/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.634250]

Libertarians are superior authors.

[Anonymous No.634251]

10/10, raging. Fuck you. Etc.

[User !zEVBoF.wAM No.634255]

0/10, Because I first read it as Librarians, and I must be able to read it as was intended the first time in order to be trolled correctly

[Anonymous No.634261]

Well, I like Heinlein. But I don't think any set of people with certain ideologies are better than others.
I suppose that's my ideology *chuckle*

[Anonymous No.634264]

Yes Librarians are superior authors.

[Anonymous No.634273]

>>634264

[Anonymous No.634283]

Agreed.

[Anonymous No.634288]

Indeed.

[Anonymous No.634294]

oui

[Anonymous No.634295]

Indubitably.

[Anonymous No.634297]

>>634288
>Implying that Oscar Wilde is a Libertarian

Any other great Libertarians in mind there genius? William Morris? William Blake? Karl Marx maybe?

[Anonymous No.634306]

Zweifellos.

[Anonymous No.634315]

>>634297

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
- Oscar Wilde

All modes of government are failures... High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.

Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. To ask whether Individualism is practical is like asking whether Evolution is practical. Evolution is the law of life, and there is no evolution except towards Individualism. Where this tendency is not expressed, it is a case of artificially arrested growth, or of disease, or of death.

If the "Socialism" is Authoritarian; if there are Governments, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. Every man must be left quite free to choose his own work. No form of compulsion must he exercised over him. If there is, his work will not be good for him, will not be good in itself, and will not be good for others. And by work I simply mean activity of any kind...All association must be quite voluntary. It is only in voluntary associations that man is fine.
- Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

[Anonymous No.634322]

Manifestly.

[Anonymous No.634325]

Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material wellbeing of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment.

[Anonymous No.634328]

>>634315
sounds like a teabagger. fuck him.

[Anonymous No.634330]

>>634325
see, particularly the final paragraph
>>634315

[Anonymous No.634338]

Unmistakably.

[Anonymous No.634341]

greatest living author and far leftist here

you libertarians are small time

[Anonymous No.634346]

>>634341
>Pynchon
>greatest living author

Also, libertarianism is not in opposition to "leftism." The latter term is ambiguous. Libertarianism is in opposition to the state.

[Anonymous No.634350]

Claiming Wilde as a Libertarian is the worst sort of arachronistic shoe-horning because it pays no attention to the intellectual or cultural context he was writing in.

I never said he wasn't an individualist, but he clearly states that he envisions the individualism as flowing from a socialist economic system, in this he is more analogous to Kropotkin, William Morris, or even some of the things Lenin was saying prior to the revolution, "Withering away" of the State etc.

He was a socialist (and an Irish Republican) and one who scorned the sort of reformist wankery that Bono and Geldof would later come to embody.

[Anonymous No.634351]

Surely.

[Anonymous No.634352]

In other words, he was one of purs and you cunts aren't having him.

[Anonymous No.634353]

indisputably

[Anonymous No.634354]

>>634352
purs?

[Anonymous No.634356]

>>634346
I'm getting the impression that you're the American, capitalist kind. Pynchon doesn't like capitalism very much.

[Anonymous No.634358]

Concur.

[Anonymous No.634362]

hi, libertarian here. i'm also against capitalism. just wanted to clear it up.

[Anonymous No.634363]

>>634356
I'm not an American, and "capitalism" is ambiguous. I'm a voluntarist and post-statist who normatively advocates individualism and free markets.

[Anonymous No.634372]

Precisely.

[Anonymous No.634377]

>>634363
So you're the capitalist kind, which is the kind that libertarianism mostly refers to in America.

Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.634388]

>>634377
A libertarian who voluntarily chooses to live in a commune is not functionally different from a libertarian who chooses to work in a syndicalist firm or as an individual artisan or for a free market business. What matters is that you prioritize voluntarism, which entails anti-statism.

[Anonymous No.634392]

Illegalist here. throw bombs. steal from the rich. have sex in all the positions and do heroin.

[Anonymous No.634400]

>>634388
what about NO GODS NO MASTERS, eh? Free markets where the only thing free is the market? fuck that noise.

[Anonymous No.634401]

D'accord.

[Anonymous No.634403]

>>634388
It's okay. If I had people like Ayn Rand and Alex Jones on my side, I'd be trying to avoid the label as well.

[Anonymous No.634416]

>>634403
Ayn Rand hated libertarians more than communists, and I don't know who the other person is.. I have a large number of Nobel laureate economists on my side. That matters more, but little. The ideas make sense and the arguments are sound. That's what is truly important.

[Anonymous No.634422]

Naturally.

[Anonymous No.634437]

>>634400

'NO GODS' is atheism. I'm fine with religious people being free to be religious if they want.

'NO MASTERS' is ambiguous. I'm fine with voluntary leadership. Aren't you?

The "market" is just a conceptual aggregation of voluntary human interaction.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html

[Anonymous No.634446]

Disagree.

[Anonymous No.634449]

Meistens.

[Anonymous No.634450]

>>634437
A free market where the accumulation of wealth would not create an accumulation of power and wouldn't be the direct result of exploitation? Oh i forget, you think exploitation is just another word for free association. There would be masters,I AM against hierarchical leadership.

[Anonymous No.634451]

>>634446
I disagree as well.

[Anonymous No.634459]

>>634446
>>634451

I used to agree with OP when I was young and naive, but now I realize that OP is a twit.

[Anonymous No.634474]

Libertarianism is poison to the artist. Effective symbolism fosters liminal states that wind up producing hive-mind. Even if the artist is a free thinker, if he's any good you won't be when he's done with you.

[Anonymous No.634479]

>>634451

I did not read economics, having turned socialist because of Morris's lectures and pamphlets, and I think it unlikely that Morris himself could read economics.
~ William Butler Yeats, Four Years

[Anonymous No.634484]

>>634474
AHH so much win! It doesn't mean that a good artist can't be a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.634486]

Man, I wish the handful of right wing libertarians we have here could carry a conversation and not just spam pictures and quotes. It'd be nice to have an actual conversation for once.

[Anonymous No.634488]

Amen.

[Anonymous No.634495]

>>634450
Define exactly what you mean by "exploitation" and "hierarchical."

[Anonymous No.634499]

>>634479
This is true, Yeats did change his political views. However, he was a better artist before that change.

[Anonymous No.634502]

Obviously.

[Anonymous No.634503]

>>634372
Think you're wrong here.

Mencken wa more likely to rank the libertarians among the booboisie.

[Anonymous No.634504]

>>634499
when was yeats into the occult before or after he was a socialist?

[Anonymous No.634505]

[Anonymous No.634509]

>>634437
Is it fuck. The Free Market is just mathematical chaos working itself out, and an unrestricted market tends towards monopolies. The idea that its a positive or inherently progressive force, "Hidden hand of the market" and all that shit, is actually the last respectable face of Christianity. Its no conicidence that the first Liberal market economists were all christians, or like Malthus, members of the clergy.

Anyway, all this libertarian guff is just a load of intellectual fappery designed to get around or ignore the inescapable social consequence of capitalism, Class.

[Anonymous No.634510]

>>634495
these words are adequately defined in any dictionary. I'm not playing semantics. Exploitation is exploitation. A hierarchy is a hierarchy. FFS i thought you randoids understood this.

[Anonymous No.634511]

[Anonymous No.634513]

>>634505
>Mel Gibson
>Davy Crockett
>Bill Hicks
>Johnny Cash
>Clint Eastwood

Yeah, great "authors."

[Anonymous No.634516]

>>634446
>>634451
>>634459

Also disagree. There is so little win in this thread.

[Anonymous No.634522]

Easily.

[Anonymous No.634526]

>>634484

Thanks! You're right. But loving an author and loving his political views are hopefully not necessary in combination. eg. Vergil was a fascist.

[Anonymous No.634528]

>>634511
>in the principles of the constitution AND freedom
ohyou.jpg

[Anonymous No.634529]

>>634504
During and after.

And yeats was clearly wrong about Morris not being able to read economics, it wasn't his main contribution to the socialist movement but he knew his stuff and was a lot smarter than people generally give him credit for.

[Anonymous No.634530]

>>634509
>an unrestricted market tends towards monopolies

Demonstrate this logically or empirically, because economic history proves you wrong. There have been virtually no suboptimal monopolies without significant government collusion or subsidization.

>>634510
Exploitation as defined in the dictionary is normative. You need to explain what you mean by it. Hierarchical as defined in the dictionary applies to families, football teams, coffee shops, classrooms, etc. Are you going to force human beings not to voluntarily relate to each other this way? If so, you're no better than a Stalinist.

[Anonymous No.634533]

>>634446
>>634451
>>634459

No.

[Anonymous No.634534]

>>634526
Very true, otherwise we'd have to throw Celine out as well. And I'm not willing to do that. Oh whats that angry teens on /lit/? You thought Celine was a libertarian? oh ho ho.

[Anonymous No.634538]

>>634446
>>634451
>>634459
>>634533

Bah.

[Anonymous No.634539]

Affirmative.

[Anonymous No.634540]

Any libertarian who puts Wilde in with the libertarians doesn't know the difference between LIBERTINE and LIBERTARIAN.

Read a book fgts.

[Anonymous No.634542]

>>634540
You do understand that they're related and not mutually exclusive, right?

Wilde was both.

See eg.
>>634315

[Anonymous No.634543]

>>634530
The point is NO i'm NOT going to cooerce anyone into any action. I'm not going to exploit them by '' the act of making [them] more productive'' I'm not going to appoint arbitrary hierarchies based on any criteria. Did you really never play a pick up game of soccer when you were a kid? Were your hide and go seek games terminal, with static rules and defined boundaries of who was determining those rules?

[Anonymous No.634550]

>>634543
And if you think that corporations are a free association you are truly a moron. You are just barking specious remarks which you have gleaned from somewhere. You think everyone works because they want to?

[Anonymous No.634551]

>>634543
I played club football (soccer) and yes there was a strict hierarchical system of order and rules and we all liked it. Would do it again. Do you have a problem with that? If so, what are you going to do about it, as a "libertarian?"

[Anonymous No.634553]

>>634542

You're conflating social views with economic views.

[Anonymous No.634556]

>>634550
Corporations are government-created and subsidized legal fictions, but they're not all bad.

People work because they want to, however in a more free market people would have to work much less and would be free to get more pay for more work or work less and enjoy more leisure time.

[Anonymous No.634558]

Sure is french in here.

[Anonymous No.634559]

>>634556
hm, that's interesting considering that market limitations have grown with time yet the living conditions of workers have improved as well.

[Anonymous No.634563]

>>634551
exactly you love hierarchy. you are not a libertarian you are a fascist.

[Anonymous No.634564]

>>634553

I'm talking about political views. I don't agree with all of Wilde's economic views, but he explicitly prioritized his political views and they were 100% individualist, voluntarist, and anti-statist, ie. libertarian.

I agree with most of his libertine social views, but that's beside the point.

[Anonymous No.634565]

Niggas be privatizing my commons and shit.

[Anonymous No.634567]

He disagrees.

[Anonymous No.634570]

>>634559

Also, you seem to be forgetting technological advancement and mutual human gains from much freer international trade.

[Anonymous No.634572]

>>634563

Funnily enough he's also probably better at soccer than you.

[Anonymous No.634573]

>>634572
This.

ahahahaa

[Anonymous No.634579]

>>634563
I like voluntary club soccer and want to maximize voluntary human interaction and that makes me a "fascist?"

I don't think you understand what that word means...

[Anonymous No.634581]

tldr;

libertarians generally good.

[Anonymous No.634582]

>>634565
>implying the commons are doing just fine without privatization
>implying the pacific isnt just a huge dumping ground

[Anonymous No.634583]

>>634567
nobody cares about *him*

[Anonymous No.634587]

Too bad the conservative libertarians in the US confuse your with you're and can't find their own state on a map.

[Anonymous No.634588]

>>634564

Thing about Wilde is the whole buggery charge probably soured him on governments. But then the fact that he was brilliant opened his eyes to the awesomeness of rules.

Check it: Dorian Grey was a character that represented the ugly truth about libertarianism. Take away the penalties and the crimes do indeed start mounting up.

[Anonymous No.634589]

Right, I'll put it this way, Wilde and Yeats were as much libertarians as William Morris, Peter Kropotkin or Noam Chomsky.

[Anonymous No.634591]

>>634570
>>634570
thanks the world bank is the most unbiased source of information i love how they use such specific terms in their graph such as ''least free'' and ''most free'' that is really enlightening. AND YEAH you probably are a better soccer player but then again I wasn't too into soccer...

[Anonymous No.634606]

listen, we could contradict eachother in illogical ways (like for instance being accustomed to completely opposed vocabulary as is the nature of politics today) or you could just stop calling yourself a libertarian. Call yourself a laissez-faire capitalist. You have not a bit of interest in the larger, anti-state struggle. Your only aim is to free up markets. So stop using the word libertarians it's as if you're trying to hoodwink people. And you do, plenty of rednecks in the USA are your comrades are you okay with this? Laissez-faire Capitalist, that's what you are deal with it.

[Anonymous No.634607]

>>634589

Libertarians: Wilde, Kropotkin, later Yeats, early Chomsky

Not libertarians: Morris, later Chomsky, earlier Yeats

[Anonymous No.634613]

>>634530
>an unrestricted market tends towards monopolies

>Demonstrate this logically or empirically, because economic history proves you wrong.

Well, logically, busts leave only better capitalized entities behind to take advantage of the weakness of others, producing oligopolies. Booms tend to reinforce oligopolies because of economies of scale. Oligopolies tend towards cartels as rational minds see the advantage in a lack of competition and the opportunity for collusion among a handful of erstwhile competitors.

Empirically American agriculture has long demonstrated the above with the winnowing (heh) of farmers as farm prices continually bust out small producers to the advantage of larger concerns like ADM and Cargill.

Government collusion, subsidization or, more neutrally, involvement is always going to happen. No one is going to be fool enough to leave decisions involving millions to a handful of selfish individuals, at least not for long.

Andrew Mellon's response to the beginning of the Great Depression was "Liquidate! Liquidate! Liquidate!" That is, capitalists were to convert everything into money and wait until things got worse to buy back at lower prices what they had sold at higher. Meanwhile every worker would be thrown on the street to starve or not, as they pleased. The Bonus March was one result, the IWW another, and Roosevelt's election a third.

The libertarians seem convinced they should be allowed to do whatever they feel will profit themselves the most. Unfortunately we all live in a lifeboat. If some numbnuts is pounding on the strakes, my first act is to shoot him through the head.

(The second, of course, is to divvy up the steaks.)

[Anonymous No.634615]

>>634570
also, do you for instance, believe in a police force in any form?

[Anonymous No.634618]

>>634606

"Laissez-faire" generally means a government that does very little in the domestic economy. I want post-statism, not minarchism or constitutionalism.

"Capitalism" is vague. It means very different things to different people.

I'm the dictionary definition of a libertarian, and in the tradition of voluntarist post-statists.

[Anonymous No.634620]

>>634618
post-state? what does that even mean? also, if you want to know the truth, you're property rights would mean nothing without a police or paramilitary force to protect it. If you believe in a police force, you are not a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.634623]

>>634618
Okay, I was willing to level with you. What do you think of the possibility of a sustained form of property ownership in a context which would lack any police? Would you include police in a post-state scenario?

[Anonymous No.634624]

>>634618
>I'm the dictionary definition of a libertarian, and in the tradition of voluntarist post-statists.

God you must get so much pussy.

[Anonymous No.634631]

>>634618
some tradition, considering ''post-state'' is not even a term.

[Anonymous No.634635]

>>634618
You used world bank statistics to shore up your arguments for a stateless free market...the world bank being the antithesis of your argument...you tell me you are a post-statist well try googling that...also, you use the word libertarian because you think it will ingratiate politically marginal groups to your cause which doesn't seem to expand beyond the primacy of property ownership. You talk about voluntarism although you neglect to demonstrate how that would result in a market economy. Bartering and trade notwithstanding, you are talking about a structure which presupposes the accumulation of wealth which is what makes the state necessary.

[Anonymous No.634638]

>>634613
>busts leave only better capitalized entities behind to take advantage of the weakness of others, producing oligopolies. Booms tend to reinforce oligopolies because of economies of scale. Oligopolies tend towards cartels as rational minds see the advantage in a lack of competition and the opportunity for collusion among a handful of erstwhile competitors.

What is the problem with cartels and oligopolies? They charge monopoly prices, that is they charge high prices beyond the cost of inputs, etc. If the cartel gets together and decides to raise prices (regardless of how it was capitalized), you then have profit opportunity to undercut it. This will either happen by one firm breaking from the cartel or a new firm forming to undercut the cartel. They
are not sustainable on a free market. And there's no reason why a boom ceteris paribus would reinforce an oligopoly as opposed to new firms. The market is a discovery process. Old firms tend to die out or restructure to meet the demands of the people.

American agriculture is massively subsidized and regulated by the government. That's probably one of the best examples of the government directly creating and enforcing an oligopoly.

Hoover's administration explicitly did not follow Mellon's advice, as Hoover boasted in his campaign. See eg. S-H tariff, price controls, public works, etc. FDR was just a continuation of Hoover policies.

[Anonymous No.634642]

>>634623
>>634615
>>634631

I'm in favor of emergent, voluntarily-funded police forces of various kinds. Certainly. Are you an absolute pacifist?

[Anonymous No.634647]

>>634631
Post-statist is a term used to include all libertarians, anarchists, individualists, anti-statists, etc. - anyone who wanted to immediately diminish the state.

[Anonymous No.634648]

>>634638

Food is regulated by the government because when it wasn't people started putting white paste in the milk and sawdust in the bread. I'm not making this shit up. Let the cat out of the bag? Regulation of weights and measures has made that term now unrecognizable as related to food shopping. Please please please continue to heavily regulate my food. Make it more heavily regulated. Please.

[Anonymous No.634649]

The amount of post-angst teenagery in this thread is sick.

[Anonymous No.634650]

>>634638
>>634638
You are speculating too much. The market is a discovery process is it? You think that a totally free market would not result in poverty levels similar to the current markets? perhaps marginally better or marginally worse? In any case, the accumulation of wealth is in a causal relationship with the state..you ignore history. you analyze the state-controlled markets you claim to deplore and select singularities in order to justify your own ideals.

[Anonymous No.634651]

>>634647
a term used by whom? other than yourself that is.

[Anonymous No.634654]

>>634648
There's no reason why you cannot have a private food inspection agency. It is paid directly by the producers, and it competes via reputation among restaurants, grocery stores, retailers, customers, etc.

[Anonymous No.634657]

>>634642
Yes in fact, i believe your voluntarily funded emergent police institutions are just embryonic structures which develop into state power. you are in favor of embryonic states rather than the more developed states that exist currently. And it's really funny, because, you seem to think you would benefit from this. Do you own much property?

[Anonymous No.634658]

>>634651
It's fairly common in social sciences that deal with the issue:

http://www.polyarchy.org/poststatism/english/index.html

[Anonymous No.634661]

>>634654
If you ever get into a car accident I hope for your sake it isn't the volunteer EMT rescue squad wannabes that show up.

>>634657

This.

[Anonymous No.634665]

>>634650
The concentration of wealth is related to the formation of states, but in motivation, not necessity. It is the *ideology* that is key to actually forming a state. The ideology of legitimacy drastically decreases the marginal cost of coercion, making more total coercion possible and enabling the state. That is supported by archaeological anthro. See Norman Yoffee's "Myths of the Archaic State."

No ideology, no state. No state, much less systemic parasitism, more growth, less rent-seeking wealth disparity, etc. Poverty would be drastically decreased, as is empirically supported by all the economic data from Somalia's brief period of federal statelessness.

[Anonymous No.634666]

>>634654

The conflict of interest in it being paid by the producers means that, while there is no reason I can't have it, I don't in fact want it.

[Anonymous No.634669]

ultimately, it seems as though libertarians believe that without the state that they, the libertarians would suddenly become wealthy. If the state were dissolved by violent or other means at this moment, there would be very little change in ownership. That is until you account for looting and le reprise individuelle which would inevitably result.

[Anonymous No.634677]

sup guiz whats goin' on in h-

*sniff*

oh. statists.

[Anonymous No.634678]

>>634665
Yoffee's arguments about the arts being used to subjugate humanity vitiates the basic premise of this thread, that the best authors are libertarians. I have it in front of me. See p. 33. He's talking about ancient civs but a lot of his arguments hold for today's states.

[Anonymous No.634680]

>>634665
Idiot! Ideology did not create the state, accumulation of power/wealth produced the state and its ancillary ideologies. Ideology promotes the state, and solidifies its influence but you are arguing the primacy of structure in order to justify your vague ideology of the primacy of agency. you are in total self-contradiction.

[Anonymous No.634683]

>>634669
fuck i'm sorry for using the word ''libertarian'' i should have just used ''objectivist trash'' instead. forgive.

[Anonymous No.634688]

>>634678
I know nothing about Yoffee's personal politics, but it is not just the symbols, the arts, that enabled states. It was the ideology that they represented and fed back. It's not the statue that enables the state, it's the ideology the statue represents and reinforces.

I have my copy here too...

[Anonymous No.634690]

>>634680
That wealth was accumulated faster because of organizing ideologies. Remember all those fags that failed to form states were also trying to accumulate wealth. Ideology is useful in gathering human capital. Bankers know this. It's why they created teabaggers.

[Anonymous No.634695]

>>634665
oh and somalia that turned out okay didn't it? (you love to ignore history and fetishize singularities...you are really a fascist)

[Anonymous No.634698]

>>634680
No, ideology is key to acquiring coercive power, though once it is attained you have a feedback loop through coercive enforcement of ideology at the margins.

Accumulation of wealth itself means little.

[Anonymous No.634700]

>>634690
Right ideology is ancillary to the state but it did not necessitate a state.

[Anonymous No.634701]

>>634688
You're right to a point, but symbols are so useful in penetrating the dense hoi poloi who frankly can't understand the ideology behind them.

[Anonymous No.634705]

>>634690
Bankers love Obama and other establishment partisans, not the angry teabaggers with 'End tha Fed' signs...

[Anonymous No.634712]

>>634698
>accumulation of wealth in itself means little
what is the object of wealth beyond influence? what would inspire the accumulation of wealth if not for the result of greater power. The state is a militaristic, fascist structure necessitated by the need for protection. Ideology did not necessitate the state the state necessitated ideology.

[Anonymous No.634714]

>>634705
Bankers all love "end the fed" because their heroes are all Princeton economists who get hard for hard currency.

[Anonymous No.634716]

>>634701
The ideology behind them does not matter, it's the ideology in the minds of the would-be subjects. That's what drastically decreases the marginal cost of coercion, and thus taxation, and thus the state.

[Anonymous No.634725]

>>634716
Here you've lost all logic. The ideology matters! You convince the people to sacrifice for the greater good. Then you make yourself the top of the pyramid of greater good. Courage! Discipline! Sacrifice! These ideologies are critical to state formation.

[Anonymous No.634726]

>>634712

Ideology subsidizes coercive power which enables the state which was formed for the motives of power and taxation.

The ideology is the key.

[Anonymous No.634732]

>>634725
What? I'm agreeing with you. Ideology is primary, but not the ideology of the state-makers, however complex, but the ideology in the minds of the subjects.

[Anonymous No.634742]

>>634732
So you think the powerful have some different ideology than the one that is transmitted to the people? Maybe. But they aren't broadcasting their nefarious schemes. They keep those close to the vest and encourage courage etc.

[Anonymous No.634743]

>>634714
>Bankers all love "end the fed"

[Anonymous No.634745]

>>634350
>implying libertarians can't be socialistic

[Anonymous No.634746]

>>634726
I didn't say that ideology had nothing to do with state power, but it is not the key to the formation of states. You are simply swallowing the historicized myth that ideology was an antecedent to any state (like the american ''republic'')

[634392's Mom No.634749]

>>634392
>Illegalist here. throw bombs. steal from the rich. have sex in all the positions and do heroin.

Hey sweetie, your Hot Pockets are done.

[Anonymous No.634756]

>>634746
State ideology of some kind - whether it be nationalism or just default submission - is historically and logically necessary for the economic feasibility of statecraft.

[Anonymous No.634759]

>>634746
I see why this is so important to you, as you believe that an your antistate ideology will result in eliminating the constraints of state coercion while still furthering the projects of the bourgeois revolutions (liberte, egalite, fraternite). you are admitting that ideology is inseperable from state coercion yet you are still promoting an ideology.

[Anonymous No.634762]

>>634749
thanks mom, did you hear they came out with this great new invention it's called sarcasm XD

[Anonymous No.634766]

>>634746
I'll believe it's a myth when you find me a community without an ideology. Communities were necessary to the formation of states. That means they had resources and ideology. Their success or failure was based on the strength of their resources and ideologies relative to competing cultures.

[Anonymous No.634768]

>>634759

Different fag here, I'm promoting an individualist anti-state ideology. Indeed.

[Anonymous No.634769]

This thread is getting confusing.

[Anonymous No.634772]

>>634756
"economic feasibility" is another vague notion. When the carrot doesn't work, they use the stick. The stick came first.

[Anonymous No.634779]

>>634766
you think all communities have ideologies? you really don't get out much, do you?

[Anonymous No.634780]

This is the first thread I've read on here that is like what I wanted /lit/ to be when I found it. It would be even better without the Joe college libertarian bs but it's still pretty good.

[Anonymous No.634781]

>>634772

If it costs more to coerce X people than the gains accumulated from taxing X people, the state is economically not feasible.

[Anonymous No.634790]

>>634779
Name a community where people live that doesn't have an ideology. Not a community they visit when they get out, but one they actually inhabit.

[Anonymous No.634806]

>>634781
You think that people would gladly pay taxes without the consequence of force (imprisonment)?
>>634790
Do you really think that everywhere, everyone is acting and living under the precepts of an ideology?

[Anonymous No.634811]

Yes. Indeed, liberty man ought to preserve at the hazard of his life, for without it life is insupportable.

[Anonymous No.634817]

>>634790
You think that ideologies are necessary and that they are key to state power. You disagree with state power. You do not agree that ideologies are in themselves something that must be abolished. Ideology is not prima facie to human collective action, another historicized fallacy

[Anonymous No.634826]

>>634806

Many would pay, yes. The coercive force is at the margins. Imagine you had no ideology of "the government," and suddenly everyone saw the state as simply a functional organization. You would (1) not have the economic ability to raise the state in first place and (2) be actively resisted at a much higher rate than when it is ideologically legitimized.

Thus, the ideology drastically subsidizes mass coercion and enables the state. Ideology is the key. Once the state is established, however, ideology and coercion create a feedback loop where they reinforce each other.

[Anonymous No.634829]

>>634745
Tell that to
>>634505
>>634511
And the various other douchebags

Anyway, I have modified my position to take into consideration the various usages of the term. If you're happy to have Chomsky and the whole tradition of Anarchism then you can have Oscar Wilde (though both him and Yeats acknowledged William Morris as their main ideological point of reference and he was a Marxist) Randroids, Teabaggers, Friedmanites and the rest of you kunts can go stick your head in a pig.

[Anonymous No.634860]

Fortunately.

[Anonymous No.634878]

Of course, for liberty is the greatest blessing that men can enjoy.

[Anonymous No.634907]

>>634817
>>634806

I went and got dinner and in that amount of time both of you failed to think of a single community without an ideology.

[Anonymous No.634924]

>>634907
we're getting rid of the ideology. we're throwing the baby out with the bath water. a community without an ideology? what has statism done but created the conditions where it's difficult to find? Your asking us to find that is by nature elusive.

[Anonymous No.634957]

>>634924
Your ideology is to abolish ideology. You are a 19 year old white male. Wait until you have to work for a living. You're going to realize that all of the world's easy problems have already been solved. The remaining problems, if you understand them at any level of detail, are monstrously complex and the world isn't good enough to destroy yourself trying to do something about fixing it up. If you're smart you'll realize that you should fuck more, talk less, and save your money. Children will eventually temper this sense of disillusionment. In them you will see hope for the world. This is just oxytocin controlling your perceptions. You are average. Your kids are going to be average. Sorry bub. Aging will be fun as you get more free time but eventually your physical decline will be more of an affront to your pride than you can stand. Death will be a sweet relief. Before it comes you will realize that average wasn't so bad. Again you are wrong. This is an ego saving mechanism. Your life will have been a waste. It's ok. Me too man. Me too.

[Anonymous No.634999]

>>634957

I'm not the person you were replying to, but I want to affect ideology and make it more anti-statist and individualist. I don't want to "abolish ideology" as such.

[Anonymous No.635104]

True, because authors tend to be narcissists and the best ones are also rich and become part of the capitalist elite.

[Anonymous No.635153]

>>634957
>You are average. Your kids are going to be average.
speak for yourself faggot
this is the sort of shit i hate about 4chan and why i'm coming here less and less
this constant herd mentality of depression and nihilism
you people have no idea what it is to be proud and happy
and you never want to know

[Anonymous No.636042]

[Anonymous No.636193]

>>634780
Agreed, good thread.

[Anonymous No.636593]

>>634459

LOLOL so awesome

[Anonymous No.636604]

>>635153

Thank you.

Internet culture fosters a destructive collectivist mentality. It's cute if you can recognize it for what it is, but it makes you wonder how many people, so engrossed in 4chan culture, allow their nihilism to get the best of them.

[Anonymous No.637199]

>>635153
I came back to this thread specifically to reply to you: don't go. Please.

Seriously. This place needs your hope. You are the leaven for the dough.

So stay and contribute and help.

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.637314]

wow.

the samefaggotry.

just.

wow.

[Anonymous No.637382]

>>637314
How can you have a discussion if you only speak once?

inb4 thread drift.

I like drift. I'm a tourist at heart.

[Anonymous No.637422]

>>637382
you might be a tourist at heart, but you have the mind of a child.

[Anonymous No.637609]

>>637422
Welcome to 4chan.

[Anonymous No.637873]

Assuredly.

[Anonymous No.637880]

>>637609
wat

[Anonymous No.637881]

>>637382
i'm a passenger, i ride and i ride

[Anonymous No.637886]

>>634328
he'd probably like that seeing as he was a homosexual :l

[Anonymous No.638656]

>>637886
That's a myth. He was at most bi-curious.

[Anonymous No.639707]

perfect rage thread for anyone who knows basic political theory

[Anonymous No.639713]

>>634247
Ｈ Ａ V Ｅ y o u Ｈ e a Ｒ ｄ T H E ｎ ｅ ｗ ｓ ? t I N Ｙ ｃ ｈ ａ Ｎ Ｉ s A ｎ I l Ｌ ｅ ｇ ａ L c l o n ｅ o ｆ Ａ N o ｎ t A l ｋ Ｂ ｂ Ｓ Ｈ ｔ Ｔ Ｐ : / / 8 8 . 8 0 . 2 1 . 1 2 /

[Anonymous No.639723]

>>639707
how so?

[Anonymous No.639730]

[Anonymous No.639733]

>>634249
Ｗ O ｗ U G Ｕ ｙ ｓ ｕ r G Ｏ ｎ ｎ A Ｇ e ｔ Ｓ O m ａ ｎ ｙ ｓ Ｐ A ｍ M Ｅ s Ｓ Ａ g ｅ ｓ ｆ O ｒ Ｓ t Ｅ Ａ l ｉ Ｎ ｇ ａ t S d O m Ａ Ｉ Ｎ Ｌ ｕ ｌ ｌ l ｌ L ｌ l L Z Ｈ t t ｐ : / / 8 8 . 8 0 . 2 1 . 1 2 /

[Anonymous No.639736]

>>639730

No, look closer.

It's this thread STILL.