/LRG/ - RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN GENERAL - DON'T THREAD ON

File: libertarian conservatism.png (70KB, 1000x544px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1000x544px

FAQ:
>Do you support open borders?
No. The government does not own the land, therefore it cannot determine the border policy. Seeing as 90% of immigration is harmful to the country, by default a vetting system is essential to protect the rights of the citizens.
>Whom'st'd'll've builds the roads?
The people who are going to use them will pay the road crews, and maintenance is provided by the toll money.
>Do you support drug use/other degenerate behaviour?
No, we strongly discourage it as it damages a society built on non-aggression. Most covenants would be built around family (to fill the void after the government is largely/completely gone), and family life is vulnerable to these socio-pathological behaviours. If degenerates want to form their own communities, they are welcome to choke on their own filth or clean up and become productive members of the society.
>Are you Jewish?
No, our Jews are better than their Jews. Few movements (apart from NatSocs, duh) have been accused of anti-Semitism as much as we have, and that's including our more moderate/mainstream figureheads, such as Ron Paul. We support Palestine over Israel (because it's their land, not because they're brown) and we strongly support cutting all foreign aid to Israel (and to pretty much everyone). The international financiers would be significantly set back by freeing the currency system and implementing an actual standard for money to prevent over-printing and inflation. Also we don't trade with our enemies, what the fuck.
>What will you do when governments take over you/reform?
Toss them out of helicopters again. Our crusade is eternal. Liberty or Death!

File: ancap reading list.jpg (1MB, 2426x2676px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2426x2676px

RECOMMENDED READING LIST:
ECONOMY
>The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
>A Treatise on Political Economy by Jean-Baptiste Say
>The Law by Fréderic Bastiat
>The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich August von Hayek
>The Economics and Ethics of Private Property by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard
>Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
POLITICS
>Democracy - The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Second Treatise of Government by John Locke
>Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick
>For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
>Against the State by Llewellyn Rockwell

File: do it for hoppe.jpg (70KB, 960x685px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 960x685px

MEDIA:
GOOD TIER
>facebook com/MinarchyMemes - sometimes posts edgy stuff
>facebook com/LibertyHangout - adamant fighters against communism
>facebook com/theliveshowtv - The Jason Stapleton Program - right-libertarian podcast
>youtube com/user/ThatLibertarianT - That Guy T
GREAT TIER
>facebook com/HoppeanSnakeMemes - the source of the snake memes we keep posting - keep up, nerd
>youtube com/user/FreedomFighter631 - Chris Cantwell - host of the Radical Agenda
>youtube com/channel/UCRr7mGBwURyRGM2BRPV3hNQ - Augustus Sol Invictus' ramblings and other content
>youtube com/channel/UCIwnY7Ee4Kfn8g6tz9tjfzA - 1st Irregulars - former Cantwell's supporters, decided to go even further right
>1stirregulars.com - 1st Irregulars' main site
>youtube com/user/stefbot - Stefan Molyneux
INFORMATIVE TIER
>mises.org - Mises Institute
>cato.org - Cato Institute
>propertyandfreedom.org - Property and Freedom Society
>lewrockwell.com - Lew Rockwell

File: hippity hoppity get off my property.jpg (58KB, 687x687px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 687x687px

VIDEOS:
>Christopher Cantwell - How I started hanging out with Nazis - youtube.com/watch?v=2RdnvahTAnU
>Christopher Cantwell with Mike Enoch - youtube.com/watch?v=aSz_L1WZS7w
>Christopher Cantwell with That Guy T - youtube.com/watch?v=7QYL4w3V_mo
>Christopher Cantwell with Jared Howe - youtube.com/watch?v=szqxmnMfB8U
>Augustus Sol Invictus - Becoming a Reactionary - youtube.com/watch?v=HPQ9yh0gWoE
>Augustus Sol Invictus - The War on Terror - youtube.com/watch?v=wy2O7CPNmqI
>Hans-Hermann Hoppe - What Must Be Done - youtube.com/watch?v=d_ybi1MeC3c
>1st Irregulars - 1433: National Capitalism and the Correct View - youtube.com/watch?v=eVnDAa1LWpw
>That Guy T - The Case for Libertarian Fascism - youtube.com/watch?v=l2-jH1vFrW8

>>127601830
lol you saved that image, noice.

File: OpenBorders2.png (176KB, 800x1740px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 800x1740px

>Do you support open borders?
No, in a private property society the only people who would have "freedom of movement" to enter said property would have to be specifically invited in, by default this would mean no one is allowed in without the property owners consent.

Murray Rothbard had this to say on the matter.
>If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

>Nations by Consent - Murray Rothbard
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/11_1_1_0.pdf

>Natural Order, The State, and the Immigration Problem - Hans-Hermann Hoppe
http://famguardian.org/subjects/Discrimination/Articles/RightToExclude.pdf

>Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
https://mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property

File: lrg and nsg vs cg.png (194KB, 2048x1239px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 2048x1239px

MUSIC:
>Eric July - AnCap Rap pt.1 - youtube.com/watch?v=pGuj-Z3PNg8
>Eric July - AnCap Rap pt.2 - youtube.com/watch?v=zqV4RXLX1Hc
>I Need a Pinochet - youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o
>Ain't I Right - youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ
>Metallica - Don't Tread On Me - youtube.com/watch?v=fh-TKJTCtnw
>Dixie's Land - youtube.com/watch?v=IUjLE_N1Cuc
>Yankee Doodle - youtube.com/watch?v=IzRhFH5OyHo
>Battle of New Orleans (if you counter-signal Jackson I swear on me mum I'll skullfuck you - plus it's a good song so fuck you) - youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0
>Mi General Augusto Pinochet - youtube.com/watch?v=R9R4zPTpS9w
>Adios Mi General - youtube.com/watch?v=5rsb7dT6sEM
>Rhodesians Never Die - youtube.com/watch?v=r1J8F6YQjBg
>Hammer Of The Right - youtube.com/watch?v=5WzAFG0Wntc
>Start Up The Rotors - youtube.com/watch?v=Ptw41GUKLpc

File: Degeneracy.png (2MB, 800x1975px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x1975px

On Degeneracy.

File: hoppe ancapwave.jpg (1MB, 1007x946px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1007x946px

>>127602687
I save most of them.
4th Memetic Supply Army.

File: hayek pepe.png (102KB, 918x1052px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 918x1052px

MEMES:
>Hoppewave - Physical Removal - youtube.com/watch?v=u-wMmYSG9JQ
>Cato's Speech - Let's get Physical - youtube.com/watch?v=XMqPWqOCGJU
>Hoppean Snake Memes - Let The Commies Hit The Floor - youtube.com/watch?v=yy9VvAuCCEg
>Stefan Molyneux - In-Depth Analysis of Marxism - youtube.com/watch?v=SGunPi4G2Ns
>Hoppean Snake Memes - Shadilay (Meme War against Agoristball) - youtube.com/watch?v=8xBsJUYySNo
>Hoppean Snake Memes - Snekintosh 420 - youtube.com/watch?v=JJMdttBmtsY
>That Guy T shitposting about the Alt-Right - youtube.com/watch?v=77CdqY4IdgU

Recommending The Production of Security by Gustave Molinari, notable for being one of the first elaborations of purely anarcho-capitalist beliefs.

https://mises.org/system/tdf/The%20Production%20of%20Security_3.pdf

File: Kill_Commies_For_The_NAP.png (71KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x800px

>>127603053
Links an error for me m8.

>>127603182
https://mises.org/system/tdf/The%20Production%20of%20Security_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

Trying to truncate the URL a bit, to no avail!

File: hoppe costanza.png (424KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 600x450px

Commies have to take a dirt NAP.
The question is: how?
Hard mode - no helicopters.
Personally, I'd suggest woodchippers while they're still alive and using the ground-up body material as shrapnel in barrel bombs.

File: no monopol pls.jpg (22KB, 931x530px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 931x530px

>living in a country where the state even owns your organs, and you are a donor by default.

File: Untitled-1.png (128KB, 1568x608px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1568x608px

>>127603471
communist mass graves to plug potholes in our decaying roadways.
>>127603603
for fuckin' real?

>>127603603
Collect Van der Bellend's organs for a change.
Fucking Hofer should have just shot him and got crowned Emperor of Austria.

>>127603785
Yes you have to register as a non donor unlike in other states and people who knows it are totally ok with this.
The land of austrian economics became a socialist shithole.
>>127603981
Commiefags in theh government are probably those who get the organs first since socialist healthcaresystem

>>127604118
Wow, Hoppe was right.
Democracy should have never happened.

File: Iona aboardme.jpg (71KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1280x720px

>>127603785
>http://www.goeg.at/de/Bereich/Fragen-und-Antworten.html
could only find it in german maybe slovakbro understands
>Nach der österreichischen Rechtslage stehen Sie automatisch als Organspender zur Verfügung, solange Sie nicht zu Lebzeiten einen Widerspruch deponiert haben.
It basically says due austrian law youre automatically an organ donor, if you don't constitute your will against it during your lifetime.

File: ancap.jpg (45KB, 680x816px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 680x816px

The NAP is a fucking joke. Every person has a "natural" right to exactly one thing -- violent resistance. The economic reality is that the private holding of property is only tolerated if adequate value is returned to the public. Hoppean spooks don't factor into it at all.

>>127604264
Also you are considered dead by braindeath so your heart is still pounding while they rob you.

>>127604528
Your neck vertebrae will become spooks after a gunship crushes you, you fucking Stirnerite.

>>127604784
beating

File: means_to_liberty.png (717KB, 1097x900px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 1097x900px

Need moar like this. Our meme skills must be able to compete with the edginess of natsocs or else we'renot the cool kids anymore. Come on guys, gimme some dank pinochet libertywave memes.

File: carl.jpg (12KB, 320x220px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x220px

>>127604784
>mfw
make sure your heartbeat is good for when they cut you open with a knife

File: anticom unit.jpg (48KB, 279x401px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 279x401px

>>127604992
shiet nibba i'm shit at memes
and i run a meme page, so i know my limits

File: 1485953287457.png (200KB, 2160x1200px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 2160x1200px

I don't really believe in a lot of Libertarian ideals, I don't think taxation is theft and I don't really care about privatizing everything like roads and shit. I lean pretty far right on things like Immigration. I do however believe strongly in personal liberties (Guns, gay marriage and drugs, for example)

Am I a Libertarian? That's what I've been calling myself for a few years now but I'm not really sure if it fits

>>127605301
well not exactly, saying they keep you alive so your organs are longer fresh would be better, after rereading my comment.
but I think you get what I was saying.

File: Pinochet.png (456KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 1000x563px

>>127604992
Hows this?

>>127605872
Degeneracy like drugs and gay marriage are not Libertarian. You sound like a neocon or a paleocon, not enough information to decide one.

>>127606475
Fuck yeah thanks man, now we just need some quotes on top of it.

File: strasser.jpg (26KB, 640x385px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x385px

>>127604803
In fantasyland, because ancap is inherently impossible. You think the outcome of the removal of the "monopoly of violence" will be one thing, when it can be shown to be another.

File: eyJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2Rpc2NvcmQuc3RvcmFnZS5nb29nbGVhcGlzLmNvbS9hdHRhY2htZW50cy8yOTQ5NDY0ODk3NTM1MzQ0NjUvMzE3NzY0NTk5MDM2Mzc5MTM2L0NPTU1VTklTTVVOQUNDRVBUQUJMRTMucG5nIn0.JiEMrlKfo2P7icaAdmFIXQdVs6Y.png (196KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 499x499px

>>127605645
You in anticom my dude?

>>127606666
nice quads
>>127606735
fuck off strasser commie, you're more irrelevant than geofags.

File: eJwNy1EOxBAQANC7OIBRFNPbzKqoRBGmX83efff9v1c8s4pDXMxjHQBnWbHPUy7uk3KSufdcE42yZOw3EDPF606NF2jv0Ozog3EYNmWNBqNUsOhQu2D9ZjA4oMblPz9Uqxwti-8Pmp4kcw.YCINGdJx0Xzqk-wb9Pj7-hsiWFs.png (176KB, 574x432px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 574x432px

>>127606899
What did kek mean by this?>>127606666

File: pinochet.png (443KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1000x563px

>>127606475
How's this?

These threads are always put a smile on my face

File: NakedGuy.png (226KB, 634x453px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 634x453px

pretty damn good.

File: snek.jpg (50KB, 960x574px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x574px

>>127608641
Anyone has the hoppe quote where he rants about left libertarians?
Wouldn't it fit?

File: 1494341022829.jpg (76KB, 887x686px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 887x686px

>>127608884
lets turn more frowns upside down as they fall of the helicopter

File: misc (9).png (389KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1000x1000px

>>127608641
>>127608909

>>127608952
this one?

>>127609078
Maybe, but as I remember there was a part were he described them and their motivation.

File: colonelG.jpg (38KB, 400x589px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x589px

>>127606899
Not an argument. Anclaps would rather suck cock than betray the NAP. In ancap society, if your boss tells you to suck his dick or get fired from the only farm with a spot for you, you would get on your knees. You can't even prove me wrong on that. Your ideology is literally gay by design. Violence is a human right, therefore, you are sub-human.

Fucking debate me if I'm wrong !

>>127601780
i have an interview for a state job doing licensing shit in a very desirable location this week. I studied political science like a fool and this may be the best chance i ever get to actually perform a job that requires a college degree. The pay and benefits are better than offered by the private sector, as you are aware. I currently work through a temp agency in a warehouse for a company that sells women's clothing online for minimum wage. I walk 8-9 miles every shift power-walking around this warehouse.

I am a member of the libertarian-right. What do?

>>127605872
You're a lolbertarian. You need to up your game.
Also, drop social liberalism. It's not bloody worth it, mate.

>>127610546
Your post contains 0 arguments, first you say we suck dicks, that ancap is somehow Homosexual by design, and that we Are sub human. All of which are claims without evidence or argumentation. Eat shit retard, you're not worth debating.

>>127605913
It's a The Right Stuff meme.

>>127611330
do it, we need more infiltrators and resistance from within when the time comes

>>127606631
>degeneracy
>paleocon
Nah, it's more like the standard Libertarian Party position.
Not what we want, but we all start somewhere.

>>127610546
>In a statist society, if your official tells you to suck his dick or get literally fired from the barrel of a gun, you would get on your knees. You can't even prove me wrong on that. Your ideology is literally gay by design.

wew lad

>>127606735
Oh, you're a Strasshole. Even worse.
Yeah, I bet subsidising low production is going to end up very well for you.
Like I said, if another asshole tries to establish a monopoly, we have helicopters for that.

>>127610546
What if I pay my boss, so I can suck his dick?

>>127606779
Check my flag.
Our antifa is so weak, I'd have to become a domestic terrorist to be an actual freedom fighter, and I don't feel like it just yet.
Fico may be a commie, but at least now he can't do shit against the Slovak people.

File: jcdd.jpg (6KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 480x360px

>>127611537
What are you talking about? I gave you a scenario about sexual exploitation. Answer the question, would you violate the NAP or suck some dick if it suits you economically?

Look at my first post in the thread.
>>127604528
Lots of arguments, but I just get called a stirnerite AND a strasser commie. You guys just post memes and screech autistically. Here's your chance to put your beliefs to the test.

>>127612175
I'd not work on the faggots farm, I can grow corn and potatoes without him idiot.

>>127611822
I would kill him or die trying, because I don't abide by the gayass NAP.

File: 16sino-mao-master675.jpg (130KB, 675x472px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 675x472px

mao zedong was a good leader.

>>127612175
>would you violate the NAP or suck some dick if it suits you economically?

I know this is an extremely difficult concept for a swede to understand, but you can CHOOSE not to suck dick, you know? no violence needed

>>127612462
very good at leading people to starvation, yes

>>127612308
Why would there be unclaimed arable land and water for irrigation? We are essentially using all of it now?

If you had no capital, you would HAVE to suck dick, no?

>>127611729
Maybe I misunderstand what paleocons are but aren't they generally civic nationalists, supporters of weed legalization and homo rights?

>>127610546
>suck cock
Sodomite projection alert.
>muh boss
Sucking cock is not part of the contract, you utter retard.
If violence is a human right, then the allies were right to fry German civilians alive in the firestorms of Hamburg and Dresden.
Might makes right, you pussy. Bitching about "muh war crimes" won't save you from the fact that you couldn't prevent it. War is a do or die situation. The second half of the war, Hitler choked massively and the result of that was him choking on a gun as he pulled the trigger.
Moral of the story - If you want your Reich to be bigger, you better not be a bitch nigger.

>>127612641
Why would I have no capital?

While we're making up hypotheticals what if you had to suck a dick or get fucked in the ass? Ha I guess that proves you're gay.

>>127612546
>>127612641
You are running out of options.

File: e15-507.jpg (52KB, 580x402px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 580x402px

>>127612546
http://www.revcom.us/a/1248/mao_china_setting_record_straight.htm

keep believing in your capitalist propaganda though.
>when you hate the state but believe in everything it teaches you about communism

>>127612347
>gayass NAP
Well, if he threatens you at gunpoint, you using force would not be a NAP violation.

>>127612462
Would you like some political persecution with that famine?

>>127612957
nice assumption faggot

>>127612641
>what if what if what if
How many layers of desperation are you on?

>>127612681
Don't think so.
Pat Buchanan is a paleocon, for example. So is Jared Taylor, I think.
They're generally for restricted immigration, traditional society, a smaller government, a more or less free market, and against military interventions.

File: e13-644.jpg (92KB, 580x404px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 580x404px

>>127613115
a country that just resisted japanese imperialism, went through a civil war with a backwards economy cannot possibly avoid famines. by your logic, capitalism and winston churchill are to be blamed for the indian famines under british rule. the difference is, mao and inner party members vowed to not eat meat while the famine was still present, while churchill blamed the indians for "breeding too much" for the famine.

File: 1491358353597.png (110KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1000x1000px

>>127613038
>The Great Sparrow Campaign (Chinese: 打麻雀运动; pinyin: Dǎ Máquè Yùndòng), also known as the Kill a Sparrow Campaign (Chinese: 消灭麻雀运动; pinyin: Xiāomiè Máquè Yùndòng) and, officially, as the Four Pests Campaign, was one of the first actions taken in the Great Leap Forward in China from 1958 to 1962. The four pests to be eliminated were rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows.
>By April 1960, Chinese leaders realized that sparrows ate a large amount of insects, as well as grains.[7][8] Rather than being increased, rice yields after the campaign were substantially decreased.[9][8] Mao ordered the end of the campaign against sparrows, replacing them with bed bugs, as the extermination of the former upset the ecological balance, and bugs destroyed crops as a result of the absence of natural predators.[10] By this time, however, it was too late. With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides.[9] Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine, in which 20–45 million people died of starvation.[11][12]
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

[laughter intensifies]

>>127613038
Let me lay it out for you in simple terms.
The state teaches us to love democracy, which leads to communism.
It feeds us the "not real communism" line without mentioning the fact that real communism = real equity = total annihilation of everything. That's why the more communistic a regime became, the more people died. Because the only time two people are equal is when they're both six feet under.

>>127613493
Fine, why do we have do defend Churchill? He has nothing to do with us. Mao was still a shit.

>>127602713
>private borders
Funny how lolbertarians justify open borders with shit like "lol sure we will flood the country with muslims but its not like they are going to be allowed on your property lol #privateborders"
Fuck off globalists

>>127612776
Might DOES make right, in fact, might makes property.

>>127612881
YOU are denying yourself the option of violent resistance. Then obvsiously you should face hypotheticals were you are forced to commit sensual acts or perish.

>>127613044
>>127613219
He does NOT threaten you at gunpoint. I never said that. Read the premises. This is a reasonable hypothetical given the NAP, think about it, the NAP is absurd.

File: DontBait_0.png (30KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 625x626px

>>127613836
You literally didn't read it. We're talking about real government enforced national borders as a libertarian policy.

Your b8 is weak.

>>127613493
Nationalist China resisted the Japs.
Famines under a free, capitalistic economy are a result of gross incompetence of those who store the crops, or a poor following of the market.
Because people are incentivised to produce food in a system of division of labour, something else has to go wrong in order for the system to fail.
And yes, poos can definitely chill it with the breeding. If white people bred so much while receiving aid, they'd be called parasites, and rightfully so.

>>127614071
>if every piece of land was owned by a corporation who decide who is invited or not we would have closed borders
Yeah corporations would totally hate to invite third world cheap labor into the country

>>127613207
It's really simple, if someone is extorting you by holding vital property and you deny yourself the right to violent resistance, you forfeit your dignity.

There is every economic justification for all arable land to be held. If I'm wrong just debate me. Unused arable land is an inefficiency, the free-market eliminates inefficiencies.

>>127613836
How the fuck are you gonna let them in if there is no public property they can infest and no state to leech off of? The only thing I could think of would be a private institution providing rooms to them, which would
1) only work for a very small number of immigrants
2) be fucking retarded since it would cost them a lot of money and reputation and bring only negative results.
Immigration, and therefore forced integration, can only be enforced by the state.

File: ynsYzQKKNooRip-xH7OSwmUTT4OaUenHd75qUYHgXZo.jpg (62KB, 548x768px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 548x768px

>>127613651
nothing speaks louder than a loudmouthed idiot who cites wikipedia.
>>127613813
>That's why the more communistic a regime became, the more people died
pic related is literally what you're saying. how stupid.
>>127613822
churchill was a capitalist, mao was a communist. if you criticize mao, i have a right to criticize churchill.
>>127614190
a majority of the peasants supported the communists, the nationalists were a minority, but keep swallowing that capitalist propaganda

>>127612681
no think tea party, they are also really protectionist unlike these globalist free trade loving libertarian "right wingers"

File: Mao DELET THIS.png (384KB, 500x521px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 500x521px

Mao Zedong >>> Ayn Rand or any right-wing "libertarian" desu

Need some help understanding something. In one of Hoppe's videos on jewtube he talks about the german states in the 1800s and he mentions that the decentralization of germany created competition with low taxes and lots of important cities and universities. Most of the universities where state sponsored though. Some my question is besides low taxes, are small states with limited revenue more efficient with their tax money i.e. small efficient armies, bureaucracies, and road systems with a willingness to sponsor science and technology? Minus of course the occasional prestige palace projects.

>>127614888
Can't wrong the Dong!!

>>127614303
What would make their labor cheaper? It's not like there's a minimum wage that they'd be undercutting. Prices aren't cheaper just because they'd take a low wage. Exactly why do you believe the local people couldn't complete or be more desirable worker than the shitniggers?

>>127614636

>College communist:the post

>>127614474
>if someone is extorting you by holding vital property

top kek, how are they extorting me? you go somewhere else, you sperg

>>127614636
>nothing speaks louder than a loudmouthed idiot who cites wikipedia.

not an argument. You acknowledge that it did happen, and that the consequences were real. People starved under your shitty system, who woulda guessed?

>kill bird you think was useless
>it actually wasn't useless

o i am laffin

> if you criticize mao, i have a right to criticize churchill.
>let me criticize a government leader
>on a general about anti-government

go criticize churchill somewhere else then, we don't give a shit

>>127614888
>Ayn Rand

if all you know about libertarianism is that frail bitch, you hardly know what you're talking about lul

File: image.jpg (67KB, 324x350px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 324x350px

>>127614888
>tfw you found your country but it become a world power only after it liberalize it's economy
Pathetic

>>127613919
Well fascism, national socialism, and similar ideologies were defeated numerous times and won seldom.
That means you're not very mighty, that means you're not very right at all, are you?

As for the sodomite boss situation, people like him had long ago been gotten rid of during the violent revolution leading up to the ancap era.
If he somehow slipped through, then he'd have to have my consent to suck his dick whenever he asks me to through the work contract, which I wouldn't give. That means if he wants to suspend the contract, I have full right to sue him for denying me my livelihood.
You keep tightening the leash around the "argument", however. Presuming there's no other arable land. Presuming I have no other job opportunities and no capital of my own.
Not everybody is a poorfag.
However, my answer is I'd kill him because I have reasonable proof that he's a sodomite and thus a health hazard to everyone around him.
That's even NAP-compliant, when we take it to the logical conclusion.

Now for you - defend the forceful redistribution of wealth from the position of a man who's holding onto a helicopter's landing skid, staring down the barrel of a RWDS member's rifle.

>>127614519
>How the fuck are you gonna let them in if there is no public property they can infest and no state to leech off of?
If the corporations own all the land like in your libertarian paradise, you better be damn sure that they are going to allow cheap slave labor in. You do know that big farms and corporations love third world immigrants right? They can pay them $3 an hour, they are the biggest supporters of illegal immigration. You are delusional if you believe corporations will put nation over profits.
>The only thing I could think of would be a private institution providing rooms to them
Corporations would be more than happy to do that to get cheap labor. They do that till this day, they provide homes for illegals picking crops and then charge them rent.

>Immigration, and therefore forced integration, can only be enforced by the state
True, which is why libertarian ism is retarded

>>127614657
>>127613414
Well good to know

>>127614636
Ok that's fine, you can criticise Churchill. What does that have to do with the merits of Mao's regime? We never brought him up as someone we support. You said you support Mao because Churchill was bad. It makes no sense dude. Why do I care if Churchill was good? We've never expressed him as a good model for capitalism.

>>127614636
You don't get rights, you commie.
I'm not sure if I've made myself clear, but by not believing in property and trying to push that idea by force, you've forfeited your right to live.
If the majority of the peasants supported the communist, then I'm glad they starved to death because of their dear leader's retardation.

>>127614888
Ayn Rand is not /lrg/-approved.
Mao Zedong is fucking based for having killed millions upon millions of chinks, many of whom were commies as well.

The second governments are abolished, Google hires a nice army for a few billions and makes you all slaves. Prove me wrong. No NAP bullshit, nobody will care about your damn NAP if it isn't enforced.

>>127615155
>What would make their labor cheaper?
Willingness to work for $2 an hour for a start. You dont need to give third world immigrants healthcare benefits, vacation time and are willing to work more than hours than 5 to 8 a day without a need for weekends.

>Prices aren't cheaper just because they'd take a low wage
Yet corporations cry that they are going to have to raise prices if they have to raise the minimum wage for their workers

> Exactly why do you believe the local people couldn't complete or be more desirable worker than the shitniggers?
I dont know man, maybe because there was a whole working class revolt this past election mostly against illegal immigration because corporations would rather hire illegals because of muh profits

>>127613219
>>127613207
>>127612881

What the fuck? Aren't you the argument posse?

1: There is every incentive for all arable land to be held in a free-market.
2: A person that cannot aquire capital because it is already held, will always be in a dependent position relative to the capital-holder.
3: Denying the right to violence makes anyone who has NEED vulnerable to unlimited extortion.

If all 3 are true... are you considering sucking dick?

File: Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg.png (105KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 600x400px

>>127615029
Look up the holy roman empire, pretty libertarian if you can accept that nobles can own property.
Decentralization was goo dbecuase all cities wanted to show each other who is the best so they competed in everything especially universities.
Also besides Prussia there weren't really state funded since the aristocracy hat put in their own capital, to rise their people on a higher level.
Armies also functioned as police and were under each ruler of their respective county.
And our Kaiser despite being emporer over the whole reich had in fact very little influence and was more a moral authority.

>>127614636
>>127615732
>>127616018
Also if Churchill is to blame for the Indians' famine (spoiler alert - he's not, India is a large country with enough arable land to feed itself and nobody pressed them not to farm food), that's a good thing. Fewer mouths to feed.

>>127616024
Then we waste their army and put their heads on spikes.
You see, Google has a lot more to lose than we do.
Besides, (((you))). The only reason we listen to our enemies is to learn what they're up to.

>>127616169
I already answered the question.
He's a sodomites and sodomites are a health hazard.
But I don't use the NAP when dealing with people who just want to wrong me. It's a good way to guide general relations between people, but if one of them decides to go out of their way to be a dick, I see nothing wrong with putting them six feet under to maintain a stable society.

>>127601780
>>127601830

I like this how can I help

>>127615403
>If the corporations own all the land

the bigger "if" question is what if retards stop assuming all the land will be sold. Freedom is free to reject as much as it to accept, this assumption that corporations will suddenly and spontaneously own everything, and that they're all the same and all equally terrible is pure idiocy lost on the irony that what they're basically describing is big government

not everybody will sell their land, and certainly not everybody will sell their land to one entity. If your premise fails, then the question is nullified out of its absurdity

>>127616024
>other corporations are just going to let one corporation rule them all

they're going to form a mutual agreement to eliminate the aggressor and establish a temporary retaliatory army to delet google. Individual corporations make much more profit if left alone to rule what they have in competition instead of allowing someone to bitch them around like a pseudo-gov

>>127616169
>1: There is every incentive for all arable land to be held in a free-market.

provided they can purchase the land, enforce its ownership by building on it, and then sustaining ownership of the land which costs time and resources that can't be done on a whim

>2: A person that cannot aquire capital because it is already held, will always be in a dependent position relative to the capital-holder.

they can acquire capital based on a contractual job that outlines the nature and duty of the job, obligations, and what they are expected/not expected to do. It's not a "dependent position", it's mutual agreement for mutual gain, otherwise they don't work for them and they lose employees

>3: Denying the right to violence makes anyone who has NEED vulnerable to unlimited extortion.

nigger-tier logic that calls for violence when things can be resolved peacefully through negotiation

>If all 3 are true... are you considering sucking dick?

all three are false, so you're the only one sucking dick here sven

File: hip hop fuck op.jpg (307KB, 1313x1248px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1313x1248px

>>127604528
>private property is only permissible if the people around you benefit from your private property
You benefit from my ownership of a house, the land around it, and the items inside it by remaining secure in your own ownership of your house, surrounding land, and contained items. To compromise my property rights is to tacitly refuse the security I have allowed you to have. Ergo, any retribution I enact to re-secure my own property is legitimate, since you've refused any of the security you gain in not being stabbed, shot, etc.

You can choose not to tolerate my property rights, in the same way that I may choose not to tolerate the flow of air down your throat.

>>127616160
Yeah there's an incentive for immigration because the state forbids the locals to compete with the Brown people. It's literally economic policy that benefits the illegals over locals. You dismissed my whole point and went on with the same argument.

>>127616972
Post the general if you don't see it in the catalog.
To find it in the catalog, press Search and type in "lrg". If "Nothing Found" is displayed, go to the pastebin link and post it broken up into several posts marked by the // symbol.

>>127616972
Propagate, and shill for the cause. If you have any media skills create some related content.

>>127615291
See
>>127616169

>>127615401
>Well fascism, national socialism, and similar ideologies were defeated numerous times and won seldom.
>That means you're not very mighty, that means you're not very right at all, are you?
I don't accept the premise that I'm a nazi, fascist or similar. And you know full-well that you are misinterpreting the maxim, it has nothing to do with the truth question.

>As for the sodomite boss situation, people like him had long ago been gotten rid of during the violent revolution leading up to the ancap era.
So you're saying that even though the potential for exploitation exists, no one would ever use it? That's a pretty choice opinion on human nature, rational humans use the potential available to further their positions.
>That means if he wants to suspend the contract, I have full right to sue him for denying me my livelihood.
What makes an ancap court system different than the current one. They both form to fulfill a need, they are both formed ultimately from convention.

>I'd kill him because I have reasonable proof that he's a sodomite and thus a health hazard to everyone around him.
You exercise your right to violent resistance.

>Now for you - defend the forceful redistribution of wealth from the position of a man who's holding onto a helicopter's landing skid, staring down the barrel of a RWDS member's rifle.

I don't defend it, the non-redistribution is a fact. But it has nothing to do with natural law or the NAP. Congrats ur a stirnerite, now let go of your spooks.

>>127616543
I have to do a bit of soul searching to explain why I expected an even semi-coherent response from a Slovak.

>>127602687
i just did too

>>127617468
It's NAP-compliant to remove health hazards, even ones with a pulse.

>>127617044
no but all it takes for the country to be flooded by muslims is for 3 or 4 corporations to allow them in.
Really how fucking hard is it to just have a government that does not allow immigrants in, but you guys will do anything so that big daddy capitalism not get hurt, fucking cucks

>they're going to form a mutual agreement to eliminate the aggressor and establish a temporary retaliatory army to delet google. Individual corporations make much more profit if left alone to rule what they have in competition instead of allowing someone to bitch them around like a pseudo-gov
yeah that is so realistic, seems like in your scenario corporations will be literally killing each other with private armies

This ideology is nearly as bad as Marxism.
In fact, it is only intended to weaken economic protectionism in western nations to the point that Marxists can knock them over.

File: A I R B O R N E.png (1MB, 2248x1980px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2248x1980px

>>127617527
Go search for your soul in my airborne oven.
I bet you'll be able to see all six of the gorillions from up there.

File: sickeningputrefactionRMARTIN.jpg (31KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 620x413px

>>127617260
Property is a human activity, not a principle. You hold a house, because the cost you impose on intruders is greater than the value of your house. You hold natural resources or means of production with much greater difficulty. These same mechanisms form the argument for the organization of resources under a "state". Yet you complain?

>>127617290
>the state does not allow us to exploit American workers that is why we are forced to bring people from other countries so we can exploit them
Ok I get what you are saying, if there is no state banning you from exploiting your workers then you will have no need to bring foreign workers to exploit. Tell me again how lolbertarians are not kikes

>>127617860
>fucking cucks
Anyone who accepts a coercive authority over himself is a cuck.
Corporations are created through the state, so they would be quite short-lived in an ancap society, when people stop buying their products out of sheer spite.
Then the people and their properties are going to be protected by themselves and any private defense contractors that are paid by them.
Also, not all nations like to import muslims, just so you know.

>>127617786
You are just proving that the NAP means nothing, it's a spook. Streamline your ideology by tossing it in the garbage.

>>127617044
So the only answer to one corporation's army is other corporation's armies? It's going to be a world war of mega-corporations, with civvies forcefully recruited into service. And what happens when the dust settles and there is finally only one corporation or an alliance of corporations? You actually believe any single person would be allowed to own a factory, a piece of land, a grocery store or a website in a world ruled by mega-corporations that are instrinctly programmed to maximizing their profits?

how do libfags defend the fact that without government to protect individual rights, corps will get so competitive they will just stomp on them? I am curious.

>>127616366
I was under the impression that universities were state funded but the aristocracy spending their own money on them makes sense for dickwaving competitions. So basically cities and the numerous states had to be efficent to survive. Thanks for the reply

>>127617860
>Really how fucking hard is it to just have a government that does not allow immigrants in

right, because that same government is what gives these shitskins gibs and welfare?

there's so realistic incentive for mass muslim migration if there's no gibs, and people can have private property discriminatory policies against their kind, while also be free to not hire them in the first place. Racial discrimination will be the norm, these globalist shitskins won't have anything to migrate for

>you guys will do anything so that big daddy capitalism not get hurt, fucking cucks

and you will do the same so that big nanny gov not get hurt, fucking turbocuck

>yeah that is so realistic, seems like in your scenario corporations will be literally killing each other with private armies

it's just a team of multicorporations neutralizing a single corporate threat senpai, the same way how they can temporarily form a joint military agreement to repel outside invasion forces in the event of war. Not to mention that citizens will have guns as well, and do rogue urban guerrilla tactics

>>127618080
Marxists are going to take a ride in a helicopter.
Though I do understand the appeal of protectionism. Free trade works under the following conditions:
>the economic and political situations are similar in both countries
>the countries are not antagonistic
If these are not satisfied, then free trade between the countries would be straight-up weird.

>>127618321
you want to tell American workers ;
>"no, you cannot take a job at that wage. Only illegals can get those jobs."

You must end the minimum wage, it is exploitation to deny American citizens work.

>>127618538
Not going to happen. I don't take orders from a Swedecuck.

>>127618488
>Anyone who accepts a coercive authority over himself is a cuck.
yet ancaps worship corporate authority
>Corporations are created through the state, so they would be quite short-lived in an ancap society, when people stop buying their products out of sheer spite
It's like you never heard of monopolies before
>Then the people and their properties are going to be protected by themselves and any private defense contractors that are paid by them.
so in the case of a foreign invasion only the rich in their armed gated communities are protected, while the working class if forced to defend themselves with shotguns and revolvers. Some nice system you got there.
>Also, not all nations like to import muslims, just so you know.
Yeah Africans and Spics are liked by others

>>127618542
>It's going to be a world war of mega-corporations, with civvies forcefully recruited into service

what do you not understand about voluntary agreement? nobody is going to be forcefully recruited, and there WON'T be one corporation because that's what they're all against. You're thinking of a government ffs

>or an alliance of corporations?

what's wrong with an alliance of competing corporations? nothing. literally nothing. the idea and concept of competing corporations is so alien to most people after being drilled in their head that: "government = good, corporations = bad" that they don't even see that a corporation can't force you to do shit -- that's what government does!

>You actually believe any single person would be allowed to own a factory, a piece of land, a grocery store or a website in a world ruled by mega-corporations that are instrinctly programmed to maximizing their profits?

yes, because it's private ownership is profitable. I thought you jews knew this

File: Minarchist Snek.png (203KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1280x853px

>>127618265
Point to the post where I complain about the existence of a state.
>inb4 all of /lrg/ is anarchist

In any case:
>You have a house because you make it more trouble than it's worth to steal it
You can choose to call this a principle, or simply call it human activity. Either way, it is an economic reality that people do not let robbers into their houses, regardless of any arguments about rights to other people's property or lackthereof.

>>127617044
>provided they can purchase the land, enforce its ownership by building on it, and then sustaining ownership of the land which costs time and resources that can't be done on a whim

Truly. But all arable land will still be held unless YOU in our scenario are willing to orchestrate a violent takeover. Your objection only shows that the ownership of arable land is infinitely more likely to belong to LARGE, VIOLENT, ORGANIZATIONS.

>
they can acquire capital based on a contractual job that outlines the nature and duty of the job, obligations, and what they are expected/not expected to do. It's not a "dependent position", it's mutual agreement for mutual gain, otherwise they don't work for them and they lose employees.
It is in your contractual job that you face our dilemma, it's a case of 'suck a little dick to get ahead'.

>nigger-tier logic that calls for violence when things can be resolved peacefully through negotiation

You cannot negotiate from your position. In order to negotiate you must have an option.

>>127618781
>there's so realistic incentive for mass muslim migration if there's no gibs
I dont remember welfare and gibs during all the Muslim invasions of Europe.
>and you will do the same so that big nanny gov not get hurt, fucking turbocuck
At least you accept that you put capitalism over all, even your own people

>it's just a team of multicorporations neutralizing a single corporate threat senpai, the same way how they can temporarily form a joint military agreement to repel outside invasion forces in the event of war. Not to mention that citizens will have guns as well, and do rogue urban guerrilla tactics
>corporations killing each other
>citizens forced into urban guerilla warfare
This is your country on libertarianism everyone, what a fucking shithole

>>127618865
I never said anything about minimum wage.
I am talking about labour laws and benefits

>>127619232
No, we do not worship corporate authority. We have sovereignity over our bodies and property, and beyond that, it's up to us how we treat others - led by the NAP unless there's conflict.
We also take care of our own, and we hate Afros and beaners too, so stop projecting your liberalism and tolerance unto those who actually struggled to keep existing.

>>127619382
>believes corporations can form private armies and alliances
>somehow they cant force you to do what they want

>>127619407
>it is an economic reality that people do not let robbers into their houses

Sometimes people are robbed. Call it taxes or call it crime.

>>127620216
>We have sovereignity over our bodies and property,
>Its cool if there is muslims and niggers all over my country as long as they are not my lawn

>>127620016
None of which has to do with a state enforced closed borders policy derived from Libertarian property ethics. That's what the image was about, that's what Murray Rothbard was talking about.

Open borders is an assault on private property. That's that.

>>127619494
>But all arable land will still be held unless YOU in our scenario are willing to orchestrate a violent takeover. Your objection only shows that the ownership of arable land is infinitely more likely to belong to LARGE, VIOLENT, ORGANIZATIONS.

nigger why do you keep implying they will be violent? violent organizations will be neutralized with violence first and foremost. That's the point of anarchy. After anarchy, peaceful negotiation and mutual agreement by contract is then the norm to build things

stop autistically screeching whenever someone else has property they worked for, purchased, and built. They're not oppressing you, they're not exploiting you, they bought it fair and square

>It is in your contractual job that you face our dilemma

what?

>You cannot negotiate from your position. In order to negotiate you must have an option.

and people ALWAYS have options.

>>127619708
>I dont remember welfare and gibs during all the Muslim invasions of Europe.

the muslims invasions were violent, so they will be met with violence in self-defense. We'll kill them all in that case

>At least you accept that you put capitalism over all, even your own people

I put capitalism above a state that feeds and propagates degeneracy

>This is your country on libertarianism everyone, what a fucking shithole

the scenario only happens when a corporation intends to establish a STATE or a STATE acts as an outside invasion force.

idiot.

>>127620239
>one corporation acts violent and forceful out of contract
>other corporations are now obliged and are justified in killing it to keep the peace for everyone else, especially themselves and their workers

nice try

>>127620398
>niggers and muslims
I'm not worried about Slovaks letting them in.
Because they won't.
Like I said, quit pretending everywhere is a fucking melting pot.

>>127619382
>what do you not understand about voluntary agreement
There is no need to get an agreement when you can force someone to do it and there is no government to protect the social construct called "rights"

>there WON'T be one corporation because that's what they're all against
Because mergers never happen, and corporations don't ever take over small companies threatening their monopolies.

>they don't even see that a corporation can't force you to do shit -- that's what government does!
Anyone with power can force you to do anything in the constraint their power allows. In a government-less world, corporations will have much more power than today's governments. How can anyone above elementary school not understand this?
>because it's private ownership is profitable
Private ownership is profitable to society overall, yes, but it's not specifically profitable to the ones you compete against. In a truly free market, if you can shut down the competition, you do it. Ironically for you, it's ONLY the government that facilitates private ownership, market competition and free trade.

File: 1492668032769.jpg (40KB, 376x960px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 376x960px

>>127619407

>>127620524
>Open borders is an assault on private property. That's that.
So then have a state to enforce immigration, not just some hillbilly with a shotgun saying "not on muh property"
>inb4 corporations come and save the day with a private border patrol

>the muslims invasions were violent, so they will be met with violence in self-defense. We'll kill them all in that case
You are going to need an army for that bruh, not some rag tag militias of fedora anacaps and hillbillies with shotguns
>I put capitalism above a state that feeds and propagates degeneracy
>capitalism
>not propagating degeneracy
are you serious?

>the scenario only happens when a corporation intends to establish a STATE or a STATE acts as an outside invasion force.
So like all the time then
>other corporations are now obliged and are justified in killing it to keep the peace for everyone else, especially themselves and their workers
no but who is going to stop them if they decide to do that?

>>127620596
>nigger why do you keep implying they will be violent? violent organizations will be neutralized with violence first and foremost. That's the point of anarchy. After anarchy, peaceful negotiation and mutual agreement by contract is then the norm to build things

>stop autistically screeching whenever someone else has property they worked for, purchased, and built. They're not oppressing you, they're not exploiting you, they bought it fair and square

Why does violence occur? Because society is a class of self-interested operators whose interests conflict. Institutions like deals, corporations and other organisations form because the violence is strictly not worth it in the economic sense. You want to remove these perfectly naturally occuring institutions and you expect there won't be violence. That's pretty dumb, and it can only work if everyone in ancap-town is a subservient cocksucker.

File: naga aggression principle.gif (1MB, 457x340px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 457x340px

>>127620394
The argument "taxation is theft" is a whole other issue, but for the most part, people pay taxes for benefits: security, emergency services, etc. The argument of whether people should be forced to pay for centralized versions of goods that can be privatized (e.g. education) is completely separate. The point is, taxes are payment for a benefit. If you don't consent, you can leave to another country.

Any money (or other property) that a robber takes does not get compensated with any kind of benefit, hence no robbery is consensual. The only way to express this non-consent is to re-affirm your property rights by whatever means necessary (this is called castle doctrine).

>>127621206
That's a nice little slippery slope fallacy you've got there.

>>127620726
Ok so an open borders stateless society might work in some shithole in eastern Europe, can we top pretending that wont work in the West and the rest of the first world?

File: 814206047_2019824.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>pretend to be anarcho-capitalist
>actually a stirnerite egoist

>>127620596
Understand that a cost-benefit analysis is just as applicable to violence as they are to, for example, a purchase. And they ARE applied that way.

>>127622022
Well if your people are culturally suicidal, then they deserve tyranny and death.
Also, being called a "shithole" is the price we pay for no muzzies, very few Jews, a low crime rate and good health.

>>127621674
I am advocating the state enforces a closed borders policy from Libertarian ethics.

I keep telling you this, but you keep defaulting to believing I am in favor of open borders. Why?

>>127620998
>There is no need to get an agreement when you can force someone to do it
>there is no government to protect the social construct called "rights

the people protect their own rights, kike. If someone is violent, they gang up against it. This is not a difficult concept to understand, and it does not need a state to function

>Because mergers never happen, and corporations don't ever take over small companies threatening their monopolies.

why would corporations merge for the sake of it? They don't want to share power, they want it for themselves, and that's precisely the kind of competitive spirit that keeps the balance of power in check.

this idea of corporations merging for no reason is as unreasonable to assume as all the nations of the world merging together to oppress everybody. We don't live a single-state world for a reason, because that doesn't make sense. Nobody but commies can swallow that garbage

>Anyone with power can force you to do anything in the constraint their power allows.

uh, not if they're violent

>corporations will have much more power than today's governments.

yeah and what are they going to do about it? force me to buy shitty products? You have the freedom to reject. That's the basic idea: the idea is that people will never be forced to do anything and have absolute freedom

You don't need a parent or state to baby you once you're an adult. How can anyone above elementary school not understand this?

>if you can shut down the competition, you do it.

HMMMM and how they shut down competition? that's right. Government regulations!

>Ironically for you, it's ONLY the government that facilitates private ownership, market competition and free trade.

nigger the gov restricts private ownership, market competition, and free trade. Government has public ownership of things, market control mechanisms, and centrally planned economies

You're smarter than this, chiam

>>127620726
Because Slovakia is a diarrhea-tier shitty slavic 2.5nd world country, perhaps abolishing borders will leave it as rapefugee less as before, but it's just not the case for the rest of the world. Hell, even we had an influx of 250,000 HIV infested Africans right until we built a fence on the entire Egypt border.

>>127621829
Who cares what "should" happen. If you hold property and you cannot put up enough of a value to dissuade violent takeover. Then you will lose it. It makes no sense to talk about property as a natural right, because the person that has no property will never respect that right, nor should he.

>>127613919
I did. he's firing you, but offering you your job back if you suck dick

ignore the "suck dick" part. he fired you. he has a right to. go find another job. this is an ancap world, and there's going to be way more productive economic activity. if you aren't needed at the gay guy's company, you SHOULD be doing something else because it's more useful

>>127621674
>You are going to need an army for that bruh, not some rag tag militias of fedora anacaps and hillbillies with shotguns

private armies, nigger

>are you serious?

Yes. How do degenerates survive? welfare, social safety nets, affirmative action, all sorts of bullshit

>So like all the time then

nope

>no but who is going to stop them if they decide to do that?

I just told you, the people and other corporations

>>127621812

>Because society is a class of self-interested operators whose interests conflict
>my interest conflict!
>I will now use force like a fucking animal instead of working, negotiating, and making deals!

That's pretty dumb, and I mean pure nigger-logic at its finest, and can only work if everyone in your braindead fantasyland is a subservient somalian. OH WAIT, I'm talking with a Swede

>>127622369
>justifying violence outside self-defense
>in any way rational or can be "analyzed"

you mean nigger logic right? hurr, let me just take your shit, I made a cost-benefit analysis that says me not having shit is not preferable compared to me having your shit

fuck's sake mate

>>127616024
Couldn't Google not make us slaves now without an army and despite the government?

>>127623626
Doesn't matter. If you remove the possibility of violent backlash, you incentivize maximum exploitation. But you CAN'T remove it.

File: communismfood.jpg (50KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 644x598px

>>127613493
China's "famine" was man-made, there was no weather or disease that killed harvests.

>>127622930
You're right. And we wouldn't want it any other way.
In fact, I bet we're worse than the Balkans. Indeed, they do actually have a sizable Muslim population.
The only Muslim thing about Slovakia are the kebab stands.

>>127624148
>"wtf i'm being exploited i must now bash the fash"

this is your mind on Swedish education

Just say "no" and go somewhere else you ape, the only person exploiting you is yourself for being so retarded

>>127602713
But what if all property were owned by trendy silicone Valley cucks that want open borders on your town?

>>127623805
>>127624124
You should use violence against people who hold things that you need to survive. But more importantly, you WILL use violence against them.

Besides now you're just saying nigger and repeating yourself.

>>127615029
while I am ultimately for the complete abolition of the state, it is a good first step to devolve power to smaller areas.

and while I think free market economics is the best system, I am in favor of any mechanism that puts pressure on people or groups to improve.

having power decentralized into many small states in many ways is like a free market economy. there is a system where good results are rewarded and bad results are punished via "voting with your feet"

it would be even better if power was decentralized all the way to the individual. but local government is better than national or global government.

>>127624493
>"wtf I'm being exploited, I'm just gonna take it like a little bitch"

This is your ideology. It's an ideology of just taking it like a pussy.

I just got a ancap flag.
What now?

File: watch it.jpg (29KB, 1060x728px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1060x728px

>>127623184
>it makes no sense to talk about property as a natural right because some people don't respect it
It makes no sense to talk about life as a natural right, because murderers will never respect that right, nor should they.

Your logic is, frankly, childish.

To say one man may choose not to respect the property rights of others is to say any man may choose to believe the same. And if you have a society like this, where nobody acknowledges each other's property rights, then the members of that society take action to defend their own property from all the others (to do otherwise would be irrational and against one's own interests). The property rights arise, not because all individuals respect or recognize the rights of others, but because they do everything they can to encourage (read as: violently force) others to respect their property rights.

File: 01d2c16437b34cbf11979253cce2e10a.jpg (32KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 800x599px

>>127602841
Thank you for your service

>>127624613
>You should use violence against people who hold things that you need to survive

So if I'm thirsty and a guy next to me has water, I'm free to mug him instead of giving him some pocket change for it?

absolutely retarded. I'll call you a nigger as much you keep acting and thinking like one, nigger

>>127624148
if you can go work someplace where the "exploitation" is less than where you are now, go there.

better workplaces attract more and better workers.

create maximum economic freedom in order to create as many employers as possible. the more employers there are, the better the employees will be treated

it doesn't work to write a law that says "don't exploit"

it works much better to create conditions where employers cannot get away with exploiting.

>>127624943
Indeed it makes no sense to talk about life as a natural right in the context of an ideology that wants to remove the institutions that protect that right. The right to life and property are LEGAL rights, enforced by the state- and legal-institutions.

>>127601780
Hayek ought to be (((Hayek))) too

>>127606631
I don't really condone drug use but I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. You aren't harming anyone else. You're an adult who can make your own shitty decisions

>>127624793
no, that's YOUR ideology by having a state to make everyone else bitches

Nobody is forced to take it like a pussy if they don't want to, that's the central core tenet that your feeble swedish mind cannot comprehend due your insatiable cocklust

>>127622907
>the people protect their own rights, kike. If someone is violent, they gang up against it.
"Ganging up" is a nice ghetto slang, but what it really means is that a group of people decide to enstablish a professional body of defence. They all need to commit to contribute to that body. It's called: army, police, taxes and government. Unless you think that a few morons with shotguns can protect their land from trained armies with a budget in high billions.
>They don't want to share power, they want it for themselves, and that's precisely the kind of competitive spirit that keeps the balance of power in check.
You awfully mix up profit and competition. Mergers and buyouts maximize profits and enhence monopolies, they are the exact opposite of competition. This is why anti-trust laws are in place to protect competition. No anti-trust laws? No competition at all in a very, very short time.
>Anyone with power can force you to do anything in the constraint their power allows.
A tard with downs syndrome can be very violent, that doesn't mean he can take down an M1 Abrams, you dimwit.
>yeah and what are they going to do about it? force me to buy shitty products? You have the freedom to reject.
No, you don't. Freedom doesn't exist, you only feel free because the government curbs all sorts of bad people that would very much like to make you do stuff you don't want. In an ancap world, they have the power to make you do anything they want, and they will make you do whatever maximizes their profit.
>Government has public ownership of things, market control mechanisms, and centrally planned economies
Governments have no business to do production and to own companies, but otherwise government's control of market dynamics is the only thing that facilitates the free market. Though through the use of lobbyists, corporations are now able to defeat many anti-trust barriers and are growing to a point of eventual singularity.

>>127604118
I've heard anons would be harrassed by nurses "how could you do this?! Ure EBIL!"

>>127625454
yep, that's what we believe. it works much better than the system you propose.

>>127606631
Is alcohol OK?

>>127625454
In the first case has legal consequences to refuse, in my country jail, the second in my country has no consequence to refuse. That´s just the difference, But hey, if you like to pay taxes come to Spain and enjoy my socialist paradise where half of my salary is left the state and prices are hyperinflated by taxes.

You´re wellcome! :D

>>127625351
And if he refuses your pocket change?

I'm just saying that people will inherently do what is necessary.

>>127625371
I don't directly disagree with what you are saying here. I'm saying that the NAP is superfluous and that violence is a part of the economy whether you like it or not.

>>127625626
Never heard of that, but it is your common response from normal people if you say you won't donor your organs.

>>127625526
So.. admit that the NAP is bullshit and violence is a legitimate economic move.

File: lennon mad.jpg (20KB, 500x391px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x391px

>>127610546
This is a remarkably convincing argument

>>127625596
Anti-trust laws have the real effect of preventing newcomers into the marketplace and reducing efficiency.

>>127626082
It's assumed that they are only harvested during definite death. Even though there have been many close calls where people wake up in the morgue or hours later after being declared dead. Also, take it as you will, Alex jones has talked about how his dad (a doctor) has seen people purposely allowed to die at hospitals so that their organs may be harvested. Fucking horrible shit, m8

>>127624894
Why? Did you at least get a cool snek ancap flag?

>>127625386
Citing the law now, huh? You're the only legalist Stirnerite I've ever heard of. In any case, minarchism does not seek to remove the institutions to protect that right, but I'll argue against your legalist stance anyway, since it's wrong.

Lemme paraphrase Frédéric Bastiat here.
You exist, therefore you develop personality (I prefer the word personhood here, but the meaning's the same).
You have faculties, with which you secure liberty.
You have the ability to assimilate the world around you, and what is assimilated becomes your property.
These three things, existence, faculties, and assimilation, are inherent to you. Bastiat chose to say they were God-given gifts, but the point is that they arise from nature, and, logically, so do their products (personhood, liberty, and property).

It is not because man makes laws that these rights (to personality, liberty, and property) exist, but the reverse: man creates laws as a result of these rights, as an extension of his faculties to secure his liberty.

>>127610546
If you live in this imaginary, no more than 1,000 people town its your fault to run that risk, it's not like 70% of towns that small aren't self employed already in one way or another. Just fucking move to a bigger town and find employment elsewhere, nigger.

File: quote-it-is-no-crime-to-be-ignorant-of-economics-which-is-after-all-a-specialized-discipline-and-one-murray-rothbard-263126.jpg (87KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 850x400px

Book club just starting,

discord /7TwUKQ

>>127614474
>the right to violent resistance
You do realize that's a self-destructing right?

>>127625596
>Unless you think that a few morons with shotguns can protect their land from trained armies with a budget in high billions.

there will be privately trained armies with budgets also in the high billions, chaim

>Mergers and buyouts maximize profits and enhence monopolies

this isn't an absolute, merging for no reason does not maximize profit if you're just creating a bigger internal system with more people and more resources to manage. You're massively increasing overhead costs and management conflicts, which is why businesses don't just merge willy nilly you dunce

>This is why anti-trust laws are in place to protect competition.

Yes, laws that tell businesses how to run themselves sure is competitive. You do realize that the big businesses have no problems with these laws right? They have armies of lawyers and government connections to go around them and find loophole after loophole. Anti-trust laws are only anti-trust in paper

It's the small businesses that are hurt from these laws, because it means they now have more bullshit to file and monitor themselves over

>A tard with downs syndrome can be very violent, that doesn't mean he can take down an M1 Abrams, you dimwit.

This is why people have their own private M1 Abrams :^)

>Freedom doesn't exist

how spooky, please tell me more mr. stirner

> you only feel free because the government curbs all sorts of bad people that would very much like to make you do stuff you don't want. In an ancap world, they have the power to make you do anything they want, and they will make you do whatever maximizes their profit.

oh yes big gov thank you for magically keeping me free as long as I don't question it hmmm what's this? the politicians have absolute power? don't worry goy, at least they're not profiting from it. Pay no attention to hordes of tax money these angelic politicians have at their disposal, they're here to serve you! And that means buying mansions and limos! don't like it? deal with it

>>127625920
>And if he refuses your pocket change?

I find someone else, or ideally locate a vending machine

>I'm just saying that people will inherently do what is necessary.

No, you're saying that niggers acting violently is justifiable

pro tip: it's not. You're just acting like a nigger too stupid to make proper rational choices

File: shootupsome niggas.jpg (41KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x405px

>>127626524
>has seen people purposely allowed to die at hospitals so that their organs may be harvested.
I could imagine that things like that happen, if some important politician needs new stuff.
The thing is they declare you braindead keep you alive until the harvesters arrive and then they send your organs even across borders through the EU at least.
I also doubt if you especially request that you won't donate, that they still take them, i.e. you have no relatives and you die alone in a hospital after a motorcycle accident.

>>127626178
No. Because violence is only a legitimate in self-defense, nothing less, nothing more. Unprovoked aggression is unprovoked aggression, and your violence will be met with consequence, preferably by complimentary helicopter ride

stop thinking like a nigger if things aren't immediately in your favor

>>127627438
I can easily see some "oops. Sorry" type of malpractice going on, specially since 90%+ gets gutted.

>>127626693
I'm not trying to take a legalist stance. I'm trying to show you that the basis for property and other rights, is violence. That's the true god-given right from which all others are derived. Man naturally aquires property for the purpose of his liberty and happiness, and he makes laws to protect it. Do not blame him for doing this violently, give him a preferable option.

>>127627553
Universally preferable behavior as a philosophy, then NAP in practice is how I see it

>>127627160
I don't, I see how there are often better options than violence.

File: Minarchist flag.png (10KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 1280x853px

>>127627657
So, what are you arguing against?
You agree that there is a right to one's own property, derived from a God-given faculty (violence). He therefore makes laws to secure these rights, again using his God-given faculty of violent self-defense.

You, my friend, are a fellow minarchist.

>>127627553
>property in the form of natural resources
>"naturally" falls into jewish hands
>I accept it because muh NAP

Why? If you have the coercive power to take property and use it for better aims, JUST DO IT. Don't get caught up in jewish ratinalizations for domination, it's mind control.

>>127627799
"Universally preferable behaviour is forfeiting resources to international jewry"

You cuck-retard why would that be better than ethnic self-governance over the resources? Or ANYTHING?

File: thats_not_an_argumetn_at_all.png (259KB, 604x476px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 604x476px

>>127628737

>>127628444
You, my friend, are confused. Minarchists believe in enforcing arbitrary property rights which are mostly already held by lizard-men. I believe in using your full potential to relieve the unworthy parasites of their property and give it to those who add value. The restriction of violence skews the free-market, I say DEREGULATE.

>>127628737
>Why? If you have the coercive power to take property and use it for better aims, JUST DO IT. Don't get caught up in jewish ratinalizations for domination, it's mind control.

don't you get it? If you use violence to obtain property, other people can do the same onto YOU and then you will neither have liberty nor property. In fact, nobody will, except for whoever carries the biggest stick. You are essentially begging to be oppressed in this way in the long-term, at the cost of a temporary short-term gain.

Violence is short-sighted, reckless, and ultimately self-destructive at its core. It's not jewish rationalizations. You outjew the jew, and beat them at their own game. If you can't, well, you're probably a nigger and won't do much with property anyways

>>127601830
>supporting either palestine or israel
Why not nuke em both?

>>127629331
I personally favor this option.

>>127627982
If everyone has a maxim that accepts violent behavior in case of unreasonable demands, there ceases to be anything to resist since by definition resisting is an action taken against people who are not consenting

File: Fuck Stirnerites.png (241KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 793x794px

>>127629165
>You should steal other people's property because I don't like them
>And give it to people I like
>Also lizard-men
Ah, my mistake, you're a Stirnerite anarcho-national socialist.

>>127629273
As a sidenote:
Jews are monied because they are deceitful and cunning and they have instated a system that favors these values. I'm not so sure that the previous rule of warrior kings valuing honor and loyalty was a worse deal.


I only say that violent takeover should sometimes occurr.
When?
When the value of allowing the property to be managed by it's current owner exceeds the value of taking it.

This ensures optimal management of resources doesn't it?

>>127629923
>they have instated a system that favors these values

yes, big government and marxism are well documented jewish tricks

>When the value of allowing the property to be managed by it's current owner exceeds the value of taking it.

and who determines this? who decides? everyone can just declare that it's justified *for them only*, and then you would have violence everywhere. If not, then you have an institution that is a monopoly of violence, a state, and they will use violence to keep themselves in power at the cost everyone else against their own individual self-interest. Congratulations, you've played yourself

>This ensures optimal management of resources doesn't it?

no, it doesn't. Just needless, pointless, reckless bloodshed because people's feelings were hurt and they *feel* exploited, instead of working and getting ahead in life

>>127629630
Note that I am arguing with people who don't accept 'rights' as conventional, rather natural.

But I can modify to simply 'the right to resistance' or 'the right to violence'.

>>127629673
I'm saying current property rights are arbitrary and they should be reorganized in accordance with higher values. Why serve the interests of the elite by accepting the status quo?

>>127630567
>and who determines this? who decides?

I mean who determines when to buy and when to sell? The person that makes bad value judgements in war or trade will be eliminated from the playing field. It's completely analogous to a conventional free-market, without the arbitrary restriction of violence

>>127631325
>The person that makes bad value judgements in war or trade will be eliminated from the playing field.

the difference here is that someone who makes a single bad deal doesn't cost them their life, sven

File: Recreational Nukem.png (657KB, 2000x1334px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 2000x1334px

>>127631045
They are no more arbitrary than the laws of nature which have made them, much less these "higher values" you talk up but fail to justify.

Now explain to me how shooting people for taking my stuff serves the interests of the elite.

>>127631569
It's not mandatory to make deals like that. And if you do, I imagine you'd have very good reason too. Nevertheless this kind of deal IS available to everyone.

File: Capture2.png (336KB, 403x579px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 403x579px

>>127601780
I love the constant purity tests and fighting between Libertarians, it really helps the Neocons and Dems stomp over us.

File: 1367114501090.png (391KB, 599x590px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 599x590px

>>127618152
>airborne oven
kek fucking saved

>>127631045
Aggressive violence is the same thing: it by nature is nonconsensual

>>127631904
>Now explain to me how shooting people for taking my stuff serves the interests of the elite.

By placing a moral restriction on return-fire.

>>127632109
>Nevertheless this kind of deal IS available to everyone

so you admit that by permitting the use of violence to everyone outside self-defense, they are free to cause as much as chaos as they feel (key word here) like as necessary? if people can get free stuff by violence, why wouldn't they constantly loot and pillage each other?

full blown nigger state. Goddamn it, sven

I've always been very centrist in terms of my economics but always heavily social conservative and right wing in that sense. I kind of saw both communism and capitalism as Jewish tools to control society since capitalism to me always seemed to reward people who were able to exploit people the most. I'm I just thinking about this the wrong way or what? I'm definitely for private property, private businesses, gun ownership et cetera. Maybe I'm just mistaken about Libertariansim idk.

>>127632524
You have a right to defense in all situations. There is no moral restriction.

>>127632443
The holding of property is not always consensual. That's a simple fact, doesn't matter how I think it ought to be.

>>127614888
>14888
WHAT DID KEK MEAN BY THIS????? CHAOS GOD IS CHAOTIC

>>127632816
14 words 888 Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

>>127632622
>they are free to cause as much as chaos as they feel (key word here) like as necessary?

They are free to cause as much chaos as is in their self-interest, which is none.

>if people can get free stuff by violence, why wouldn't they constantly loot and pillage each other?

Because by and large they can't get free stuff by violence.

Are you beginning to understand what I'm saying?

>>127632720
I agree.

File: no argument.png (54KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x534px

>>127632524
>Passing castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws to permit return-fire against a thief or attacker morally restricts return-fire

File: Anatomy of the State.jpg (28KB, 240x368px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 240x368px

>>127632713
it seems like your heart is already in the right place, and you've got good intuition about what's really going on behind the scenes

I personally highly recommend you read Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard, it will help clarify your attitude towards the state and maybe give you a new perspective on PALEOlibertaranism instead of the cucked version most people are familiar with

it's literally only 60 pages too, shouldn't take long

https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

File: stirn.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

>>127633189
>laws

>>127633242
ty famalam

>>127633123
>They are free to cause as much chaos as is in their self-interest, which is none.

ah but like you said they are exploited? cocksuckers, right?

eat your own words. You advocate violence and nigger behavior

>Because by and large they can't get free stuff by violence.

yes they can, like you said they are supposedly right to use violence for property and other gibs

>Are you beginning to understand what I'm saying?

I've understood that you're a nigger who believes in aggressive violence since your first few posts

>>127632807
There really isn't any consistent way of "human ownership" except for everyone owning his own body. Other options lead to contradictions and madness (we can't all own each other). We're talking about aggressing against the unreasonable's body, right?

File: 1413521324135.jpg (138KB, 736x459px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 736x459px

>>127633242
You can spot "true" Libertarians since they always post a mises link.

File: NAP violation.png (32KB, 636x364px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 636x364px

>>127633364
>implying laws are a spook

>>127625386
>implying the existence of rights due to the existence of laws

Pick one.

>>127633557
If you sit on a copper deposit, having no knowledge of how to use it, and no army to defend it. Then you should be hung from a tree by angry geologists.

If you manage your property well, you can dissuade violent takeover by providing value to the would-be takeoverers.

>>127633955
You are shifting the goalposts from moral to legal. I had said nothing about a legal right to return-fire. Rephrase your argument or I don't know what to tell you.

>>127634137
Fuck Geologists that land from the heaven above to hell below is mine.

>>127633955
Is this 'principal' some sort of meme or does everyone just mistype it?

>>127633455
np my dude, let us know how it works out for you. happy reading

Would Libertarians accept a democracy only allowing landowners to vote. Also something like Dictatorship, not totalitarian but national decisions are up to them or is this a violation of Libertarian beliefs?

>>127634676
Impotent rage. Note that, by construction, you cannot defend your land in this case.

>>127633933
w-whats wrong with mises

>>127633728
I don't think we should talk about "human ownership" in terms other than practical. You own what you can maintain control over and profit from. Something like that.

woot

File: 1427677367717.png (460KB, 1028x766px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1028x766px

>>127635068
Nothing I was only stating something I've noticed on different websites.
>>127635058
Guerrilla Warfare until they leave. I am not too keen on surrendering my land to communists.

>>127634137
so are those geologists, who just study rocks and not the business behind them, the ultimate arbitrary judges for how resources are to be allocated? how would this be enforced on a mass scale? that's right, a fucking state

piss off, might as well go full communism because you can pretend that a group of people can somehow magically know how to better use someone else's property, resources, and lives

>If you manage your property well, you can dissuade violent takeover by providing value to the would-be takeoverers.

yeah, and who decides how *well* this property is being managed? those same fucking commie geologists?

jesus christ

>>127606666
The image needs a quote. It is KEK's will.

File: S N A K E.jpg (159KB, 643x573px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 643x573px

>>127634624
I asked you to tell me how shooting people in defense of my property supports these elite lizard-men you're talking about.

You said that this morally restricts return-fire.

So, I attempted to imply that you'd contradicted yourself by saying that the existence of laws, but in reality I'd conflated legal rights with moral rights. What I should have said is:
Exercising your right to return-fire does not restrict return-fire in the slightest. In fact, it does the opposite.

>>127635571
Pathetic, are you gonna keep playing dumb?

The geologists place in the mining company is not the issue.

I'm presenting to you an idea about how violence functions in terms of economic value. A sub-optimal management of property is not tolerated without violent takeover for the reasons I have presented. Are you going to present a counter-argument?

>>127601780
Talk about not making any sense, or policies/governments that just won't work. I'll give you a 5/10 for making me go hmmm though.

>>127635005
I'd prefer Libertarian dictatorship over property owners democracy senpai.

File: NotMyLP.png (209KB, 499x254px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 499x254px

LP died with Harry Browne. The leaders of the liberty movement do not support open borders. Memes needed. Here is a list of people who do not currently support open borders:

Tom Woods
Lew Rockwell (pretty sure)
(((Dave Smith)))
(((Michael Malice)))
Jason Stapleton
(((Liberty Hangout)))
Chris Cantwell

Reply to add more

>>127636094
>Pathetic, are you gonna keep playing dumb?

are you?

>I'm presenting to you an idea about how violence functions in terms of economic value.

which is based entirely on arbitrary perception

>A sub-optimal management of property

assessed on arbitrary grounds

>Are you going to present a counter-argument?

only when you start presenting actual arguments instead of "hurr I *feel* exploited, I have the right to use violence! No, other people can't use violence against me because they too, feel exploited! My system is coherent, I swear!"

you've been operating on nigger logic for the entire duration of this thread

>>127635847
Starting here:

In an ancap society, standing property rights are respected and may change only through consensual arrangements.

Elite lizard-men hold the most valuable property.

Through principles like the NAP, we defend the property of lizard-men.

I assumed you were the lizard in our example. But of course there will be a class of property owners whose good work in producing goods and services will create an incentive AGAINST anyone taking their property. Or who are able to demonstrate enough of a military capability to dissuade takeover.

>>127636549
forget rights for a second.

If you hold property that can be taken from you at little loss for the taker. That's an economic incentive to take your property.

If you manage property in a way that adds value to the public, by producing goods or services for example. Then that's an incentive AGAINST taking your property

If you mismanage you property and someone else could use it to create more value for the public. That's an economic incentive to take your property.

muh arbitrary perception

>>127636493
Murray Rothbard eventually came around to closed borders, Lew Rockwell for sure, Hans Hermann Hoppe too!

See
>>127602713

File: smh stands for stefan molyneux's head.jpg (10KB, 376x374px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 376x374px

>>127636862
>I assumed
There's your problem.

Anyway, that is a fairly pro-ancap argument. As long as you're hard-working enough you'll prosper, and as long as you're strong enough, you'll keep what's yours. I don't see what you're arguing against here.

>>127635319
Anyways, property, as a concept, doesn't require any violations. A society where land is freely appropriated by first users without any ideological quarrels is idealizable

>>127636862
>Elite lizard-men hold the most valuable property.

so this is the rationale you have to justify literally stripping other good people of their freedom? nevermind that non-lizard folk can purchase property on their own, move up, manage other property, let's just seize the means of EVERYBODY's property ownership like good comrades for greater good, da?

c'mon man. uncontrolled violence like that only introduces further uncontrolled violence, because then everybody will claim everyone else is part lizard and they are justified to act like niggers looting and rioting in the street because of how exploited they feel

>>127637295
muh abitrary perception is right, because despite how well-managed your property might be, I could just claim it wasn't well-managed enough to MY liking (or the liking of special interest groups), and I am right to violently strip you of property

no other central agency can sponsor such a madness of a system as you've described, other than a violent, cruel state as all states are

are you this triggered just by someone having a plot of land purchased and gated for reserve use later? fucking geofags, man

File: NaziAmerica.png (7KB, 1079x568px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 1079x568px

Hey never read your threads before. I'm a national socialist am I welcome here?

>>127637880
> I could just claim it wasn't well-managed enough to MY liking

You would be making bad value judgements and eliminating yourself from the market. You do understand how markets work right? The market is self-regulating.

>so this is the rationale you have to justify literally stripping other good people of their freedom?

Again, the violence-economic system would favor "good people" that do good work. They would be protected by everyone that is self-interested.

File: 1489061555114.png (70KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 320x240px

>>127638051
everyone's welcome my man, just respect private property

we share more in common with NatSocs than you might think. see earlier posts in infographs and FAQs

>>127638388
>You would be making bad value judgements and eliminating yourself from the market.

Nope, you say my force is justified. I use my force to strip you of your property because I think I can run it better. According to you, that's fair game

>Again, the violence-economic system would favor "good people" that do good work.

being violent is work. Their job is to take your property.

>They would be protected by everyone that is self-interested.

They would be protected by everyone that is self-interested in sacrificing freedom for their own gain, meaning you would have constant war between people who each claim they can do better with each other's property. At least in NAP-complaint Anarcho-Capitalism, they can only compete economically rather than with violence as you suggest

in short, you're still thinking like a nigger

File: 1493053598741.png (171KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1000x1000px

>>127638051
>I'm a national socialist am I welcome here?
As libertarians we're not particularly fond of statists but at least be nice and acknowledge our existence on /pol/ as legitimate and we'll do the same for you. We have common enemies anyway, so preventing too much division from happening on /pol/ is probably the best thing we can do for it in the presence of redditors and shills

>>127638388
>You would be making bad value judgements and eliminating yourself from the market.
So only the elders would decide who gets what? It's pretty funny that a Swede would uphold African traditions.

How to destroy the pseudo ancap ancuck on borders:

>According to AnarchoCapitalism ethics everything is owned by someone who has a right to it if he did not use violence. Therefore taxpayers own all of the land that is being illegitimately controlled by the State. Some of them want immigrants, others do not. We do not have a way to determine who should prevail giving that we cannot know how would our private property be distributed without the State. Given that it is not possible to decide if immigrants should be allowed or not in a determinate piece of land, they should not be allowed. The burden of proof lies on the open borderist because it's him that wants to change the composition of the population. But since he cannot provide legitimate proof of ownership of land in which to allow migrants, his position does not obtain.

You could make lots of less complex good arguments, this and others are however a priori as long as one accept AnCap ethics.

>>127638870
>Nope, you say my force is justified. I use my force to strip you of your property because I think I can run it better. According to you, that's fair game.

What if you don't run it better then? You'll suffer the same fate as the previous owner.

I can tell from your post that you don't understand the mechanics of a market. This system imposes a cost on mismanaging property.

>>127639206
If they live on the land a decade its their's. Anyone is free to it if its open.

Fuck commies and nazis

>>127639091
The market would decide you cretin. You'd think a basic understanding of economics would be a prerequisite for becoming libertarian.

>>127639358
>What if you don't run it better then? You'll suffer the same fate as the previous owner.

so you admit endless cycles of war are an inevitability in your shitty system?

>you don't understand the mechanics of a market. This system imposes a cost on mismanaging property.

I can tell from your post that you don't understand the concept of respecting private property. This system imposes a cost on mismanaging property, but not at the cost of lives and eternal bloodshed over who gets to run who's property because they've arbitrarily determined they can run it better, just like the guy before them, and the just like the guy after them

>>127639411
No, what you mean is that the State has decided that that's the way he should manage its illegitimate land monopoly.

>>127639563
>You'd think a basic understanding of economics would be a prerequisite for becoming libertarian.
>openly advocating violence outside self-defense is now libertarian

speak for yourself, swede

>>127639563
What market? You're arguing for stealing people's shit based on speculation.