/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6128439]

Does /lilt/ have any partiality to libertarianism at all?

[Anonymous No.6128461]

no

[Anonymous No.6128469]

Libertarians tend to be very perceptive on civil rights and very stupid on almost everything else. For some reason they're willing to accept hierarchy as natural and correct if there's an unfalsifiable, unscientific textbook written by a guy from Harvard that says they should.

They're better than conservatives, and in some ways better than mainstream Democrats. I put them in the same category as orthodox Marxists--both have broken away to some extent from mainstream political discourse but fallen into reductive and intellectually stultifying ideologies anyway.

[Anonymous No.6128501]

>>6128469
this is well put

[Anonymous No.6128502]

>>6128439
I want to smack that face.

All my intro econ professors in college were rabid 'friedman men.' Bunch of yahoos I tell you.

History of econ was a much better course, of course the professor studies history/econ at Oxford. Unlike the GMU and Michigan educated turboplebs that taught intro classes.

[Anonymous No.6128517]

Roads are a spook

[Anonymous No.6128522]

>>6128439
Fuck off degenererate, this is board where actual true right-wingers come.

[Anonymous No.6128523]

no fuck off

[Anonymous No.6128541]

>>6128522
>An attack
by whom?

[Anonymous No.6128568]

Read The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi

Liberalism was a bound to fail Utopian project from the start. Libertarianism, based on the fictitious commodities of labor, land, and money, makes even less sense today in a growingly post-industrial society.

[Anonymous No.6128598]

The state operates on a logical contradiction, that being that the people who are part of the 'government' have the right to dispose of other peoples property whereas people (who are no different than the people operating the state) do not have this same right as it is considered 'theft'.

The more you begin to look at the state in the same light one would look at the mafia, the similarities begin to become more and more apparent which is no surprise since the two organizations are fundamentally the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0HtWSlFCAQ

[Anonymous No.6128612]

>>6128598
Profit motive v Public good. This is why I dislike libertarians.

[Anonymous No.6128631]

>>6128568
Fictitous? Really!?

[Anonymous No.6128632]

>>6128598
The modern state exists to support the conditions of the existence of a market society. To get anywhere near the conditions for laissez faire to even exist requires a massive state apparatus to create it. Why do you think Hayek would support a brutal dictatorships like Chile under Pinochet? It's funny the most economically free societies always end up having to have a large state security apparatus to just support their continuing existence against the rabble.

[Anonymous No.6128637]

>>6128632
That sounds reasonable. Should you be on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.6128638]

>>6128598
>>>r/anarchocapitalism

if you honestly find 6th-grade-level explainer video convincing and you can't see the holes in it nothing I say will convince you, you've got your own blinders on.

if your gut reaction to this is "what are your arguments against it," then do me a favor and prove to me that you can think by imagining what some of my arguments against it would be (they're really obvious) and writing answers to those, so we can pick up the argument a few steps down the line.

[Anonymous No.6128639]

>>6128469
>better than conservatives

kek

[Anonymous No.6128643]

>>6128638
That seems intellectually lazy on your part.

[Anonymous No.6128654]

>>6128643
If it seems that way you to, that's fine. I personally don't believe anything I've done is as intellectually lazy as posting that video.

[Anonymous No.6128662]

>>6128654
Low bar to hold yourself to. You expect argument from your opponent but offer none yourself.

[OP !YiwP2pBVzo No.6128668]

I used to be an avid reader, until around my 14th year birthday. That said, I was able to chug down books, fairly fast and efficient reader. Teenage ears kicked in and that's that. My fast reading ability is as rusty as it can get.

In any case, I'm 22 now and I've discovered that when I smoke marihuana, and get just a little high, I'm able to read between 2.5 - 4 times faster than [my current] normal. Anyone got a similar experience or know why this happens?

>My english may, or may not suck. Not my native tongue.

[Anonymous No.6128679]

Why are economists so smug? it's a pseudoscience based on axioms about human behavior taken directly out of their asses, their models are flawed, their predictions inconsistent, their postulates so context-sensitive as to be better suited for description. Yet the world keeps on trusting this 'science', they keep on basing policy and, worst, philosophy out of studies that invariably prove to be wrong as as systems in the coming decades. Libertarianism is so ideological it hurts.

[Anonymous No.6128680]

>>6128668
Drinking does that for me. Able to engage with material superficially and then come back sober to clarify arguments.

[Anonymous No.6128684]

>>6128639
>libertarians
>not better than conservatives

top kek

[Anonymous No.6128692]

>>6128679
You want pure techno-liberdorkian ideology? Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQy0ZCx3UCY&feature=youtu.be&t=31m33s

[Anonymous No.6128694]

>>6128684
Definitely not proper traditionalists

Mainstream "conservatives" maybe, but the bar isn't very high

[Anonymous No.6128696]

>>6128679
It's statistical. You have to see their conclusions based on probability which most people do not.

[Anonymous No.6128699]

>>6128439

Libertarians have a such a narrow scope of what the political consists of it's hard to have interesting conversations with them. For them, the political is merely the composition of gov't in relation to the individual. The political is much broader than that, it deals with how people are organized on multiple scales and the effects that has on their lives.

See it's basically all stuff like >>6128598

A very simple ethical argument from an individualistic perspective with its implications sussed out to a more or less extensive degree. They're almost refusing to do politics, and instead doing ethics.

[Anonymous No.6128700]

As a historical phenomenon, I am partial to classic liberalism for ending the institutions of feudalism. But currently libertarianism(which considers itself as the champion of the classic liberals, as it calls itself is an ahistorical moral aesthetic quasi-religious movement dedicated to the perpetuation of class rule, if the funding isn't a dead giveaway then muh human nature is. Their solutions to ending things like racism(have black people charge more for rent to make the landlord lose money if they don't accept them.) are ridiculous. They would also like to repudiate the infrastructure that lead to their birth and upbringing.

Captcha: mnges

[Anonymous No.6128707]

>>6128469
Ayup.

Economics is a pretty nascent scientific discipline.

[Anonymous No.6128721]

>>6128612
>Profit motive v Public good

This is a false dichotomy. How could a select group of bureaucrats possibly discern what the 'public good' is? If history has shown us anything, it is that the state is responsible for more chaos and destruction than any other institution. Yes you can argue that businesses had a hand in moving the state towards their ends (ie, the military-industrial complex) but the only reason those things come to be is because the state gives them the means to facilitate them.

[Anonymous No.6128726]

>>6128707
How long does it take you to see benefits to a field of study?

[Anonymous No.6128728]

>>6128662
4 U

1. what if you just run government deficits instead of taxing, can you prove this is necessarily inflationary?
2. what if the majority of your constituents support your effort to tax the rich minority?
3. why is private property assumed to be prior to the government? that is, can you prove that the "legitimate" wealth held by members of your society was not acquired or kept by help from the "illegitimate" government? if you can't, what makes their property morally defensible?
4. replace "king" with "CEO." if the CEO doesn't give people jobs, they will not have enough money to live. how is this different from your king's threats?
5. is there such a thing as a coercive trade transaction, or does capitalism solve coercion for you?
6. a person is born with severe mental and physical defects. they cannot work. is it immoral to keep them alive?

have the rest of the argument with yourself or take it up with other leftists here.

[Anonymous No.6128730]

>>6128721
the state is simply a conglomerate of private (class) interests

[Anonymous No.6128733]

>>6128721
Not a false dichotomy. Mafia use profit motive, States ought to be trying to promote public good.

[Anonymous No.6128742]

I don't get why /pol/ and /lit/ constantly bash Libertarianism despite not really knowing anything else about it other than "muh capitalism" or "muh hierarchy". The kind of capitalism Libertarians aspire too is completely different from the state-driven capitalism we have now.

As if Liberalism, Socialism and Communism do away with hierarchy, all they do is replace one hierarchy with another, Liberalism especially. As Georg Herwegh, a Liberal radicalist most of the self-described "Liberals" here wouldn't know, said "Liberalism is nothing else than the knowledge of reason, applied to our existing relations". Which simply applies "reason" to hierarchy rather than the divine.

Libertarianism is completely against hierarchy, the existance of money does not create hierarchy in anyway other than it makes debt ridden college marxist butthurt because they can't do whatever they want on the back of someone elses labor.

[Anonymous No.6128748]

>>6128679
I'm an economist and among the people i know it's very common to think that economics is a pseudoscience, i don't think we are smug (i know it's a shitty sample). We are only smug in the sense that reading/listening to non economists talk about economics is usually cringeworthy. Also 99% of libertarians aren't economists.

[Anonymous No.6128766]

>>6128699
>For them, the political is merely the composition of gov't in relation to the individual. The political is much broader than that, it deals with how people are organized on multiple scales and the effects that has on their lives.

I like how you juxtapose

>Libertarians have a such a narrow scope

with

>The political is much broader than that

as if your sophistic wordplay adds any sort of depth to your argument. What are you talking about politics being 'much broader'? Bureaucrats would like to think they organize society on 'multiple scales' but they do nothing of the sort. Individuals organize themselves on the basis of their own personal preferences and choices, the only effect politics has on their lives is how much freedom their overlords allow them to have.

[Anonymous No.6128769]

>>6128748

>99% of libertarians aren't economists

Not now they're not because the government pays them off to support their lies. Pre-1920, almost every economist and merchant supported a Liberal economy.

[Anonymous No.6128777]

>>6128439
It's definitely the most solipsistic and cynical ideology

[Anonymous No.6128778]

>>6128769
Liberalism =/= Libertarianism

Classical liberalism has some solid backing and has done some good for the world (and some bad too). Libertarianism is just batshit insane.

[Anonymous No.6128779]

>>6128769
Conspiracy theory than confusing libertarians and liberals. Wow!

[Anonymous No.6128784]

>>6128733
Are you telling me that the people in the highest echelons of government are not profiting from their position? Are you so naive as to believe that the concept of profit is merely monetary?

Also,
>States ought to be trying to promote public good.

Sure, they ought to, but do they? Does the coercive extraction of wealth into the hands of the greatest power-mongers in the world seem like a good system for promoting the 'public good', as if there is such a thing? 'Public' is just a way of classifying groups of individuals, without the individual there is no 'public'.

[Anonymous No.6128788]

>>6128778
Tell me the bad side of classical liberalism please and thank you.

[Anonymous No.6128789]

>>6128769
Pre (and post) 1920 orthodox economics was neoclassical economics, not libertarianism, at least since alfred marshall. Liberalism and libertarianism aren't synonyms.

[Anonymous No.6128793]

>>6128748
I know they are not, but libertarianism in my eyes is a political interpretation of laissez-aire and chicago-school liberalism

[Anonymous No.6128794]

>>6128778
>>6128779

Liberalism does not equal "the Liberal". I was using the word "liberal" to mean "free". Political Liberals are the biggest parasites known to man.

[Anonymous No.6128802]

>>6128789

Libertarian economics is exactly the same thing though. Its capitalism without state influence i.e corperations. The bigger question for the none-libertarian is what you replace laissez-faire economics with. You'll find there is none short of Communist wet-dreams about robots and singularities.

[Anonymous No.6128803]

>>6128784
Ought to and what is the case doesn't harm the position. Then you just have to fix that policy wise not mess with the the original theorictical base.

[Anonymous No.6128814]

>>6128794
Learn the terms before entering the debate.

[Anonymous No.6128815]

Libertarians are people who are so optimistic they think humanity will stop making war and so pessimistic they think no one will ever learn to share.

[Anonymous No.6128822]

>>6128803
>Then you just have to fix that policy wise not mess with the the original theorictical base.

Evidence trumps theory, does it not?

[Anonymous No.6128823]

>>6128802
Really? How about common sense regulations over Communist wet dreams?

[Anonymous No.6128824]

>>6128733
>ought = is

[Anonymous No.6128827]

>>6128802
It isn't, neoclassical economics is different epistemologically (not praxeology), methodologically (heavy use of mathematics and behavioural models), in it's assumptions (not necessarily perfect markets, information problems, externalities, etc.), and in it's conclusions (yes the market is the best at resource allocation but a reduced state with some macromanagement is necessary). Don't get me wrong, both are shit, but they aren't the same.

[Anonymous No.6128828]

>>6128469
Non-libertarians tend not to be very perceptive on civil rights and knowledgeable on almost everything else.
For some reason they're willing to deny hierarchy as natural and correct if there's an unfalsifiable unscientific textbook written by a guy from Harvard that says they should.

ftfy

[Anonymous No.6128829]

>>6128822
No. You'd have to show it will always will lead to those results.

[Anonymous No.6128832]

>>6128824
Not really implied. But nice try :)

[Anonymous No.6128834]

I think most libertarians are greedy children who just want to avoid the taxman and keep their money for themselves. They have no compassion or understanding that they live and work in a society, that the infrastructure they use doesn't come out of nowhere and economic inequality won't just correct itself or it's a 'meritocracy'.
I agree with the general principle that the gov't should be checked and to be made accountable on any transgressions on rights.

[Anonymous No.6128838]

>>6128822
>a libertarian saying "Evidence trumps theory"
top lel
"The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience."

[Anonymous No.6128851]

>>6128829
I'm fairly certain the thousands of years of warfare throughout history shows that giving people the means to dispose of others income at their whim is proof enough that the system is fundamentally flawed.

[Anonymous No.6128855]

>>6128851
Warfare in the society or between societies?

[Anonymous No.6128857]

>>6128814

What the fuck are you on about. You misinterpreted what I said, are you seriously implying I didn't know what a Liberal was until 5 minutes ago? This isn't a "debate", I'm telling you.

>>6128823

>common sense

Buzzword for "what I think". Its was "common sense" for Hitler to gas the jews. It is "common sense" for Muslims to throw gays off building or burn journalists. It was "common sense" for the Japanese to destroy Pearl Harbour. It was "common sense" for the Americans to bomb Japan.

>>6128834

Yes, Libertarians are the greedy ones, not the state who threatens to send its brutes round to your house to take your property or throw in prison if you don't give a portion of what you earn so you can fund your own oppression. Yes, its completely uncompassionate to think its possible for humans to do anything for themselves in groups without the overlord whipping and imprisoning them. Its totally not selfish of the government to declare entire nations-worth of tracts of land "theirs" without ever using it, and shooting or imprisoning anyone who wants to use it for themselves without paying the state first.

[Anonymous No.6128860]

>>6128788
Its obsession with currency pegs, its rejection of monetary policy as a tool to stabilize the economic cycles, senseless deregulation leading to the Great Depression.

Heck, you can see it just by comparing the US and China (both using neokeynesian economics to get out of the crisis) with the European Union (using neoclassical, borderline monetarist policies, still stuck in recession and threatening to drag down the rest of the world again)

>>6128802
It's not the same thing. Capitalism cannot exist without the legal framework the State provides. Classical liberals understand this, libertarian morons do not.

[Anonymous No.6128863]

>>6128857
>What the fuck are you on about. You misinterpreted what I said, are you seriously implying I didn't know what a Liberal was until 5 minutes ago? This isn't a "debate", I'm telling you.
I'm not even him but it's obvious you didn't and still don't.

[Anonymous No.6128865]

>>6128766
Relax your knee. It's jerking.

We don't disagree. My being sophistical is me saying, in as many words, that people organize themselves, and how people organize themselves outside of government - business, church, family, friends, etc - is as important as how the formal government is organized. The composition of these organizations needs to be as carefully considered as the organizations that are composed of law. They can be just as corrosive and just as promoting of freedom, virtue, and any other ends of organization.

[Anonymous No.6128866]

>>6128855
Does that make a difference?

[Anonymous No.6128869]

>>6128857
You used liberal in a way that was different from common practice.
Common sense from a classic liberal's perspective (position being defended) which negates your examples.

[Anonymous No.6128873]

>>6128522
Keep on dreaming buddy

[Anonymous No.6128879]

>>6128860

>Capitalism cannot exist without the legal framework the State provides

Yes it can, stop being stupid. THis is one of those things socialists and communists always say but never back up.

>>6128863

I know exactly what Liberalism is, on a more sophisticated level than you do you knuckle dragger.

[Anonymous No.6128887]

>>6128866
Yes. If you are fighting against a society not conforming to your values it doesn't show your values are wrong. If your society is bound to be warring over the same values it may pose a problem.

[Anonymous No.6128888]

>>6128857
>what's positive liberty?

Libertarians advocate the forms and principles of justice which ensures the rule of the class which conceived them. Perpetuation of those are the perpetuation of the bourgeois state. Do you really think the protection your private property and the structure of the markets is free?

[Anonymous No.6128895]

>>6128887
So? That still doesn't change the fact that the state is the means through which organized warfare takes place.

[Anonymous No.6128897]

>>6128522
Wow what a stupid thing to say

[Anonymous No.6128900]

>>6128865
How it is organized is of no consequence. It is whether or not people who operate under the guise of the 'state' have the right to dispose of your property which matters.

[Anonymous No.6128901]

>>6128879
>Yes it can, stop being stupid. THis is one of those things socialists and communists always say but never back up.
The first anti-monopoly laws in the United States were passed by Theodore Roosevelt. He's probably rising from his grave right now to kick your ass for calling him a socialist. (And then he's probably going to fight some bears, because he's goddamn Teddy Roosevelt).

Even such emblematic figures from the right advocating laws to preserve capitalist competition, enforce the rule of law, and prevent the kind of monopolies, cornered markets, lootings and other shenanigans that lack of government brings (see Somalia).

You have no fucking clue about anything you are saying, you should just get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.6128904]

>>6128439
The thing about libertarianism is that one can only be partial to it provided one has very little life experience and even less of an understanding of history.

[Anonymous No.6128905]

>>6128895
So war can't be justified!?

[Anonymous No.6128908]

>>6128888

>Libertarians advocate the forms and principles of justice

No they don't. Libertarians follow the Laws of Thermodynamics; they are "priests of entropy". Just as the water erodes the land and redistributes its nutrients among the world, so does the erode the world and distribute its resources amongst themselves. And when we're done with this planet, we'll move to the next. Humans are a force of entropy, and when is said and done we'll return to the Divine State, which is the total heat death of the Universe. The state resists this natural order through violence and evil, and so it is simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.6128911]

>>6128522
>degenerate
Please read Nordau before spouting this meme.

Also, I don't think there are many right-wingers on /lit/. If I'd guess, I'd call most of us apolitic, but that might just be me projecting.

[Anonymous No.6128918]

>>6128911
Have you been around lit?

[Anonymous No.6128923]

>>6128905
War only serves to fund the expansion of power of those in charge.

You really think that the people living in one geographical location would better off organizing a military, funding said military then sending off their own people to kill other people as opposed to trading with them?

[Anonymous No.6128928]

>>6128900
Here's my point exactly. Whenever I try to have a conversation about society, the subject of politics, libertarians literally tell me exactly what you're telling me. You've fetishized one issue among many.

[Anonymous No.6128930]

>>6128901

Theodore Roosevelt was a Socialist. There were no monopolies pre-1920's that were "illegitimate" aside from things like guilds and friendly societies. Standard Oil was a legitimate monopoly because it was the most efficient oil company. The "rule of law" is a myth. Its not "rule of law", its rule over man.

Also, you obviously know nothing, Somalia is a fast growing economy and has been getting better and better ever since they overthrew the Socialist regime there. Bet you didn't know either that Somalia has it own completely non-governmental, non-coercive form of law that has worked for thousands of years which links into what I was saying about "rule of law" not needing a government.

[Anonymous No.6128933]

>>6128895
Stateless primitive societies were in constant war with each other...

[Anonymous No.6128937]

>>6128918
Maybe in different places. Outside of the few politic threads, politics isn't talked about all that much.

[Anonymous No.6128938]

>>6128933

No they weren't. That's a myth.

[Anonymous No.6128941]

>>6128469
>For some reason they're willing to accept hierarchy as natural and correct if there's an unfalsifiable, unscientific textbook written by a guy from Harvard that says they should.

Paraphrasing a certain French Homosexual here, but power structures is what allows the production of truth and discourse. "Hierarchy" is natural, I'm not sure how you will argue that the ordering of things is a purely human concept unless you want to get really gangster on us and say everything we perceive is simply a human concept, which leads no where. I can only assume you mean that Libertarians accept the current hierarchy as the correct and justifiable one, and there really isn't much wrong with this relative to 99% of political philosophies.

And every group has people that are going to thump an academic bible from a Harvard professor. I haven't talked to a Libertarian yet that doesn't have some degree of nuance to their view (in person, the internet isn't and shouldn't be a place for serious discussion). I can't say the same for Marxists but I think that just comes with how large a group Marxists are and that Libertarians have less victimization going on in their consciousness so that they feel less need to shout slogans.

Overall I see them as the superior reactionaries as they don't advocate Fascism or a return to Monarchy and still maintain a healthy respect for Capitalism which is a very rare trait.

[Anonymous No.6128951]

>>6128923
Yes. Sometimes there is no way to deal with other groups then to beat them to submission. Morally, war can be justified. Trade (and other options) will not always solve such problems.

[Anonymous No.6128959]

>>6128928
There are people in prison right now serving life sentences because they only wished to sell marijuana to willing customers. There are people dying right now because they've been conjured up to be some kind of 'enemy of the state' (case in point). There have been mass genocides and starvations throughout history because people were able to wield the power of the state to do so and you have the nerve to say it's a 'fetishized issue'? Are you fucking joking? I fail to see how anything else could be more important.

[Anonymous No.6128960]

>>6128937
All I see are Marxist and feminist threads usually related to a single literary source but still politically chargerd.

[Anonymous No.6128966]

>>6128938
Lel, i'm not a historian but i've been reading history lately. In stateless mongolia, every person you would find that wasn't part of your family was instantly an enemy. In the galia tribes would attack each other every to steal each other. The same for most other parts of the world. Why trade with your neighbour when you are stronger than him and can take his stuff for free?

[Anonymous No.6128968]

>>6128832
Mafia also promotes public good. The state also uses profit motive. You aren't saying anything.

[Anonymous No.6128970]

>>6128966
every year*

[Anonymous No.6128977]

Its a shitty philosophy without any rigour.

I always look to the american south where everyone is a slavering spastic for a good example of the liberatarian ideal.

[Anonymous No.6128979]

>>6128960
Hu? I don't think I ever really saw a feminist thread on /lit/. Or do you mean what /pol/ considers feminism?
About the marxists, yeah, there are a few, but not all that many.

[Anonymous No.6128984]

>>6128966

The Mongolians weren't really "stateless" though. I'll give you that example on technicality, but they weren't tribes of humans so much as clans with their own laws. I'm basing my statement on archeology; its very rare to find evidence of much of conflict anywhere aside from Africa pre-6000BC.

>Why trade with your neighbour when you are stronger than him and can take his stuff for free?

Because although you might be "stronger" than him, he could still fucking kill you with a stray arrow. Why would you want to take another tribeman's "stuff" when you hunting animals and making objects for yourself is so much easier than hunting man?

[Anonymous No.6128988]

>>6128977

>I always look to the american south where everyone is a slavering spastic

I love this Liberal meme.

[Anonymous No.6128998]

>>6128469

Hierarchy is natural and correct. No two people are equal, much less everyone.

[Anonymous No.6129002]

>>6128988
I love the Appeal to Meme fallacy, where one doesn't argue the point being made but instead calls the point a meme.

[Anonymous No.6129004]

>>6128930
>There were no monopolies pre-1920's that were "illegitimate" aside from things like guilds and friendly societies.
Of course they weren't illegitimate, there were practically no laws against them.

>Standard Oil was a legitimate monopoly because it was the most efficient oil company.
Bullshit. You have never taken a single economic class in your life. This is literally Economics 101 you are arguing against.

Limited supply drives prices up and is more inefficient than an atomized, competitive market.

>The "rule of law" is a myth. Its not "rule of law", its rule over man.
Men create laws to rule men. No shit Sherlock.
You are trying to sound deep just by spouting empty catchphrases. Or you are a very good troll.

Either way, the rule of law exists to protect the people that work and produce from those that would just steal and loot, the end result are more incentives to work and produce stuff, resulting in more material goods at cheaper prices and a better society than a lawless shithole.

> Somalia is a fast growing economy and has been getting better and better ever since they overthrew the Socialist regime there. Bet you didn't know either that Somalia has it own completely non-governmental, non-coercive form of law that has worked for thousands of years which links into what I was saying about "rule of law" not needing a government.
haha oh wow
10/10

(PS: The fastest growing African economy is actually Botswana which has one of the lowest corruption indexes, proper rule of law - oh there's that term again - and one of the most transparent legal systems of the continent)

[Anonymous No.6129014]

>>6128988
Im not a liberal. Whatever that means in the the land of the free. I doubt anyone knows to be honest.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

[Anonymous No.6129032]

>>6128439
Can someone please illustrate for me the difference if one exists between Libertarians and freemarketeers?

[Anonymous No.6129034]

>>6128998
>not being a materialist in 2015

We're all just a bunch of complex organisms. One can be better at certain activities but one cannot simply be better. Hierarchies arise or are made because they're convenient, not because anyone is intrinsically better. Better in what regard?

[Anonymous No.6129035]

>>6128984
Stealing is, of course, more profitable than trading. The risk being also higher only means that the trade off being positive or negative is uncertain. Beleiving that people will decide to trade and cooperate (and ignoring history) is an ideological assumption.

[Anonymous No.6129039]

>>6128439
Capitalism as a system is the private control of the means of production with commodities produced for sale for profit in a market. It is not 'voluntary trade' as Libertarians like to propose.

>>6128469


>>6128502
Disgusting. I had to deal with this garbage too.

>>6128522
>>6128598
Lmao.

>>6128632
Correct.

>>6128692
This is not Zizekian par excellence, though it was interesting.

>>6128930
You say that like it is a bad thing. Also, Somalia will never become the perfect libertarian utopia you envision. Western intervention will cease that within years.

[Anonymous No.6129053]

>wake up today, capitalism exists
>wake up tomorrow, capitalism still exists
>wake up tomorrow, capitalism still exists
>repeat indefinitely

feels good man

[Anonymous No.6129054]

>>6128908
Where's Sokal when you need him?
Transcendentalist moral aesthetes would question the benefits of opposable thumbs.
It was only a matter of time before libertarians cut out the middleman and went full theist.

[Anonymous No.6129072]

>>6129035

Stealing from other humans was vastly more dangeous in tribal societies than simply hunting and building their own equipment.

[Anonymous No.6129075]

>>6129053
>wake up today,
feudalism exists
>wake up tomorrow
feudalism still exists
>repeat indefin... wait.

[Anonymous No.6129084]

>>6129054

You're simply too blinded by ideology to see the true nature. Hey, you guys love equality don't you? Everything will be equal when the Universe reaches maximum entropy.

[Anonymous No.6129087]

>>6129072
I just answered this.

[Anonymous No.6129097]

>>6129087

So did I. The archeological evidence simply doesn't support it. That's that.

[Anonymous No.6129125]

>>6129084
>true nature
The Human kind, lmoa?

They're called the laws of Thermodynamics and not the laws of Civilization for a reason.

[Anonymous No.6129138]

>>6129097
Irrelevant since you said that the archeological evidence doesn't support it pre-6000BC and i wasn't talking about pre-6000BC societies. On the other hand, and assuming that war suddenly appear at that point, is it the scientific consensus that the cause is the state or is it the usual libertarian loose interpretation of history?

[Anonymous No.6129230]

>>6129039
>this kind of poster

zero argument, zero substance

[Anonymous No.6129336]

>>6128879
Capitalism can't exist without the state, otherwise I can just kill you and take your property. Who is going to stop me? You? What if I bring a mob or at least other people that I promise a share of loot to once you're dead? There is no way to guarantee property rights without the use of force or the threat of its use. So unless you want to live a life that could be taken right out of a DayZ video, you need a state in some form or another.

[Anonymous No.6129374]

>>6129075
>>6129053

[Anonymous No.6129392]

>>6128984
There are a plethora of examples of intertribal warfare among primitive humans going back way way way farther than 6000 BC, heck even Neanderthals did it. We literally have evidence of Neanderthals killing each other in what would most likely be raids.

And there are plenty of reasons to kill someone rather than trade with them. The plot of land that you herd your sheep on has suffered a drought, you can no longer feed your sheep and thus are about to go hungry and die. Or you could move to a place that still has good grazing, unfortunately there are people there and they don't want to share, as they have their own problems with feeding their current population. So you kill them or you die.

[Anonymous No.6129402]

>>6129336
You do realize the state kills people and takes their property anyways? What kind of cognitive dissonance do you need to not see that?

[Anonymous No.6129431]

>>6129402
What kind of self delusion do you need to see that for capitalism to work you need certain social structures. Property rights, the right to own one's labour, the right to not be assaulted or killed. All of these rights can only be enforced through violence, and that the practitioners of that violence have to be paid for in some way or another, or they'll simply use that violence to divest you of your property and potentially your life. How does that make them any different from the state? You can't get away from statehood because human society is intrinsically based on the willingness and ability to commit violence.

[Anonymous No.6129496]

>>6129431
>Property rights, the right to own one's labour, the right to not be assaulted or killed. All of these rights can only be enforced through violence.

Are you really this dumb?

You cannot have something be a right just so other people can violate that right because in order for that right to work it needs to be violated. That logic wouldn't get you though kindergarten let alone allow you to have any sort of merit on an online anime imageboard.

[Anonymous No.6129500]

>>6129402
Maybe you should try an economic ideology that isn't based on the thought of a parasitic upper class?

At least look into anarcho-syndicalism, it answers some of the problems that arises within a economic system designed to suppress, drain and rob the producers of material wealth. It also protects that misplaced sense of autonomy that you libertarians are so afraid to lose in a Marxist-Leninist state.

Personally I'm reeling between syndicalism and full commie.

>>6129431
Hi, Hobbes. But srsly you're right.

Rights are only enforced by power (not necessary physical, but also information, education), either by a privileged elite, or by the proletariat/precariat. In the first case, it's an unnecessary extra who rarely see the ills of their own decisions, but all the fruit. In the latter we have slimmed down society to it's necessary parts where those who will also take the blunt of any decision are those who have the power.

Any idea of right to property or land, more than that enforced by the collective, is illusionary.

[Anonymous No.6129503]

>>6129336
Hence minarchism

[Anonymous No.6129530]

>>6129496
The point that I fucked up explaining was that all rights aren't really rights, and the only thing you have a right to is what you can defend from people who wish to take it. States provide collective security in exchange for the physical and fiscal support of the population they ostensibly protect.

Violence may not decide who is right and who is wrong, but the point is moot, because you're dead.

[Anonymous No.6129555]

>>6129530
>the only thing you have a right to is what you can defend from people who wish to take it

So I have the moral right to defend myself from the government do I not? I can't seem to grasp how you cannot seem to grasp how the logic of the existence of the state is faulty at best, since pretty much every single argument in this thread in favor of the state is so blatantly hypocritical.

I guess it goes to show how effective state sponsored education is in warping minds into the erroneous belief that we need people to protect us from other people when in reality those protectors are the ones exploiting us.

[Anonymous No.6129603]

There's noting intrinsically wrong with theft. Does a starving man not have the right to take a loaf of bread? To universally condemn theft in a society where there exists poverty is just a snidely way of saying some people don't have the right to life. The rich have a moral duty to protect the poor and should be forced to if they won't voluntarily. Libertarian ethics are just abstract moralism detached from the real world.

[Anonymous No.6129632]

>>6129555
You do have the right to defend yourself from the government. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences of starting such a conflict. But hey, if you win you implement the stateless society you yearn for. You can do anything you want if you're stronger than those who oppose you.

[Anonymous No.6129765]

In america , libertarianism is the branch of liberalism where 'roads are built by companies' ?

[Anonymous No.6129786]

>>6129603
>There's noting intrinsically wrong with theft. Does a starving man not have the right to take a loaf of bread?
Theft is wrong, is the worst thing that you can do in liberalism because it violates the principle of property (=the most important concept in this doctrine). To rebut the notion of property destroys the whole doctrine. And this is what you do when you robe somebody, you threaten the entire liberalism. Nobody jokes about theft for a reason, even more so when the bourgeois are in command.

[Anonymous No.6130132]

>>6128568
>Read The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi
the guy is the typical socialist => there is nothing to expect from him

[Anonymous No.6130319]

>>6128778
Bastiat was a classic liberal.

[Anonymous No.6130327]

>>6129503
hence we cut out the markets as an unnecessary parasitic class of middleman.

[Anonymous No.6130354]

Guys, it's already been proved that the rate of return on investments r is always greater than economic growth, g, meaning capital always accumulates in the hands of the rich. Without wealth distribution, capitalism is itself a failure. L2Piketty

The only reason we ever had a middle class was because of two world wars destroying a large amount of concentrated wealth

Also bastiat is a hack who's arguments wouldn't even be considered serious by any ethical or legal professor of philosophy

[Anonymous No.6130363]

>>6129765
Essentially, yes.

[Anonymous No.6130471]

>>6129004
> atomized, competitive market
> in the oil industry
u r stupid

letmegooglethatforyou/ natural+monopoly

[Anonymous No.6130516]

>>6130471
You do realize libertarianism is against the idea of natural monopolies, right? You do realize that if natural monopolies were really a thing, it would justify government-owned monopolies to prevent predatory practices in such sensitive areas, right?

[Anonymous No.6130542]

>>6130516
Actually curious. Please expand: government-owned industry in my capitalist paradise?
Sauce pls

[Anonymous No.6130548]

>>6130542
I said against.
It's like you morons can't even read.

[Anonymous No.6130558]

>>6130548
>libertarianism is against the idea of natural monopolies
This is like saying I am against the sky being blue.
You also said:
> if natural monopolies were really a thing, it would justify government-owned monopolies
who said this?
Finally, why do you curse? pic related

[Anonymous No.6130573]

>>6130558
>This is like saying I am against the sky being blue.
Yes, it is. That's why libertarianism is idiotic.

>who said this?
http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

>Finally, why do you curse?
You must be new here.

[Anonymous No.6131403]

>>6128692
How fucking dillusional can you be? I just wanna go Kascynski on them.

[Anonymous No.6132108]

>>6128742
>Liberalism especially. As Georg Herwegh, a Liberal radicalist most of the self-described "Liberals" here wouldn't know, said "Liberalism is nothing else than the knowledge of reason, applied to our existing relations". Which simply applies "reason" to hierarchy rather than the divine.
Yes, because we show reason all day long presently and can only become better if we remove the socialist constructions...

[Anonymous No.6132148]

>>6128984
>The Mongolians weren't really "stateless" though. I'll give you that example on technicality, but they weren't tribes of humans so much as clans with their own laws. I'm basing my statement on archeology; its very rare to find evidence of much of conflict anywhere aside from Africa pre-6000BC.


Reminder that proofs of murders are dated to our beginning of domestication and settling down into villages.

[Anonymous No.6132215]

>>6128439
Yeah, libertarian socialism

[Anonymous No.6132251]

>>6129603
>There's noting intrinsically wrong with theft. Does a starving man not have the right to take a loaf of bread? To universally condemn theft in a society where there exists poverty is just a snidely way of saying some people don't have the right to life. The rich have a moral duty to protect the poor and should be forced to if they won't voluntarily.

Is this for real
The rich have no moral duty to protect the poor
Nobody has a 'right to life'
However the government has an obligation to tend to its citizens the best it can, but that's it

[Anonymous No.6132255]

>>6132251
No one has any moral duty at all, therefore there is nothing wrong with theft.

[Anonymous No.6132257]

>>6132255
They have a right to theft in the same capacity that the 'owner' has a right to defend his possessions.

[Anonymous No.6132262]

>>6132257
He doesn't, He can, but he doesn't have any right to.

[Douchebag cunt faggot asshole !JbFxwYeP2o No.6132265]

>>6130354
My nigga

Just read Piketty, assholes

[Anonymous No.6132267]

>>6132262
Your distinction of right seems arbitrary.
If he has the means to it, he has the right to it, whether this is conventionally 'right' or 'wrong' isn't related.

[Anonymous No.6133183]

>>6132262
> believing in rights
> our year of the lord,
I bet that you also believe in wrongs, faggot

[Anonymous No.6133431]

>>6128959
Baby. Bathwater.

[Anonymous No.6133442]

>>6128469
Hierarchies not natural.

Someones scared of being dumber than someone else. Some people are just better at things know more things.

[Anonymous No.6133469]

>>6128632
I don't think it does, the state seems to exist to profit off of the capitalists. They promise non intervention or favorable intervention into the markets and get paid handsomely for it with kick backs, they also need to appease the masses. This is why we have socialism for the rich and the poor.

[Anonymous No.6133491]

>>6128679
There needs to be liberty in economics precisely because human behavior isn't predictable and models don't work.

[Anonymous No.6133512]

>>6128700
How do you intend the state to deal with racism. Make people check their privilege or what.

[Anonymous No.6133526]

>>6128815
I'm convinced no one here knows anything about libertarians. Its not against sharing its against forced sharing.

[Anonymous No.6133644]

>>6128728
That is the main crux of lolbertarians, they will never understand private corporations act just as the state does, being the state itself a very capitalist, corporate-like institution in this day and age

[Anonymous No.6133650]

>>6128742
>the existance of money does not create hierarchy in anyway
Oh mah boi, do you really think that the blue collar guy working in random shifts (i.e. My father) has the means to actually raise himself above the class he's born into and become a quasi-aristocrat or whatever bullshit meritocrats believe in?

The need to get money is, in itself, the biggest reason why one can't get more money.

[Anonymous No.6133656]

>>6133526
A fair, transparent legal system cannot be mantained without taxation.

[Anonymous No.6133664]

>>6133656
>A fair, transparent legal system
hahahahahahahaha, good one.

[Anonymous No.6133670]

>>6133656
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.6133672]

I like how they enable poor kids to access books without otherwise having to purchase them

It's just a shame so many are just used for computers these days

[Anonymous No.6133681]

>>6133672
11/10

[Anonymous No.6133692]

>>6128522
no u

[Anonymous No.6133714]

>>6133670
Human history proves this. Tell me of one successful capitalists state with no taxation whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.6133716]

>>6133656
> fair system
there will be at least 6 billion definitions of such system in this planet, not counting dead people and schizophrenics

[Anonymous No.6133811]

>>6133650
>do you really think that the blue collar guy working in random shifts (i.e. My father) has the means to actually raise himself above the class he's born into and become a quasi-aristocrat or whatever bullshit meritocrats believe in?
It's possible.

[Anonymous No.6133828]

>>6128857
>Its totally not selfish of the government to declare entire nations-worth of tracts of land "theirs" without ever using it
Is it selfish to do the same for rich landowners?

[Anonymous No.6133838]

>>6129014
You do realize they not only can, but do make interviews like that in every other country? It's cherry picking.

[Anonymous No.6133883]

>>6129603
>Does a starving man not have the right to take a loaf of bread?
No.

Moral obligations include, but do not end with fulfillment of rights.
If Johnny has a big bag of little cow candies, and he knows that Pete really likes little cow candies, then Johnny has an obligation to share a few with Pete, but it is not Pete's right to take them unless offered.

[Anonymous No.6133907]

>>6133442
criminally underrated 5 star 10/10 flawless post

[Anonymous No.6133964]

>>6133811
I'm not american and have absolutely no idea where would a blue collar / lower middle class family would be in that spectrum, and yet, most of what I see (in my country), is people remaining in whatever class they were born into, exceptions being people like my parents, who despite their non-superior teaching background made sure me and my brother went to college (not that I have any chance of going anywhere with my humanities dregree, lel)

[Anonymous No.6133996]

>>6133714
You can't answer a question with another question it makes your argument look weak.

[Anonymous No.6134002]

>>6133964
>most of what I see (in my country), is people remaining in whatever class they were born into
Anecdotes/confirmation bias. People who change class are not likely to be noticed because they would move away to a different neighborhood, I think.

Although you can google "economic mobility in %country_name%" and prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.6135664]

>>6128668
Reading high makes me slower, reading drunk makes me faster.

[Anonymous No.6135673]

>>6133526
>I'm convinced no one here knows anything about libertarians. Its not against sharing its against forced sharing.
We have natural tendencies to share when the situation is not required (=weak inequalities), and not to share when the situation is required (=many inequalities)

[Anonymous No.6135688]

>>6128439

I hate that stupid, arrogant grin so much.

> money can't exist without governments
> no government control leads to utilitarian morals
> if libertarianism worked so well, why isn't there a single country that fully embraces it

There are so many reasons it just doesn't work, I don't know where to start..

[Anonymous No.6135710]

>>6133883

However at some point, Johnny and Pete have agreed to live in a society with certain rules. One rule might be to share leftovers with the needy.

Of course, everybody is free to leave this society and join another or try to survive on his own.

[Anonymous No.6135794]

>Justice is the advantage of the stronger
geez who resurrected Thrasymachus and how did he learn to use a computer

[Anonymous No.6135804]

>>6128721

>How could a select group of bureaucrats possibly discern what the 'public good' is?

by holding a public vote in which the people elect a representative who they believe is suited to act in their best interest

>the only reason those things come to be is because the state gives them the means to facilitate them.

le nope. I mean, I guess if their were no state, we could have absolute militarized brutality and corporate despotism.

I get what your saying, but the reason those things exist is because the people permit them through their stupidity and cowardice, because people do not realize the purpose of the state, because people spend their time bitching about the government rather than trying to control it.

[Anonymous No.6135809]

>>6135794
Mao was THE philosopher king.

[Anonymous No.6135839]

Libertarians are today's dumb children of yesterdays dumb baby boomer conservetards, same logic different rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.6136216]

>>6130516
But that's wrong anytime a company would try to do anything "predatory" they leave a hole to be competed with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Henry_Dow

[Anonymous No.6136231]

>>6133650
most millionaires are self made. As is is only a few people can do a capitalists job.

[Anonymous No.6136238]

>>6135673
Some people cannot be helped at least not by throwing money at them..

[Anonymous No.6136245]

>>6136231
Capitalists are totally superfluous and exist only to negotiate assets of privilege amoungst their class. Millionaires are millionaires because their parents were millionaires. A democratically organized group of workers can do the work of any capitalist and they know it.

[Anonymous No.6136257]

>>6136245
>A democratically organized group of workers can do the work of any capitalist
So why don't they? Conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.6136264]

>>6136257
>they aren't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwJMFsr8tZM

[Anonymous No.6136282]

>>6136264
>In Defence of Marxism
>shitty overblown leftist government squanders loans
>i-i-it's all the free market's fault!

Sure kid.

[Anonymous No.6136295]

>>6136245
Then why don't they do it more often its not like anyone is stopping them.

[Anonymous No.6136301]

>>6136295
Parasites generally don't like having their assets seized.

[Anonymous No.6136307]

Libertarianism is simply the idea of having limited government.

Libertarians basically agree with enlightenment philosophers, who figured out that the best system was to have the minimum amount of government possible. It doesnt mean no gov, no tax, no laws, etc. but /lit/ will never understand this because theyre mostly the socialist type.

[Anonymous No.6136359]

>>6136301
>commie calling others parasites
Nice.
The question is, why doesn't a "democratically organized group of workers" start their own business from scratch? After all, if the profits don't go into the "parasite's" pockets, they could make much cheaper goods and outcompete the evil capitalists. Right?

[Anonymous No.6136446]

>>6136359
Many of them are doing precisely that, all over the world. Currently the wealth, capital, and the means of production are concentrated in the hands of the class with the actual mass purchasing power, along with the ability to produce massive quantities, as is the result of historical contingencies. If it were otherwise, an economic movement would suffice, hence the necessity of the political revolutionary movement to seize power from the class of owners to put it in worker's control. As long as the workers are convinced of the necessity of the bourgeois, they can't, which is why the Party's chief goal is to produce and distribute quality Marxist literature which will equip them with the means to understand the nature of class rule and combat it.

[Anonymous No.6136455]

>>6133656
Hence minarchism

[Anonymous No.6136460]

>>6136455
hence we remove the vampiric middleman and construct an authentic workers state.

[Anonymous No.6136467]

>>6135710
How could you possibly try to live on your own when every non-Antarctican piece of land on this planet is claimed by a state that will forcibly take the earnings of your labour from you?

[Anonymous No.6136514]

>>6136446
>Many of them are doing precisely that, all over the world

I know. Cooperatives, right? And that's fine. There's nothing about them that is forbidden in the free market.
The question is, however, why don't they tend to work as well as hierarchical companies? After all, if "parasite" millionaire CEOs are so unnecessary, it would be a no-brainer for commies to establish their own cooperative that would take what would otherwise be the CEO's salary and put it into marketing/production quality/lower prices and drive the capitalist out of business.

What happened in many ex-socialist countries, is that many of the former state me were split into shares and divided amongst their employees. 100 factory workers would get 1% ownership of the factory each. And you know what happened? Very often, most of the workers would sell their shares to their more entrepreneurial colleagues for a quick buck.
It seems that most workers wouldn't want to take responsibility for running a business and would rather get a stable wage for working 9 to 5 and then not worrying about a thing. And who can blame them? A high risk/high reward lifestyle isn't for everyone. But that does seem to imply that perhaps wealthy managers and stockholders aren't so redundant after all.

[Anonymous No.6136530]

>>6136460
>hence we remove the vampiric middleman and construct an authentic workers state.
I do not wish to work.

[Anonymous No.6137095]

>>6136530
Call 6305771330

[Anonymous No.6137130]

>>6136514
>their more entrepreneurial colleagues
I knew Austrians were ahistorical, but I had no idea to what degree they thought everything exists in a perfect hermetically sealed vacuum package.

[Anonymous No.6137174]

Let me ask you libertard plebs something: how many of you are actually economists, or hold economics degrees? You can't just copy+paste Mises' sophistry and act like it gives you some kind of high ground.