rule peoples lives through corporate slavery.

>>3406213
if he was we'd be a lot better off

>>3406220
Capital and the state are two sides of the same coin. Massive subsidies and rent seeking are just a few ways the government hooks up even "regulated" capital. The gilded age in the US roughly coincides with the victorian era in the british empire. Late 19th century.

Regulations came later when workers began firing back and the ruling class decided concessions were preferable to communism. That's all I was saying.

>>3406235
Do you know how idealistic you sound? The unions were all socialists for a reason, the Labour Party which was set up to represent the unions and the workers is a socialist party.

>>3406248

>The unions were all socialists for a reason, the Labour Party which was set up to represent the unions and the workers is a socialist party.

I'm not sure what you're actually objecting to in my post. In the US, capital genuinely feared labor and made concessions to it through political reforms because they were openly fighting the police, the national guard and private security when they attempted to break strikes.

Also, the reformist politicians that made these reforms were not working men by any means.

Social democratic parties like Labour are all very much part of the political elite now, so you can see that process at work even today.

>>3406274
Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about either.

>>3406248

labour is not and have never been a true socialist party

they've had socialist factions, and briefly they took over (bennites, foot) but they have never called for a worker controlled means of production

they were social democratic, but they're fast losing any hint of that especially since Blair and his third way, following thatcherite economics

>>3406298
Labour died with Clause 4.

But I disgress, by the umbrella term 'socialism' I meant social democracy and the like

>>3406304
>umbrella term 'socialism'
stop doing that

>>3406306
Why? Its Democratic SOCIALISM. Just because it doesn't fit your personal definition, doesn't make it 'not socialism'

FACT: any type of wealth redistribution counts as socialism.

>>3406314
Not if it isn't spent on any form of social programme.

>>3406313
but it's not

>>3406314
redistribution is a terrible word

>>3406314
XD so funny

>>3406032
No, geopolitics, and crime being negative externalities are to be dealt politically. The free market does take into account politics, nor externalities, therefor a state is needed in order to deal with them politically.

>>3406072
>broken window fallacy
You're forgetting depreciation you dolt. Look at 1940s Nazi Germany. They were in the midst of a rapidly growing GDP by profiting from making so many guns, artillery, etc. If you look into their NNP you'll notice how it was falling drastically, because of their cities being bombed during night raids from the allies, and having to work on what was destroyed during these raids. You're also losing MRP from those who died, and any weapons used that are destroyed.

if war helps the economy so much why doesn't the government just constantly make tanks and airplanes 24/7 and just dump them in the ocean or something?

>>3406588
see
>>3406579

Anyone who honestly believes war is economically beneficial is an idiot. War has no positive aspects. The only aspect that could be considered, 'beneficial', would be that it stimulates the economy by job creation. Which is again a broken window fallacy.