Is right wing libertarianism the most pseud ideology?

[Anonymous No.14675528]

>you literally need to read like one book to get the gist of it and be able to argue for it (ideological Turing test)
>designed to appease STEMfags who generally read remarkably little
>politics based on autistic axiomatization, the notion that you can derive policies from the axioms like you would derive theorems of Euclidean geometry
>by design this implies that you need not worry about emprical reality because everything is already in the axioms
>this results in an extraordinary uniformity of thought amongst libertarians generally unattainable amongst followers of say conservatism or socialism, libertarians like to fancy themselves independent thinkers when in reality they are one uniform herd - if you've met one you've met every single one
>as a rule libertarians have very little factual knowledge or what we might call broad knowledge - this stems from their contempt for memorization and "cramming" (bear in mind - most of them are STEMfags) as well as their ardent belief in the correctness of their axioms
>incredibly ignorant of history, most engage in some form of historical revisionism
>in practice most of it has very little to do with the axioms and more to do with libertarians' extreme sociopathy and refusal to accept social categories (society, common good etc.)
>invariably always end up outing themselves as idiots whenever they support price gouging, gentrification, return to the gold standard etc.
>conspicuous ignorance of the work of actual non-Austrian academic economists, anthropologists, sociologists, non-libertarian political philosophers
>dangerously close to Republican "common sense" (as in appeal to the plebs) style of policy (government is like a household therefore we need to implement austerity measures, free trade between countries is good because free trade between individuals is good etc.)
>they are actually proud of the aformentioned, they think that their STEMfag genius extends to the domain of politics and so they do not need to read anything because again - everything is in the axioms
>infantile attempts to make connections between math/physics and politics, screams of pseudness
>worst of all - because of the intellectual appeal of libertarianism as a consistent system of thought they can maintain their illusion of intellectual supremacy over conservatives, socialists, liberals etc. in reality the idea that politics can be boiled down to two axioms is midwit tier

[Anonymous No.14675535]

>>14675528
>right wing
>libertarian
contradictions. libertarianism is liberalism, which is left wing always.

[Anonymous No.14675567]

>>14675535
The only true right wing is unironic Monarchism

[Anonymous No.14675571]

>>14675528
No consoomer communists are the biggest pseuds

[Anonymous No.14675583]

>>14675528
Considering it was invented by Ayn Rand and her polyamerous cucquean cult in the 60s to try to suppress the absolute ideological juggernaut which is chadly big dick left libertarian market anarchism
yes
Honestly guys ever since I raid schumpeter I just get hard all the time, I pretty much always have a half chub and some decent precum dribbles. In some ways I'm worse than a nigger.

[Anonymous No.14675584]

>>14675571
at least communists have read something since Marxism covers a wide range of topics from economics through sociology and psychology to anthropology, pinnacle of a typical libertarian's reading list is End the Fed and some Rothbardian mumbo jumbo

[Anonymous No.14675586]

>>14675528
A bigger problem is that their 'axioms' are absurd and contradict each other.

[Anonymous No.14675588]

>>14675535
shit b8

[Anonymous No.14675589]

>>14675535
wut?

[Anonymous No.14675593]

>>14675535
Liberalism is always rightwing, asshat.

[Anonymous No.14675596]

>>14675535
inb4 seething Marxists

[Anonymous No.14675598]

>>14675588
>>14675589
t. doesn't know history

[Anonymous No.14675602]

>>14675584
haha, do you really suppose your average communist supporter has even made it through Capital? I bet most haven't even tried. They just believe that people should not be poor.

[Anonymous No.14675603]

>>14675593
>Liberalism is always rightwing, asshat.
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.14675607]

>>14675583
>left libertarian market anarchism
literally a bunch of ex-ancaps who suffer from convert's zeal and feel the compulsion to emphasize the differences between themselves and ancaps wherever they are even though the differences between them are pretty insignificant in the big picture. most LWMAs I know are just ancaps who happen to know what primitive accumulation is and think that actual left wingers ought to consider them comrades on account of that - quite stupid given that even von Mises recognized that primitive accumulation aka diposession of farmers and enclosure of the commons are the cornerstone of capitalism (he admits that in "Socialism")

[Anonymous No.14675612]

>>14675583
>Ayn Rand
>libertarian
The absolute state.

[Anonymous No.14675633]

>>14675612
my dick's too hard to listen
I think ayn rand is a libertarian though

[Anonymous No.14675641]

>>14675528
Right wing geolibertarian here. This thread reveals nothing about libertarians and everything about OP. Sperg out all you like, but you have only demonstrated a total lack of self-awareness about your cognitive biases toward political groups you disagree with and disdain.

[Anonymous No.14675686]

>>14675641
Based.

>>14675528
OP, read pic related before you embarrass yourself more.

Also, the Non-Agression Principle is a much stronger ethical foundation than utilitarianism.

The latter assumes that we generally understand the problems we are trying to solve in the world, and that things will go according to plan.
Protip: We don't, and they won't.

[Anonymous No.14675689]

>>14675641
>>14675686
samefag

[Anonymous No.14675696]

>>14675686
>Also, the Non-Agression Principle is a much stronger ethical foundation than utilitarianism.

NAP aka it is perfectly ok when homeless people die of starvation in front of a fully stocked supermarket but an afront to property rights when this homeless person tries to solve the problem himself by stealing the food

[Anonymous No.14675702]

>>14675696
>it is perfectly ok when homeless people die of starvation in front of a fully stocked supermarket but an afront to property rights when this homeless person tries to solve the problem himself by stealing the food

[Anonymous No.14675703]

>>14675696
Literally yes.

[Anonymous No.14675707]

>>14675696
That is correct, and im sure someone will give the homeless guy a sandwich if he asks anyway

[Anonymous No.14675715]

there is no compelling argument from self-ownership to property rights more generally, so there is no compelling foundation for libertarianism

[Anonymous No.14675716]

>>14675715
*steals your phone and clothing and shits in your bed*

[Anonymous No.14675717]

>>14675686
The NAP as applied by AnCaps presupposes the existence of property rights. Not sure how Georgists implement 'property rights' in their understanding of NAP (except in regard to land value). At any rate, Georgism, while better than nothing, is a half-measure in the sense that it only socializes natural forms of capital.

[Anonymous No.14675723]

>>14675715
>he needs an argument for self-ownership
NPC memes look more compelling everyday.

[Anonymous No.14675726]

>>14675702
>>14675703
That's not a Non-Aggression Principle in any literal sense. Property rights are themselves a form of theft imposed by the State to protect powerful interests.

[Anonymous No.14675728]

>>14675528
>libertarianism
>stemfags
wat? is /pol/ 100% stemfags then?

[Anonymous No.14675731]

>>14675723
Reading comprehension much, mongoloid?

[Anonymous No.14675732]

>>14675726
>not letting me take your stuff is theft
Im convinced communists are robots somebody let loose purely just to fuck with us

[Anonymous No.14675735]

>>14675723
you need an argument FROM self-ownership TO property rights, which you do not have

[Anonymous No.14675740]

>>14675732
Are you literally retarded? The difference between 'your stuff' and 'my stuff' is legally defined by the State.

[Anonymous No.14675741]

>>14675689
>>14675633
You're a samefag

>>14675696
The natural state of man is poverty.

Nature compels us all to eat, and no-one is justified in taking food from another by force.

If the world is cruel and you want to help this homeless man, give him your food. Don't take someone else's.

[Anonymous No.14675749]

>>14675740
It's not actually. The state is there to enforce the agreements on property that people come to among themselves.

[Anonymous No.14675765]

>>14675702
>>14675703
>state of lit in 2020
>responding with le reddit memes
you do realize that peasants proletarians and paupers won't give a shit about muh property rights and will simply take whatever they want from you in times of crisis right? elementary anthropology refutes libertarianism, recognition and acknowledgement of property rights is not axiomatic. it is conditional on the general economic affluence of all the members of the society. if we were all born into a state of scarcity of food noone - including libertarians - would give a fuck about property rights and NAP, we would be instead trying to backstab one another in an attempt to sustain our lives which is the most basic instinct of the human being which precedes the recognition of authority and property rights. libertarians make the same mistake in politics as the classical economists in economics - trying to abstract their theory from history and where we find ourselves our development as a civilization. this mistake in economics was pointed out by Marx and the mistake in politics has just been pointed out by me

[Anonymous No.14675766]

>>14675741
Nature doesn't dictate that a certain mulberry bush is exclusively "yours" to eat from.

[Anonymous No.14675767]

>>14675717
Georgists understand property rights as the right to own your labor (including capital, which they just see as an extension.)

Land ownership can be argued to violate the NAP because most modern claims on land were at some point conquered and taken by force.

[Anonymous No.14675769]

>>14675741
This, implicit morality is more palatable then explicit force.

>>14675740
So is personhood. I guess we should make a buhddist state then.

[Anonymous No.14675773]

>>14675749
If two people disagree on who owns a given property, the dispute is adjudicated by the court system. The state has volumes of legal precedent establishing the particularities of how property rights work. And yes, the state enforces laws.

[Anonymous No.14675775]

>>14675766
If you planted and tended to it, I'd say they are yours to eat.

And it's not like people are only poor because they are deprived of nature's resources. Most modern wealth is from industry, there are still plenty of woods and dear to hunt and berries to pick out in the wild.

[Anonymous No.14675780]

um akshually you can’t prove ownership exists so you should let me “share” your resources

[Anonymous No.14675782]

>>14675773
All of which is an attempt to formalize consensual agreements

[Anonymous No.14675783]

>>14675765
>>14675767
Force is a legitament claimant on land. It is simply the current social contract that we try to avoid it. If the social contract changes, one may steal land if the circumstances permit.

[Anonymous No.14675796]

>>14675717
If even a fraction of the energy that goes into dead end socialist activism and revolutionary politics went into Georgist solutions, the world would be a vastly better place. Georgist measures can actually be implemented incrementally and without destructive revolutionary movements. Your insistence on the perfect over the good is actually the foolish mindset. George himself predicted that Marx's ideas would result in despotism, exactly the way it did. Repeating Marx's totally empty critique of George (amounting to the idea that it doesn't go far enough) is remarkable in light of this, because the obvious lesson from history is that attempts to implement economies inspired by Marx "went too far".

[Anonymous No.14675806]

>>14675775
And who gave you the right to plant anything on that particular plot of soil? Who gave you the right to steal seeds from another patch of soil in order to try your hand at agriculture?

[Anonymous No.14675815]

>>14675765
If they steal the land so be it, rather an implicit causation of violence sping up than an explicit requirement to relinquish more than a modicum of my currently held power.

THe argument relies on an abstraction to forward a concrete dictatorial maxim.

From every man according to their predilection, to everyman according to others grace.

[Anonymous No.14675824]

>>14675783
??
Are you trying to argue what is, or a morally defensible stance?

Yes, pretty much everything is ultimately backed up by force. The purpose of morals is to create social contracts that mitigate the use of force and peaceably resolve conflict everyone's benefit.

Arguing the merits of moral ideas is not fruitless, because a good moral contract will be logically consistent over a wide range of conflict and benefit the members of a society who heed it. Logically inconsistent morals leave more room for misinterpretation and confusion in conflict which makes it easier to regress to using force.

[Anonymous No.14675830]

>>14675528
Not really, when it comes to pure economics they're literally right, leftists can only resort to cherrypicking and ignorance, like the op pic.
The issue is that libertarianism is very hollow as a all encompassing world view.

[Anonymous No.14675839]

>>14675602
Most communists even who have youtube channels presenting those ideas have not read capital.

[Anonymous No.14675855]

>>14675528
>Hello Anon, it is I, God-Emperor of the midwits. I've come to inform you that post constructionist critical theory is the most psued ideology. Have you ever read Ta-nahisi Coates?

[Anonymous No.14675864]

>>14675796
I don't disagree that Georgism is a good incremental step. In fact, 'incremental' undersells the radicalness of the improvement it would bring in human well-being. I am speaking philosophically about what the most efficient system would look like. And that would be a system in which *all* capital is either owned by the people who made and operate it (in the case of industrial infrastructure), or by the public at large (in the case of natural resources and land).

[Anonymous No.14675883]

>>14675824
Have you considered drugs?
If you're trying this hard to promote your fantasy world, maybe you should just do drugs.

[Anonymous No.14675913]

>>14675806
Who gave you the right to breath air? Who gave you the right to exist? Are you forever indebted to everyone because you can be argued to have these non-measurable externalities that make all your labor belong to the collective?
And if you don't give it, they have the right to steal from you?

I'm one of the Georgists here, so I actually believe in the equal distribution of natural resources.

You can use the land because no-one owns it, (if you want to exclude people from that patch of land, monetarily compensate everyone with a Land Value Tax) but if you put labor in to making something it's yours.

[Anonymous No.14675917]

>>14675732
>haha property rights are just state theft. What? My Iphone? No thats personal property so I get to keep it. Your stuff is the bad kind of property so we should all share it.

[Anonymous No.14675923]

>>14675740
Mfw even animals understand private property but commies are still too fucking stupid to realize not everyone is socially constructed.

[Anonymous No.14675926]

>>14675824
Both. I would personal say my idea of morality is a bit complex and revolves around the idea of implied and explicit means of enforcement. I guess I am Kantian in that respects. The only good is intent, ie implicit spirit of the law, good. Socialism wants the spirit of the law to rather be the letter of the law. one must give up some of their wealth to the more needy instead of should. In this way, morality should only be relegated to personal choice for it to be truelly moral. However, I am aware that the self is not a completely independent entity, and that it is influenced by outside factor. This is where the implicitness comes into play. If one were to implicitly shape the selves to be moral in there contingent freedom thats would be a ok. however, explicite implementation transgresses the psuedo-independent nature of the self. In this case I am a fan of an illuminati of sorts kind of like the bihind doors dealing in the republic in order not to control content, but to create context.

In a socialist world the good of the self cannot be fully realised.

[Anonymous No.14675938]

>>14675883
The Fenian movement was not a fantasy, you deceitful limey shite.

[Anonymous No.14675945]

>>14675913
>but if you put labor in to making something it's yours
That is precisely the socialist position. Only capitalists disagree.

[Anonymous No.14675958]

>>14675864
I agree, but forcing it in-organically would be more harmful than helpful. Good policy respects but carefully realigns the political and economic forces that move society.

The goal of communism is good and I think ultimately achievable. It's just most communists want a ham-fisted enforcement of it, not seeing the Georgist way that if you can implement it well, it won't need to be enforced.

[Anonymous No.14676003]

>>14675528
>this results in an extraordinary uniformity of thought amongst libertarians generally unattainable amongst followers of say conservatism or socialism, libertarians like to fancy themselves independent thinkers when in reality they are one uniform herd - if you've met one you've met every single one
This is your most retarded "point" that basically discredits everything you bothered to type. Right-wing libertarianism is broad as hell; there are so many Anarchos it's hard to keep track of them, and they are all pitted against each other and minarchists and objectivists who believe in some retarded nightwatchmen state. Ancaps can't even agree on what constitutes a NAP violation, how intellectual "property" should be handled, who will handle borders or national boundaries, and countless other shit.
Your only exposure to "right-wing libertarianism" is with "what's a leppo" lolbertarian party soiboys.
This entire thread is pointless though because OP is just a projecting Marxist, which is the real pseud's ideology.

[Anonymous No.14676007]

>>14675945
No, because capital is still privately owned for Georgists.

You can still own and profit from a business, the Georgist stance would be that you also have to pay taxes proportional to the value of natural resources you use to run the business, namely, the land that it takes up.

There is nothing wrong with profiting off of things other than your labor. Stocks, profits, loans, CEOs, whatever. They all actually serve important functions and signal information in the economy.

[Anonymous No.14676024]

>>14675528
>STEMfags who generally read remarkably little
What did this fucking retard mean by this?
STEM by it's very nature requires you to read a ton, just not some philosophers jacking themselves off to their own writing.

[Anonymous No.14676051]

>>14676024
STEMfag detected
Spivak, Rudin or Griffiths hardly qualify as reading. they are dense and important but too distant from politics (obviously). the problem with STEMfag libertarians is that they too often map the logic of mathematics and sciences onto politics hence the autistic axiomatization of libertarianism. if you want to have established views on political matters you need to read A LOT and preferably become acquainted with diverse viewpoints which is something a STEMfag will not do because he believes his superior intellect will work out just as well in the domain of politics as it does in STEM

[Anonymous No.14676052]

>>14676003
>>14675528
>He thinks Nick Sarwark is a libertarian thought leader

[Anonymous No.14676096]

Ancaptards read a lot actually.
But they only read shit like Mises, Hoppe and Kant. So they get stuck in their dumb ideology forever. Also the fact that what they believe is intirely based on false axioms don't help them either.

[Anonymous No.14676142]

Worst ideologies ever. Objective without possibility of objection.
>libertarianism
>ancapism
>communist-liberalism
>neoreaction
>accelerationism

[Anonymous No.14676169]

>>14675528
The US is founded on moral axioms & the western world is run on them you fucking moron. The axiom is literally just
>right to private property / non aggression principle

>conspicuous ignorance of... anthropologists, sociologists
Wow

I’m not even a libertarian, but you sound like a seething progressive

[Anonymous No.14676171]

I have a communist friend that made a cake in the last month with the hammer and sickle. He never read Marx, or any classical philosophy book. This isn't just anecdotal evidence, leftists are all dumb and only read tweets because they have no attention span.
On the other hand, I have right wing redpilled STEM (EEchads) libertarian friends that are always reading several classical philosophy books. Personally, I enjoy reading about philosophy, finances, psychotherapy, religion, history, Darwinism and neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.14676177]

>>14676171
>Personally, I enjoy reading about philosophy, finances, psychotherapy, religion, history, Darwinism and neuroscience.
Go back.

[Anonymous No.14676179]

>>14676177
dilate tranny

[Anonymous No.14676201]

>>14675586
lol no they don’t. Explain

>>14675765
Private police would be a thing in a libertarian society.

>>14675767
>land had already been conquered
You have to start from somewhere. The libertarian contract-‘state’ would start when they buy the land.

It could also be that such a contract-state only believes in NAP within the contract holders, and commits theft with their private army

[Anonymous No.14676217]

>>14675528
Define conservative, liberal, libertarian, left wing and right wing to first off to show us that you're not just another pseud.

[Anonymous No.14676219]

>>14675528
>you literally need to read like one book [The Communist Manifesto] to get the gist of it and be able to argue for it (ideological Turing test)
>designed to appease [Lacanian post-structuralist] fags who generally read remarkably little [pre-20th century non-fiction]
>politics based on autistic axiomatization, the notion that you can derive policies from the axiom [property is theft; to each according...]
Here: No Farther -- it's a fascinating limited hangout road stop that to date has failed to eject the explicitly atheistic, libertine, (and long-in-the-nose'd) Randish albatross in favor of casuistic defenses of abortion (Block) and recreational drugs/tortious sex acts (Tucker). They've been dead in the water for more than a decade and it's even more out of touch to remark on it at all in the current year.

[Anonymous No.14676220]

>>14675535
"Right Wing"
Economics: Free Market, Capitalism
Cultural: Traditionalism, Conservatism

"Left Wing"
Economics: Marxism, Redistributionism
Cultural: Abolition of power heirarchies (Marxism extended to power dynamics other than economics)

Libertarianism:
Economics: Free Market
Cultural: Freedom/Civil Rights and Liberties

Libertarians therefore have a right wing element (Free market economics), while having what might have been once considered a "left wing" cultural side, though this is no longer characteristic of the modern left wing.
Compare to Fascism or National Socialism, which is culturally far right and economically left

[Anonymous No.14676225]

>>14676179
>stemfags
>not trannies or enablers
yikes

[Anonymous No.14676227]

>>14676220
>Compare to Fascism or National Socialism
>culturally far right
Wew. There is a bit more to being "culturally far-right" than raycism.

[Anonymous No.14676246]

>>14676227
Yes, traditionalism, moral support for power hierarchy, and nationalism. You can be a fascist or a national socialist without being racist.

[Anonymous No.14676247]

>>14675696
>when homeless people die of starvation in front of a fully stocked supermarket

[Anonymous No.14676255]

>>14675528
>>14676220
Wew what a load of bullshit it stinky like marx's dinky.
Stop trying to categorise politics into "left wing" and "right wing" retard. Refer to specific movements and people when you're talking about how their policies are retarded otherwise it's just another generalised Hitler's dog argument.

[Anonymous No.14676277]

>>14676255
I actually do generally agree with you here, but because people insist on using "left" and "right" I tried to lay out an actual example of how the terms are applied and used. There is of course not really any such thing as "left" and "right" because they are subject to arbitrary change and subjectivity, however the terms still get used and therefore it's useful to at least try to define them.

[Anonymous No.14676299]

>>14676277
Understandable, but i only find it useful when talking in the general zeitgeist sense instead of anything about the particulars.

[Anonymous No.14676317]

>>14676246
>traditionalism
Fascism and National Socialism were both incredibly modernistic with only a veneer of caring about tradition.
>moral support for power hierarchy
Yes, but of a rootless, State-imposed hierarchy instead of one imposed by nature/God.
>nationalism
Nationalism arose from liberalism and isn't traditional at all.

[Anonymous No.14676324]

>>14675528

[Anonymous No.14676359]

>>14676317
That's because fascism believed you could create a traditional society through authoritarianism and state power, when in reality you can't, it must come from both the individual themselves, and from the community as a whole. Bottom up rather than top down.
That however doesn't mean they didn't see the value in traditionalism, just that they had a very incorrect method of approaching it.
>Nationalism arose from liberalism and isn't traditional at all
Perhaps not no, but it is right wing. There isnt actually any logic or rationality as to what makes something left or right wing, it's basically arbitrary, which is part of the problem with the terms.

[Anonymous No.14676381]

>>14676246
Also
>national socialist without being racist.
A blatant lie. There isn't a National Socialist on this earth that isn't a racist to the nth degree.
>but muh image of one literal who Nazi saying NatSoc was about wishing good health of every race in their own homeland
All of that shit is saving face. Nazis are just as conniving, if not more than, Jews are stereotyped to be when it comes to promoting their ideology, I have been retarded enough in the past spending a lot of time in /pol/ to know this.

[Anonymous No.14676425]

>>14676381
The Jews literally have their own little natsoc country

[Anonymous No.14676446]

>>14676381
Fascist Italy wasn't racist until Germany convinced them to adopt their racial theory.
Fascism is just an Ultranationalist, Traditionalist, Authoritarian political system. It can form national identity around things other than race, such as Religion, Civic identity, cultural traits, or anything else. Yes, race would be a common example, however you could make an argument that ISIS is a fascist movement based on membership of their religious ideology.
You are thinking too narrowly about German National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.14676484]

What is it with the modern leftist and the insane amount of young blatant tankies who fly the hammer and sickle, think they're revolutionaries, and romanticize Soviet Russia like it wasn't a hell hole?

Anyone have some insight? Why can't they just adopt the social policies like a normal fucking person? And don't give me the bullshit of that's just the weirdos, it's not. I see local people who by all means look normal doing this shit too. It's fucking weird man and makes me uncomfortable despite pretty much being on board with Bernie. I cannot stand some of his supporters.

[Anonymous No.14676506]

>>14675528
Everything is too complex to be reduced to actual reason and to prove it I will cite a robust body of people incapable of reason

[Anonymous No.14676512]

>>14675528
Historical revisionism is necessary when historians describe things that are impossible, such as the resurrection of Christ or the Great Depression being caused by greedy capitalists.

[Anonymous No.14676525]

>>14676484
They feel unfulfilled and rejected by the current system, and therefore latch onto it's polar opposite in rebellion. Most tankies haven't read Marx, at least not past The Communist Manifesto. You can justify the Soviet Union by claiming that all negative aspects were capitalist propaganda.

[Anonymous No.14676528]

>>14676425
free market capitalism with a public healthcare option is not really natsoc. by your standard south korea is a natsoc country.

[Anonymous No.14676550]

>>14676484
Because they are being paid by George Soros to infiltrate and undermine the Left.

[Anonymous No.14676563]

It's not that the axioms are right, it's that you have no valid counterargument against them. Every theory ends up being falsified by a better theory eventually. The problem is not that nobody knows there are flaws in libertarian thought. It's that your screeching isn't a superior theory.

[Anonymous No.14676570]

>>14676528
Pretty much all modern neonazis would be happy if they had an Israel for their ethnicity

[Anonymous No.14676580]

>>14676563
The 'theory' has no empircial support, nor is it even theoretically coherent.

[Anonymous No.14676593]

>>14676580
Sure I'll take your word for it

[Anonymous No.14676774]

>>14675686
Henry George would be absolutely disgusted by ancaps though, he thought the entire concept of owning land was evil. Why are you trying to imply Georgism supports retarded libertarians?

[Anonymous No.14676787]

>>14675528
It's babies first political thought which is fine. That being said, people who get stuck there deserve nothing less the hard labor the rest of their natural lives.

[Anonymous No.14676790]

>>14676484
Capital has so thoroughly undermined the west that in the 21st century, it has learned to subsume and commodify even rebellion against itself. Being a rebel is now an identity, meaning it is not something you do, it is just something you are. A bumper sticker.

[Anonymous No.14677511]

>>14676317
>Fascism and National Socialism were both incredibly modernistic with only a veneer of caring about tradition.
They're not strictly modernistic. They're syncretic. I don't see how you can be a pure traditionalist in a sense otherwise, in a postindustrial world.
>Nationalism arose from liberalism and isn't traditional at all.
The way some historian chooses to arbitrarily (and idiosyncratically) define nationalism as it relates to historical events, like the Treaty of Westphalia or Italian/German Unification, is irrelevant to what it actually is. Peoples in history have always had a pretty good idea of where they stood on the equivalent of a national level, usually bound by common blood, customs, and languages, and to a lesser degree their ruling state.
No one thought of himself as a strict Angevin, as some ridiculous historians have so stupidly decided to frame England through a portion of its history.
And one doesn't need to read much into primary sources to see the idea of a cohesive nation bounds. The Romans, for example, contrasted themselves with the Carthaginians in virtues and talent. Socrates clearly understood his relation to the Greek world compared to his city-state.
>>14676359
>That's because fascism believed you could create a traditional society through authoritarianism and state power, when in reality you can't, it must come from both the individual themselves, and from the community as a whole.
They weren't creating one as much as synthesizing one, from previous parts. They're reactionaries, not traditionalists or revolutionaries.

[JN !!vXXhA/qzhjm No.14677560]

>>14675528
>Post starts with an ad hominem attack and a giant fucking textwall
Hot damn, maybe there is something to right wing libertarianism after all

[Anonymous No.14677590]

>>14677511
>Peoples in history have always had a pretty good idea of where they stood on the equivalent of a national level, usually bound by common blood, customs, and languages, and to a lesser degree their ruling state.
Common people in history lacked the cartographic and historical knowledge to fully comprehend nation as a concept and use it as their primary identificator. Neither they had much clue about blood and customs unless they lived in ethnically diverse area. Tribes and noble houses would much more often guide themselves by their own petty self interests than "national" interest (to use your example with Romans and Punics, there was plenty of Italic tribes that defected to Carthage).

[Anonymous No.14677604]

>>14675535
always a laugh to see retards jimmies being rustled everytime this truth is reminded to them

[Anonymous No.14677648]

>>14675917
>not understanding the difference between personal property and private property

[Anonymous No.14677660]

>>14675528
All of these are either positive or just name calling (hahah le ignorant le bigot).

[Anonymous No.14677680]

>>14676580
>>The 'theory' has no empircial support
No theory ever rest on 'empirical support'. This kind of 18th century angloid empiricism has not been taken seriously in physics or any engineering discipline for near a century now. It also completely goes against the very basic notions of structures.
Read epistemology before trashing people for not reading.

[Anonymous No.14677688]

>>14676774
You didn't read the thread properly. Geolibertarianism is a thing, and the existence of a broad range of libertarian ideas influenced by other economic thinkers ultimately refutes the reductive nonsense posted by OP.

[Anonymous No.14677725]

>>14676220
>Compare to Fascism or National Socialism, which is culturally far right and economically left
DUDE NATIONAL SOCIALISM WAS LITERALLY SOCIALISM!! IT'S IN ITS NAME!!
Do us a favor and kill yourself, okay? Yeah. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.14677733]

>>14675528
>>you literally need to read like one book to get the gist of it and be able to argue for it (ideological Turing test)
Excellent thing.
>>designed to appease STEMfags who generally read remarkably little
No argument.
>>politics based on autistic axiomatization, the notion that you can derive policies from the axioms like you would derive theorems of Euclidean geometry
Positive thing.
>>by design this implies that you need not worry about emprical reality because everything is already in the axioms
Mix between plainly false and retarded OP.
>>this results in an extraordinary uniformity of thought amongst libertarians generally unattainable amongst followers of say conservatism or socialism, libertarians like to fancy themselves independent thinkers when in reality they are one uniform herd - if you've met one you've met every single one
There is probably no 'movement' with as many micro chapels than lolbertarians.
>>as a rule libertarians have very little factual knowledge or what we might call broad knowledge - this stems from their contempt for memorization and "cramming" (bear in mind - most of them are STEMfags) as well as their ardent belief in the correctness of their axioms
Aside from the first part being false and not proven at all, the second part is a good thing.
>>incredibly ignorant of history, most engage in some form of historical revisionism
Once again OP just throws accusation of ignorance without anything else backing it up. Historical revisionism would at least prove interest in the subject.
>>in practice most of it has very little to do with the axioms and more to do with libertarians' extreme sociopathy and refusal to accept social categories (society, common good etc.)
I think we're getting to the core of why OP is mad at lolbertarians there. The first accusation is false though, and directly contradictory with previous claims.
>>invariably always end up outing themselves as idiots whenever they support price gouging, gentrification, return to the gold standard etc.
How is the big bad gentrification even a controversial topic?
>>conspicuous ignorance of the work of actual non-Austrian academic economists, anthropologists, sociologists, non-libertarian political philosophers
Once again repeating the same thing, could have been a much more condensed OP.
>>dangerously close to Republican "common sense" (as in appeal to the plebs) style of policy (government is like a household therefore we need to implement austerity measures, free trade between countries is good because free trade between individuals is good etc.)
Of course they don't like force and 'raison d'etat' very much, so they will of course promote governing things as if it didn't involve force.

[Anonymous No.14677735]

>>14675528
>>14677733
>>they are actually proud of the aformentioned, they think that their STEMfag genius extends to the domain of politics and so they do not need to read anything because again - everything is in the axioms
OP is obviously a terminally braindead fact-grubbing-and-interpreting nigger incapable of understanding rationalist philosophies (aside form the question of lolbertarianism).
>>infantile attempts to make connections between math/physics and politics, screams of pseudness
Unironically a good thing, but hardly as common as you make it. Of course you also think (incredibly) that it is a unified strand of thought so you have only ever seen libertarian of this type. People like Hayek spent half their writings bitching about physicist methods. Misesian have very different views on method (see his Theory and History or Ultimate foundations) or his controversy with his brother.
>>worst of all - because of the intellectual appeal of libertarianism as a consistent system of thought they can maintain their illusion of intellectual supremacy over conservatives, socialists, liberals etc. in reality the idea that politics can be boiled down to two axioms is midwit tier
Refusal to entertain rational solutions and obsession with keeping things complex is the actual peak midwit.

[Anonymous No.14677736]

>>14677725
That is literally not what I said retard.
National Socialism is socialism. It has left wing economics as a part of it's ideology, alongside it's culturally far right policies.
"Socialism" is economically left and can be either culturally right wing or culturally left wing. Culturally far right socialism is called National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.14677768]

>>14677736
>culturally far right policies.
It was an explicitly anti-bourgeois (in the 'societal' sense), anti-nobility (which was still very influential) revolutionary movement that spent half its peacetime being opposed to traditional Catholics and destroying one by one all traditional institutions that remained in their land.
If you think of nationalism as some anon up the thread, it had always been linked to the left wing in Germany from the resistance to Napoleon to 1848 to Bismark appeasement policies. Besides many movements in world history (like Maoism) were just as nationalist and not even the most annoying communism-has-never-been-tried types try to frame them as 'right wing'.
Their flagrant homoerotism is the only right wing thing I see in them.

[Anonymous No.14678277]

>>14675528
>much gentrification
Kys shit skin worshiper

[Anonymous No.14678422]

>>14675735
So I can fuck you then ?

[Anonymous No.14678483]

Libertarianism is the only ideology that logically and ethically makes sense
The only ethical issues are purely human, whereas in other ideologies they are systemic
And either way, no you don't have the right to anything someone else owns just because you want it

[Anonymous No.14678719]

>>14678483

And this is exactly why libertarianism is incredibly stupid
Libertarianism is like a salesman or missionary or something of that ilk feeding you loaded obvious questions so you'll buy into whatever they're selling
It's a too good to be true promise predicated entirely on wishful thinking and ignorance of reality

[Anonymous No.14678768]

Libertarianism is simply the mask of anarcho-capitalism. It is after a manner an autistic political ideology, if by autistic we mean an overemphasis on certain narrowly masculine traits, an oblivious self-centeredness that is unable to accomodate the problem of other minds.
Returning to the point that it is merely an entry point to anarcho-capitalism; libertarians fail to see how the values they push for under a market economy will gradually cause drastic divergences in liberty leading to a neo-feudal political constellation. By acting in one's own self interest, the ultimate goal of such behavior would be to set a system where by a feedback loop continually enhances one's self interest. Prior advantage then becomes cumulative advantage and suddenly the liberty of one does not look like the liberty of another.
You might say this is all right and good. But you can't champion an ideology that values liberty above all else if the logical consequence of it is that it results in the liberty of one, if it sucks up all the liberty from everybody else. Fully unbridled capitalism always results in monopoly and capitalism that has the liberty to make no distinction between economic and political power will take it, and there a different kind of word for a political monopoly.

[Anonymous No.14678887]

>>14675535
>state existing at all
>left wing
imagine being this much of a pseud,....

[Anonymous No.14679484]

>>14677688
No, fuck you, nigger. Henry George thought private ownership of land was one of the greatest moral sins of mankind and wanted to spread wealth generated by land-based resources to eradicate poverty. He would rightfully spit on worthless NAP-obsessed libertarian autists and you should feel bad for ever implying otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14679875]

>>14675535
Nigga you dumb

[Anonymous No.14679895]

>>14675528
So, why is raising the wage bad for them?

[Anonymous No.14679900]

>>14675686
The Non-Agression Principle is a terrible ethical foundation, that’s often coupled with a profound ignorance of human behavior. Impracticable and never implemented by any society.

[Anonymous No.14679912]

>>14679900
every single society incorporates the non-aggression principle. It's the basis behind the concept of self-defense

[Anonymous No.14679924]

>>14677768

>It was an explicitly anti-bourgeois (in the 'societal' sense), anti-nobility (which was still very influential)
Then why did Hitler explicitly go out of his way to please the deeply conservative sectors of German society like Prussian nobility and the military? He didn't murder Ernst Rohm and the leadership of the SA just because 'lol faggot'. Also, the industrialists like Krupp, Porche, DWM and others got extremely rich using slave labor in their factories.

[Anonymous No.14679933]

>>14679912
The concept of self-defense predates the concept of the NAP by millennia. Ultimately, no society has ever used the principles of the NAP as its guiding ethical foundation.

[Anonymous No.14679948]

>>14679933
The concept of self-defense is literally inextricable from the concept underlying the nap. They're the same idea.

[Anonymous No.14680002]

>>14679948
See?
This is what I mean by a profound ignorance of human behavior.
Go read articles about the NAP, its axioms and its implications for the existence of the state, law enforcement, moral customs, war, and the like. You would quickly see that what’s meant by NAP would be a completely unacceptable idea for nearly every society that has ever existed, let alone an ethical foundation of any society.

It doesn’t matter that there’s some overlap between the NAP and the much older and universal concept of self-defense, they are not the same concept at all.

[Anonymous No.14680016]

>>14680002
Libertarians autistically universalize the NAP, that doesn't mean it's not a component of pretty much every human morality. There are no codes of human ethics that work 100% of the time, our behavior is always a somewhat contradictory mixture of rules.

[Anonymous No.14680027]

>>14680016
>that doesn't mean it's not a component of pretty much every human morality.
Except it isn’t. The NAP would be a completely foreign idea before liberalism, which is fairly recent in the timescale of our species. An just by looking at how people behave and what they support, you can deduce its underlying assumption isn’t endorsed by most of our species

[Anonymous No.14680048]

>>14680027
"don't aggress unless aggressed' is a principle present in like the entire animal kingdom let alone just humans

[Anonymous No.14680067]

>>14680048
>"don't aggress unless aggressed' is a principle present in like the entire animal kingdom
Lol
I’m sure lions think about it before hunting their prey. I’m certain gorillas take that principle to heart when they engage in infanticide.

You’ve got to be joking.

[Anonymous No.14680090]

>>14680067
They absolutely do, game theory has been used extensively in studying the dynamics of how wild animals evolved to behave in conflicts.

[cunt No.14680107]

>>14675535
true
>>14675588
>>14675589
>>14675593
>>14675596
>>14676220
>>14679875
you retards have no understanding of history,politics,or economics. go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.14680128]

>>14680090
You clearly do not know much about game theory or biology.
The fact that animals are able to cooperate does not entail they believe unprovoked aggression to be morally wrong. Animals engage in aggression all the time if their instincts tell them its worth the reward. Whatever it be for eating, mating or establishing hierarchies, unprovoked aggression is one of the most omnipresent aspects of the struggle for survival. Anyone who believes otherwise fundamentally does not understand existence as a living organism.

[Anonymous No.14680156]

>>14675528
>2020 the year of some people's Lord
>Treating 1-D political descriptors as complete descriptions of ideology

Don't step on my spook *sniff* *wipes nose* dog bless

[Anonymous No.14680171]

>>14680128
Humans engage in unprovoked aggression as well. What i said was that pretty much all higher animals, including humans, understand the nap principle because it is a very useful strategy.

[Anonymous No.14680212]

>>14680171
You’re once again using the NAP to describe other concepts. Cooperation isn’t synonymous with the NAP. No fucking animal other than humans understands the NAP, and when humans cooperate they are rarely thinking of the amateur intellectual concoctions of libertarians.

Now that you mentioned game theory, there’s plenty of scenarios where unprovoked aggression is not only expected, but rational as well.

[Anonymous No.14680221]

>>14680212
One of the names they call it in game theory is 'tit for tat', which means that you only defect in response to the other player defecting. Again, it's an extremely common strategy in nature. The existence of other strategies doesn't contradict this.

[Anonymous No.14680235]

>>14679484
No, you didn't read Henry George carefully enough. He respected the NAP and argued against socialism as he general redistribution of wealth for the sole purpose of ending poverty as unjust. He also believed in the existence of natural hierarchys and that trying to suppress them is a hopeless endeavor.

Although superficially a socialist idea, his intentions and arguments for why land most be equally divided are quite different. Also, I mentioned here >>14675767 why land ownership can currently be considered a NAP violation.

>>14679900

The NAP is strong because it makes as little assumptions as possible. Given no other information or context about a situation or person, I assume violence to be wrong and the incorrect answer.

Just like the maxim is innocent until proven guilty, the NAP is the conviction that we should be non violent as a default.

It is claimed or meant to always lead to the best outcome, as some autistic ancaps will rationalize it would, since I'm sure the innocent until proven guilty has let plenty get away with murder.

However, it is a strong moral principle because it's simple, clear, and only asks you to restrict an action, which is always possible. Furthermore, it allows us to admit our humility and limitlessness in our ability to always judge situations and determine the best course action.

[Anonymous No.14680241]

>>14680235
>It is claimed or meant to always lead to the best outcome

I meant it is NOT claimed or meant to always lead to the best outcome.

[Anonymous No.14680242]

>>14680221
>The existence of other strategies doesn't contradict this.
It completely contradicts your claim that "don't aggress unless aggressed is a principle present in the entire animal kingdom”.

Animals engage in tit for tat because it increases their chances of survival in some scenarios, not because they believe unprovoked aggression, something they do all the time, to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.14680249]

>>14680242
How does that contradict it? It's obviously a principle present in the animal kingdom if they're using it as a strategy. Human morality is also just 'strategies that increase survival in some scenarios', there's no difference.

[Anonymous No.14680251]

>>14680235
>The NAP is strong because it makes as little assumptions as possible.
It makes the potentially fatal assumption that the other party behaves according to the NAP as well. So costly is this assumption that the NAP has never become foundational anywhere.

[Anonymous No.14680263]

>>14680249
>It's obviously a principle present in the animal kingdom if they're using it as a strategy.
Except they aren’t. They are using the “in this particular case, unprovoked aggression is too costly for me”, not “unprovoked aggression is morally wrong”. I’m surprised you still can’t see the difference between these two.

You cannot claim a serial killer believes in the NAP because he doesn’t murder everyone he meets.

[Anonymous No.14680269]

>>14680263
The serial killer makes a calculated decision, whereas the moral person has some emotion related to issue, which emotion evolved as part of a calculus answering the same cost-benefit question that the serial killer consciously works out.

[Anonymous No.14680294]

>>14680269
And these emotions vary between different scenarios, they are almost never the belief that “unprovoked aggression is morally wrong” libertarians claim is an a priori moral truth.

You still don’t seem to get it.

[Anonymous No.14680298]

>>14680251
It literally doesn't you fucking tard.

Morality is an individual endeavor. I choose to obey the NAP because I believe in it, not because I think others will (though I try to convince them to).

Morals aren't just some top-down crazy scheme to design a society. Sure, some pass it off as that and governments and large organizations put out propaganda about how important they are. Even then, it's ultimately down to the individuals to believe in moral or reject the morals they are exposed to.

[Anonymous No.14680310]

>>14680294
I'd say that is a very common belief for humans to have. We don't walk around attacking strangers on the street and if someone does attack us then we feel justified in retribution. Similar rules govern relationships with people we know.

It's not the literal sum total of human behavior, which is why I agree that libertarians are autistic, but to deny that it's a very common feature of our morality seems willfully ignorant to me.

[Anonymous No.14680312]

>>14680235
Why are you trying so hard to retcon Progress and Poverty into being a libertarian tract? George believed explicitly that wealth generated by land-based resources should belong to everyone. He also thought public transportation and most other utilities should be nationalized and provided to citizens for free. He is nowhere on the lib-right quadrant and you're being dishonest by trying to paint him as such.

[Anonymous No.14680318]

>>14680298
>It literally doesn't you fucking tard.
It has to if it is to work as a moral principle for a society, you fucking troglodyte.

>Morality is an individual endeavor.
It is an group endeavor, you fucking illiterate. Read some anthropology and evolutionary biology before you touch the subject again.

[Anonymous No.14680328]

>>14680294
Obviously morals don't objectively exist.

That doesn't mean we can't try to articulate and debate the merits and internal logic of moral principles.

[Anonymous No.14680348]

>>14680310
I don’t think you understand this discussion at all. By the way, aggression encompasses not just physical aggression.

[Anonymous No.14680403]

>>14680318
>It has to if it is to work as a moral principle for a society, you fucking troglodyte.

Why do moral principles have to work for a society? Again, they aren't something explicitly designed to lead to a good outcome (which on a societal wide scale is often impossible).

>It is an group endeavor, you fucking illiterate. Read some anthropology and evolutionary biology before you touch the subject again.

Ok, then why do different people in the same group have different morals? Just because it has a biological game-theoretic origin doesn't mean you are capable of understanding natures internal logic of morality. Real life is a lot more complicated than your toy model tit-for tat game.

>>14680312
Tbh, your right. OP does say lib-right, and George is more lib-left. Though I think his reasoning for wealth distribution is sufficiently different from socialists, and even an-coms to highlight the distinction. I was more trying to argue how it's consistent with the NAP.

[Anonymous No.14680462]

>>14680403
>Why do moral principles have to work for a society?
Because their evolutionary success is the only reason they can be adopted and can endure through time. Otherwise they are just mental masturbation without value to me.

>Ok, then why do different people in the same group have different morals?
Genetic and environmental variance, just like any human trait. You thought this was a good comeback?

>Just because it has a biological game-theoretic origin doesn't mean you are capable of understanding natures internal logic of morality.
That assumes moral realism is true, and that you, in particular, have epistemic access to moral truths that most humans did not endorse. I will grant you neither of these assumptions.

>Real life is a lot more complicated than your toy model tit-for tat game.
Real life is a lot more complicated than your toy Non-aggression Principle.

[Anonymous No.14680545]

>>14680462
You still don't get the primary reason why the NAP is powerful.

Let me repeat:

>However, it is a strong moral principle because it's simple, clear, and only asks you to restrict an action, which is always possible. Furthermore, it allows us to admit our humility and limitlessness in our ability to always judge situations and determine the best course action.

You're absolutely correct that evolutionary success is how ideas and more importantly the people who carry those ideas spread. Most utilitarian ideas are too complicated and situation specific to be passed on or internalized as a moral "meme".

In this regard, the NAPs simplicity is it's strength, since it can be easily passed on from person to person and doesn't require understanding game theory or biology to follow it.

[Anonymous No.14680557]

>>14680545
>In this regard, the NAPs simplicity is it's strength, since it can be easily passed on from person to person
And yet it's only endorsed by a tiny fringe, something I don't see changing any time soon.

[Anonymous No.14680566]

>>14675528
min wage is bad for jobs in many instances (especially small business) because the economy is fucked. read any book on economic retard fuck. artificially raising wages can easily create more unemployment for small businesses

[Anonymous No.14680579]

>>14680235
Complete nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14680600]

>>14680545
The NAP isn't even coherent, let alone 'simple'. It presupposes a system of law in which property has already been privately allocated, hence begs the whole fucking question.

[Anonymous No.14680604]

>>14680566
That myth has been debunked over and over in empirical research, shitcocker.

[Anonymous No.14681761]

>>14675528
>politics based on autistic axiomatization, the notion that you can derive policies from the axioms like you would derive theorems of Euclidean geometry
t. "real politik" retard