Why is Left-Libertarianism not discussed ever?

>>127699621
Because it's fucking retarded even by /pol/'s NEETsoc standards.

>>127699621
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO68Kvb9fD4

no such thing

>>127699621
you are a degenerate

File: tmp_9563-155625153138060.jpg (17KB, 326x454px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 326x454px

>>127699621

>>127699621
If you're going to demand a small government at least do the people a service and not leech off of it

>>127699621
Because the Soviets BTFO them back in Catalonia in the 30s

File: Pen.jpg (18KB, 351x329px)

18KB, 351x329px

>>127699703
How so? Moderate Left Libertarianism is just a desire for maximum individual liberty and social equality, as well as government programmes.#

Extreme Left Libertarianism is Anarcho-Syndicalism; a system wherein the workers control the means of production and unions organise labour and distribution of goods

>>127699621
because you cannot discuss something people don't like in an echochamber

>>127699844
Some of us advocate no government, and some of us advocate a welfare state with maximum individual liberty (i.e. maximum sexual liberty, an end to the drug war, etc)

>>127700067
> maximum sexual liberty
what do you mean by that ? (even as a Belgian I'm firmly opposed to pædophilia)

>>127699918
>liberty
>equality
pick one
the moment someone in a anarchocommunistic society decides to have his own property, the society falls unless if they use force to prevent him from doing that which is the opposite of having liberty

>>127700122
Well, for example, equality for gay people, trans people, straight people, and sexually fluid people.

I'm firmly opposed to pedophilia too. It's a violation of rights.

>>127700231
>I'm firmly opposed to pedophilia
>implying there is or should be any debate regarding pedophilia

>>127700189
I'm not an Anarcho-Communist, I'm a Liberal with some Marxist sympathies in relation to critique of Capitalism.

>>127700189
> if someone decides to have his own property
which you can reformulate as : decides to take the right to exclude someone else from its (perceived) rightfull clay

also, one could argue that even in an anarchocommunistic society law and its enforcement could (and should imo) exist

>>127700189
Further, how are liberty and equality mutually exclusive?

>>127700356
(s)he was answering my question
see >>127700122

>>127700421
So, what you think about the Northern part of yer island's situation?

>>127699621

No such thing

You can't have a strong state and libertarianism

Much like all forms of collectivism it relies on sloganeering, rhetoric and platitudes with no hard set rules or numbers or even a plan. You can see even in this thread any attempts at it are met with not my real collectivism.

>>127699918
Why would I work if I possess means of production?

>>127700512
I'm a Republican. I think we should have a 32 county Republic, although I don't accept terrorism as the solution. We need a political solution.

>>127700673
But what if the majority of people in Northen Ireland wish to remain British?

>>127700630
>literal clinical retard

MEANS!

>>127700621
the questions should be asked in regards to the state's structure in itself and not its policies (i.e. how democratic and transparent the state and its institutions are, which one should be transparents which one should not, etc.)

during the keynesian era the state was quite interventionist and liberal in relation to the people, we knew growth and social progress

>>127700432
>decides to take the right to exclude someone else from its (perceived) rightfull clay
But somehow forcing someone to share his things with others is rightful? You yourself are violating his rights if you do that.

Secondly, you can't have an anarchic society with laws because that completely goes against in its nature. The word anarchy comes from the Greek word anarchia (αναρχία) which means disorder. The moment a community uses force then it stops being anarchic

>>127700467
They're not mutually exclusive, but we're talking about when you use them to the maximum extent. You can't have equality in a completely libertarian society because then who will force it?

>>127700630
because it would improve your standard of living, literaly see the whole proto-industrial period

>>127699621
It can't exist. You cant say you want freedom, yet be against private property in the same breath.

>>127700621
You can have a welfare state and maximum individual liberty.

>>127700760
Then that's their wish.

>>127699918
>maximum individual liberty
>wants government intervention

You don't see any contradictions in this? Don't call yourself a libertarian, you fuckheads already ruined the term "liberal" and now you flock to this one, ruining it too.

>>127700883
>Who will force it?
The State. Are you seriously trying to suggest that anti-discrimination laws are opposed to liberty? Are you telling me equal pay laws for women are anti-liberty? I see them as increasing liberty. It prevents oppression.

>>127700963
To be honest, is there any difference between Northern and Southern society? I heard that Catholics were treated like niggers in the South of the United States during most of the X Century in Northern Ireland, but I doubt that still happens

>>127699721
Left - equality more important than justice, those who work harder and are better won't necessarily have better outcomes. This optimizes for harmony, not effectiveness.
Liberalism - respect of every individual's situation and rights, trending towards equality.

So I do think they can be compatible. Both oppose Hierarchy, which is the cornerstone of "Right" politics.

>>127700933

Considering the left means you're for making laws that benefit the group over the individual, then you're going to have authoritarianism in regards to individual freedom.

The psyche that is for a welfare state also wants to be protected from scary gunz, mean words and thoughts/ideas, and individual agency.

>>127700911
Who said I'm against private property? That's Marxists. And even then, Marx didn't mean private property in the sense of housing, or anything you own. He meant it as in businesses and means of production.

>>127699621
Because left-libertarianism is contradictory. You can't implement leftist policies without a strong authoritarian power to enforce them. That applies to both social and economic leftist policies, mind you.

Anarcho-capitalism is retarded for other reasons, but at least it's not fundamentally self contradictory.

>>127700421
>I'm a Liberal with some Marxist sympathies
Unironically kill yourself

>>127701025
Fuck off, the Left coined the term Libertarian long before the Right stole the term. You stole the term Libertarian from us.

Government is not inherently anti-liberty. Government is only anti-liberty when Conservatives are heading it.

Perhaps you need to understand what Libertarianism actually is, then you'll realize that's a dumb question.

Kind of like, why doesn't anyone talk about 'space fish'?, you know fish that live is space.

>>127701107
Marx was a retarded jew and none of his ideas make a lick of sense whatsoever

>>127699621
You need a strong state to have socialism because people won't voluntarily participate in a system where they have to use an inferior economic system unless they're forced to.

>>127701046
I guess putting a gun to your head and forcing you to give me 200USD would increase liberty since I would be free from having to work for food this month.

>>127701046
>state existing in an anarchic system
nigger I already explained to you why that's impossible

>>127700432
>decides to take the right to exclude someone else from its (perceived) rightfull clay
CLAY? So owning something is taking away from the whole is what your saying?Your saying no one has the right to own anything?You are then saying that anyone who attempts to own something should be taken in by the law?How is this libertarian?There is no liberty here.

>>127701084
So the Left can't be Individualist now? Are you one of these people who thinks the Left is just Collectivist and the Right is just Individualist? What black and white thinking. That's Collectivist in and of itself to say "Oh, you're a Left Libertarian so that must mean you're a Collectivist"

>>127701107
Business is private party... Someone takes on the risk to create it and pay people.

The people didn't do anything to own the production. All they do is benefit from it. You can make laws to not make it basically slave labor. But punishing people for taking risks and taking away all their power is counter productive.

>>127701025
Listen to me. This is real freedom, freedom to own property, make a profit, make your life. The West, so afraid of strong government, now has no government. Only financial power.

>>127701209
The whole left/right dichotomy is retarded to begin with. Liberal was a term for what is now libertarians until you authoritarian fuckers claimed it for yourself trying to promote your authoritarian ideas as somehow pro-liberty.

Fuck off, government boot licker.

>>127700883
> But somehow forcing someone to share his things with others is rightful? You yourself are violating his rights if you do that.

I'm agreeing with your point of view, I was formulating an other perception closer from Ostrom point of view.

> you can't have an anarchic society with laws
well one could argue that there are "natural laws" like the golden rule "don't do to others as what you don't want them to do to you"
starting from this point of view, it depend on where you're looking from
- is it exclusion and therefore a violation of other's people right ?
- is it protection of individual property, and therefore rightful ?

in absolute terms, both are correct i'd say

>>127701308
Legit question: are you the black socialist Irishman that made a AMA some months ago on /pol/?

>>127701229
It's not supposed to. The whole idea of it is to convince people to give up all their rights for a communist state. Then the kikes just keep all the power.

because it ends up like some kind of pervert psychotic christianity utopian thinking

>>127700189
Who said this had anything to do with ancoms? Besides, Liberty kind of enforces equality, no? It's all about equality of opportunity, not outcome.

File: 146057521049.jpg (136KB, 1280x720px)

136KB, 1280x720px

>>127701046
Hory shetu i'm outta here.This was a good laugh.

>>127701382
>authoritarian

in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent.

>>127699621
You sound like an enormous fucking faggot

File: Smug.jpg (187KB, 1920x1080px)

187KB, 1920x1080px

>>127701176
Hold on, which Left Libertarian policies actively attack liberty? The welfare state helps the poor and provides support for workers and unions protect worker's rights. Also, who just got gay marriage legalised here and in the U.S.? That's right: Leftists. What have Right Libertarians ever done to progress individual liberty? The Left has done it all for the past forty years since the days of the sexual revolution

>>127701372
We have a huge government in the west. Government influence has only grown since the first world war We are taxed at 50-55% in Sweden on top of 25% sales tax on nearly EVERY good or service. Go back to your little bubble.

>>127699878
>implying Catalan doesn't get BTFO just by existing
>implying Catalan even deserves to share a peninsula with the Basque master race

>>127701546
Is this bait?

Forcing other people to pay for you isn't liberty.

File: 1496097424876.jpg (142KB, 808x460px)

142KB, 808x460px

>>127701229

Marxist alienation makes total sense. People being put into compartmentalized jobs with such a degree of specialization (eg, soldering a specific chip over and over) that they can no longer see their own work in the product they make, and thus feel alienated from it and the work. That compared to a craftsman who can see himself in every aspect of the finished product, or at least a critical part of it.

>>127701046
>Are you seriously trying to suggest that anti-discrimination laws are opposed to liberty?
Yes.
Are you telling me equal pay laws for women are anti-liberty?
Yes.

>>127701546
>Please allow me to explain how theft isn't authoritarian

>>127701496
Not an argument

>>127701404
No, I'm white

>>127701277
How many times do I have to say I'm not an Anarchist?

>>127701555
The red pill is that government is a tool for ((financial)) power. In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent.

>>127701692
Define theft in this context

>>127701485
>Liberty kind of enforces equality, no? It's all about equality of opportunity, not outcome.
you're going to have to explain further what you're talking about

>>127701546
>Claim to advocate for liberty
>Openly supports stealing from others

Left libertarianism is the most retarded political ideology there is.

Nightwatchman state libertarianism is the ubermensch.

File: left libertarians.png (102KB, 752x1668px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 752x1668px

>>127701546
Dealing with unironic marxists isn't worth my time. Here's a simple imagine. Read it then fuck off back to /leftypol/

File: AuH2O.gif (34KB, 256x377px)

34KB, 256x377px

>>127701546
>What have Right Libertarians ever done to progress individual liberty?
Hello There!

File: IMG_7493.png (2MB, 750x1334px)

2MB, 750x1334px

>>127700356
Really there's no debate, true
I think we're all in agreement on the subject:
Pedophilia and bestiality is literally the only motivation behind libertarianism, I think we all know that
>pic related

>>127701757
That's terror

File: Screen-Shot-2016-05-23-at-2.01.35-PM.png (259KB, 604x476px)

259KB, 604x476px

>>127701735
>Not an argument

Mate, I'm on your side, but do not bring in anything to do with mollymeme, here.

>>127701811
I'm not a Marxist, for fuck's sake. Can you read?

>>127701757
Yes government is terrible, it should be minimized.

File: 1492032799607.jpg (156KB, 1000x843px)

156KB, 1000x843px

>>127701811
>>127701870

I am! And I can say you are both retarded, looking at this thread.

>>127701300
I was stating a point of view that I've heard few times while arguing with commies weeaboos.

I'm fully opposed to any end of basic private property, but I'm in favor of a more state-controlled gestion of the means of production which does heavily impact the socio-economic development of our societies and ultimately are legal-safeguards for private initiative

>>127701910
Abolished, plz

>>127701546
The welfare state is an attack on liberty, you just answered your own question.

Why is the Welfare State an attack on Liberty, where do you think the money comes from? Santa?

There is no Left or Right Libertarian, only Libertarian.

>>127699621
>Why is Left-Libertarianism not discussed ever?

Because it's a contradiction in terms. Left-wing economic policies involve redistribution of resources based on the assumption that they are unfairly distributed. This means taking resources from those who have them and giving them to those who do not.

Taking involves force. This violates the NAP, which is the death knell of the entire ideology, but not the only fatal flaw.

The other major logical flaw is the assumption that those who have more resources have them unfairly, because this contradicts the notion of individual liberty. People are not the same, as people have the freedom to make choices in their lives. This freedom includes the freedom to make stupid choices which logically result in less success in life and less resources available to you. Like for instance, taking some ridiculous interpretive dance program in college and blowing $100k on tuition without gaining any useful education. Only an example, but you get the idea.

Lastly, any redistributive government is necessarily very large. First of all, they have to maintain the power to strip resources from those who have resources, necessitating that the government be able to wield more physical force than the richest in the society - by definition this means that the government remains the most potent violent force. Secondly, the government must have the ability to know how resources are distributed so they know who to take from and who to give to. This necessitates a massive bureaucracy.

So the logical form of left-libertarianism is a massive government that violates individual liberties and uses coercive force to rob their citizens, i.e. the very opposite of libertarianism.

Please do not mention this embarrassing concept ever again.

>>127701797
Oh yeah, fuck the disabled people and the poor, am I right? Muh guns, dude! Haha :)

>>127699621
>Why is Left-Libertarianism not discussed ever?

The collapse of union membership and peasant societies combined with people getting hooked hard on globalism means its not that viable of a movement anymore (and it was hardly viable in its own time)

>>127701811
That image fails from the get go left libertarians are against involuntary hierarchy not coercion you are describing pacifists. Its a pretty embarassing lack of understanding of what is very easy political ideology to take down.

Right's aren't real
The only natural rights that exist are called the laws of nature
The rest is made by and enforced within a community

Rightwing anarchism is an oxymoron

>>127701910
The power vacuum would just get filled by HUGE financial institutions. A national government is infinitely better than the fucking IMF, while neither is good. You see libertarian ideologies have this idea of indepenently making your living, owning property, running a store, and not being bothered. There is NOTHING wrong with that! There is a difference between that and the huge inhuman organizations that actually hold power.

File: jcdd.jpg (6KB, 480x360px)

6KB, 480x360px

>>127701838

File: Police-Officer.jpg (155KB, 684x513px)

155KB, 684x513px

>>127701735
>>127701767
>not an argument
Give me your money

File: leftist recruiting.png (684KB, 949x1156px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 949x1156px

please don't bump commie threads, newfags.

>>127700933
No, you cannot. For example, if you live in Canada you do not have the freedom to choose which medical practitioner you visit. Private medical facilities are banned. You see the government assigned physician, or you don't get medical care.

Doesn't matter if you can afford private care, you aren't allowed to partake of it. If you are rich and need a blood test you have to stand in line for six hours just like everyone else.

>>127701942
>i'm
kek kuk

go back to leftypol

>>127702330
>Governments start genocides
>Governments start wars
>Government create famines
>Government silences you
>Government steals your property
>Government create people dependant on welfare

VS.

>A private company offers you goods or services that you can decline if you want

Which is worse? What is your basis for thinking government is somehow "humane" while private businesses are "inhumane"?

>>127702149
>This is what Rightists actually believe
Yeah, I'm sure the 1% definitely got what they have through their own hard work! Why does a welfare state necessitate huge government in your mind? All we're asking for is social housing, some welfare and back to work/education programmes, and some programmes to help addicts and those in need. In fact, Conservatives are the ones who employ huge government with their support for the drug war and anti-social equality stances.

The affront to liberty is oppression. And without government, disabled people would have nothing, people could be discriminated against based on arbitrary characteristics like skin colour, gender, etc, and Corporations would force people to work for fuck all pay

>>127699621
Because its shit.
Saged

File: sage.jpg (9KB, 275x183px)

9KB, 275x183px

>>127702721
>Conservatives are the ones who employ huge government with their support for the drug war and anti-social equality stances.
AHAHAHAHAHA
> discriminated against based on arbitrary characteristics like skin colour, gender, etc, and Corporations would force people to work for fuck all pay
KEKEKEKKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK

>>127699621
Mostly because there's not much discuss -- it's already clear that left libertarianism (the original libertarianism, mind you, before Americans perverted it) is the solution.

Really, we're just waiting for everyone else to catch up.

>>127702945
>>127702028

File: spider thread.jpg (175KB, 1024x1024px)

175KB, 1024x1024px

>>127702945

>>127702916
Nice argument

>>127702721
No humans have the right to exert force over others ( I hope you agree with this, since you're a "real" libertarian" ). It only follows that forcing others to pay for your projects is wrong, by your own principles. This welfare and social housing can be funded by private donations, why do you feel the need for theft?

>>127703183
>>127702401
gibbe datz

>>127702149
>Because it's a contradiction in terms.
Only if you take the capitalist definition of liberterianism as an axiom. Which is something a lot of socialist libertarians do in reverse.

>The other major logical flaw is the assumption that those who have more resources have them unfairly

Its not a logical flaw or contradiction but a different moral standpoint.

>Lastly, any redistributive government is necessarily very large.

The whole point of their ideology is having a decentralised system of governance not no organisation.

>. First of all, they have to maintain the power to strip resources from those who have resources, necessitating that the government be able to wield more physical force than the richest in the society - by definition this means that the government remains the most potent violent force

Not necessarily the Spanish and Mexican experiences both had small militas take over due to poor army moral on the part of the establishment and maintined (or continue in the mexican example) without a large standing army.

>Secondly, the government must have the ability to know how resources are distributed so they know who to take from and who to give to. This necessitates a massive bureaucracy.

Or simply a less efficient system of distribution

>Please do not mention this embarrassing concept ever again.

I get the feeling you havent read any works by actual socialist libertarians

This would be a good place to start

>>127703299
Forgot link

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-02-17#toc5

>>127702721
>Why does a welfare state necessitate huge government in your mind?
Because that shit costs money.
That money has to come from somewhere.
It comes from TAKING from those who have money.
Those who have money can DEFEND their money.
Taking from those who can defend their money means you have to be STRONGER than them.

Also, to know who has money to take you need to have a huge bureaucracy to review financial information. If you have ever had to file your taxes in your life you would have some idea of the scope of such a bureaucracy, especially if you have had to do one for a business that you own. Since people DON'T LIKE to pay taxes, and try to hide their incomes, the bureaucracy must continually expand to adapt to the new ways people invent to hide their incomes.

Once you have taken money from people, you have to redistribute it. All these housing/education/welfare programs also have huge bureaucracies, as to prevent graft, corruption, and waste. Since these organizations are detached from the free market, they cannot fail due to normal causes. If a rental business is full of corruption, it will go bankrupt, but a government housing program can continually lose money and ever increasing rates due to corruption and there is no mechanism to detect it or stop it besides adding more bureaucracy. More inspectors, auditors, comptrollers, accountants, etc. Which ultimately just add more vectors for corruption, leading more more inspectors, auditors, etc.

There is no logic here by which this system functions except through extreme authoritarianism, which is the natural state of all left-wing governments.

Your compassion leads directly to oppression.

>>127701209
>Government is not inherently anti-liberty
That's exactly what a government is.
Governments run on taxes and taxed you will be, voluntarily or otherwise

>>127702692
>Imagine being on /pol/ and not knowing about JEWS

Well if the government is a tool for financial power, then who's really starting wars?

>A private company offers you goods or services that you can decline if you want

That's not how it works, in a free market there is a cost on being a small organization. The result is the consolidation of powers into larger and larger organizations. Just look at history.

In our time, organizations are so large that they not only control every function of the state, they control the culture. They now control supply AND demand.

>>127702540
I always get a giggle over how much anarchists/socialist libertarains overestimate their appeal

File: Politics Trump 1495600093609.jpg (99KB, 1200x675px)

99KB, 1200x675px

>>127699621

Don't Libertarians believe in Open Borders?

They can fuck right off with that Jew shit.

File: textgram_1392062780.png (298KB, 612x612px)

298KB, 612x612px

>>127699926
Left-anarchists are fucking gay, with that said, they're no gayer than right anarchists. They all get the rope for being degenerates.

Because agriculture

>>127701046
>Are you seriously trying to suggest that anti-discrimination laws are opposed to liberty?

Are u seriously suggesting that forcing people to provide goods and services agianst their will is pro-liberty

>>127703662
Unfortunately there are probably a lot of internatinalist ideas in those circles. Technically it just entails decentralised borders which is fine. We need something like national-syndicalism.

>>127703299
Your brain doesn't function well. What if I am a producer who does not want to give anyone anything? I can continually accrue resources and invest in myself increasing the rate at which I accrue resources. What does a left-libertarian society do with me?

>>127703763
Nice, True believer

>>127703925
>Your brain doesn't function well
Do you think that Libertarianism equates to the NAP or some kind of pacifism? if so you are falling into the mistake I outlined of ignoring the ideas and definitions used by those groups.

Kind of like Americans do with the term liberal compared to the Euro understanding of it.

>What if I am a producer who does not want to give anyone anything? I can continually accrue resources and invest in myself increasing the rate at which I accrue resources. What does a left-libertarian society do with me?

As a producer it depends on the society from the historical examples (spain, russia and mexico) you would be able to continue unmolested but in a varying degree of isolation from the collective.

>>127703439
>Well if the government is a tool for financial power, then who's really starting wars?

It is true that war profiteering companies push for war. They can do this precisely because there exist big governments. If the governments in question were small and decentralized, the wars would be much smaller or the big companies behind them wouldn't be able to start them VIA government influence in the first place.

Government having no influence = The lobbyists having no influence.

>consolidation of powers into larger and larger organizations

This is not an issue as long as there is no big government whose politicians these corporations can bribe and influence. What's the worst thing a private company has the right to do to you? Offer you services and goods in exchange of pay.

>They now control supply AND demand.
Again, they do this via the governments that exist. The EU regulations absolutely kill small businesses. This exempts the larger ones from having to compete for your money. The US healthcare situation is a prime example, you are FORCED to buy your insurance from 1 provider, which makes their insurance survive as a service despite not having to compete, making it a worse deal for the consumers.

You won't find any billionares that are libertarian, most of the top 0.1% is pro big government. Libertarianism is an ideology for the people since it removes not only the oppression from the majority (mob rule), but also removes the control big entities have over you when they bribe and influence your government to act against you.

I laughed
So basically you think everybody should be free to succeed in life by hard work, what about inheritance then ? You have absolutely no right to claim something that isn't your own work, and god knows you don't want to renounce the money daddy and mommy made working their whole life
How can the concept of property have its place in libertarian system, except for what you made yourself ?
Megacorporations are the way to go ? Ok, huge amounts of cheap goods to consume, but what if there's only one authority selling, with the freedom to set the prices ? No govts means no mean to control either the quality of the produced goods, or the health/environmental concerns associated, anyway it isn't an issue as there are no laws if you consider pure libertarian
Governements are needed, they offer a basic quality of life to everybody, acces to healthcare, education, infrastructures, this is equality of chances
Nota : State the countries where the state is working without the murican corporations and enjoy the good work of the american propaganda apparel

>>127704699
>but what if there's only one authority selling
No such thing as a natural monopoly. Monopolies only spring up thanks to state interference.

>No govts means no mean to control either the quality of the produced goods, or the health/environmental concerns associated
The free market will sort itself out, you don't buy products you think are bad. If you don't want to read up on every nut and bolt you buy, you can pay a private company to review products for you. (You know like food critics or tech critics).

>Governements are needed, they offer a basic quality of life to everybody, acces to healthcare, education, infrastructures
t. statist cultist. EVERYTHING government can do, the free market can do better. Except start wars, terminate freedom of speech and murder political dissidents of course.

>>127704516
>It is true that war profiteering companies push for war. They can do this precisely because there exist big governments. If the governments in question were small and decentralized, the wars would be much smaller or the big companies behind them wouldn't be able to start them VIA government influence in the first place.

Big, bloated, government exist BECAUSE companies want them to. Simply removing them without adressing the underlying issue will accomplish nothing.

>Government having no influence = The lobbyists having no influence.

This is obviously true, but only because there is no need to lobby. Think in terms of power, not in terms of rights.

>What's the worst thing a private company has the right to do to you?

Rights, without the means to enforce them, mean nothing. A private company can do what it can do, this may include creating a government.

Can't we take a broader view of the term government? As long as there is work to be done and things to produce there will be some government of these processes. As long as these things require coordination beyond the individual there will be a governing organization. So the goal cannot be to remove government, rather we must improve it so that things like personal liberty, happiness e.t.c. are not destroyed.

>>127704699
Why do you have no right you have someone gift you their wealth? The state shoukd have it , eh you jewish commie cumstain?

>>127705642
>No such thing as a natural monopoly
You haven't heard of De Beers, have you?

>>127699621
because it's a retarded ideology. Go back to leftypol

File: os_market_share_november_2015.png (107KB, 1275x840px)

107KB, 1275x840px

>>127706566
Having a large share of the market isn't a monopoly. What's stopping anyone else from selling diamonds they own?

Pic related, microsoft doesnt have a monopoly on the OS market, they have a large share (partly due to all government systems running windows).

This is high school level economics

>>127700933
The money the welfare state hands out comes from the money of taxpayers -- money that was coerced from their hands, that is. Liberty is the absence of coercion, and taxation itself is a coercive act. So no, you cannot have a welfare state and maximum individual liberty

>>127706030
>So the goal cannot be to remove government
I can agree somewhat with this. An incredibly small government, with a flat income tax of 1%, that handles just the military and the judicial system would be ideal. As well as a consitution that does not allow for any exspansion of the government.

>>127701209
>"BWAAAAH you stole libertarianism :(((("
Your ideology was shitty to begin with you stupid cunt. You have nothing good backing your shitty ideas; no valid economic theory, no logic, none of that. All you have is feelings and "muh oppressive corporations n shiet". You wouldn't be a fucking leftist if you understood economics

>>127701546
What the fuck do you think liberty is?

>>127701546
>Also, who just got gay marriage legalised here and in the U.S.? That's right: Leftists. What have Right Libertarians ever done to progress individual liberty? The Left has done it all for the past forty years since the days of the sexual revolution
faggots would be free to do whatever they please in a (right) libertarian society you stupid fuck

>>127705642
What you say makes sense if you admit there is no thing such as cooperation between corporations, but imo this is likely to happen (game theory model, maximum profit attained through cooperation)
What about education, how can it provide equal chances and favour the ones working the hardest (or with the highest potential) if the money rules the way the world is going ? (I mean the richer you are, the better the education you receive, isn't this logically what would happen ? Notice the concept of inheritance is again a problem there, if you want everybody to start equal with no money, which company would provide education without being paid ? Or this means there must be some private corporation perfectly independant assessing the capability of individuals, and as they won't do it for free, what would happen ?)
Any reading recommandation btw, I'm just highlighting what I think the possible problems would be

>>127699918
>maximum individual liberty and social equality
if you were over 12 years old you'd realize that the two are mutually exclusive, especially when you mention government programs

>>127699621
it's been debunked

>>127707528
I'm not sure.

I think that government has to be strong if it is to be truly independent. Probably a very gradual decentralised government with a very high citizen participation. But unafraid to protect national interests. That's why nationalism is so important, without it the ideal of self-governance is unattainable.

Because Libertarianism is incompatible with the new Fascist Left.

>>127707918
Everyone has equal access to the same goods or services, whether or not one is able to afford them is irrelevant.

>>127699918
>Libertarianism
>government programmes

I like how you can use those two in the same sentence without noticing that it's retarded

File: 67526533468.png (111KB, 2836x1620px)

111KB, 2836x1620px

>>127699621
they dont exist

>>127707918
>cooperation between corporations
This is an oligopoly. It happens when two or more corporations decide to not compete with eachother in order to not hurt eachother's profits too much. The frailty of an oligopoly comes with the fact that any average joe can start a new business to compete with the oligopoly. If all the burger joints in the UK agreed to set their prices to a minimum of 10 pound per burger, people would just flock to Mom N' Pop's local restaurant instead and buy their burgers there

>What about education
The current state of most public schools are atrocious today. They are in their current, awful state precisely because they DO NOT have to constantly improve their service in order to compete with other schools for students. This is extra bad for the poverty-stricken, they are not only starting disadvantaged, monetarily speaking, but they are now forced to attend a school that is of very poor quality.

If schools were privatized, poorer people would have the option of choosing amongst schools, forcing the schools to all up their standards to compete.

>the richer you are, the better the education you receive
This is the truth with everything. The richer have better cars, houses, clothes, computers etc. Bringing the rich down to the poorer people's level, doesn't improve anything for the poor, instead we should strive to raise the bottom instead of bringing the top down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

> if you want everybody to start equal with no money
I don't want that. I want every individual to have the same rights, and that no individual, or group of individual, has the right to initiate force against others.

>>127709746
I think I understand where this is going and obviously, admitting pure libertarian economy is possible, it would be nothing more than natural selection, and it would work well (if you compete and become competent, even if you contract debts, you'll be able to repay them without a problem, for example gendertard studies vs engineering or so)
Is this gonna work for 7bio ppl however is another problem
Ty for your answers anon, it strayed from the original post so I'll stop there

>>127710896
>Is this gonna work for 7bio ppl however
Libertarian economic policy is the one that creates the highest median and average living standards, as well as highest HDI. Provided we care for other humans' well-being, it is the economic model we should strive for.

>>127711948
Fleshlights and Ariana Grande are also ((human development)). That's the problem.

literally the only people who might feel wronged in a socialist society are the megarich. Yeah, we're gonna take most of their money to pay for everyone else, but so what? Why cry for your political overloads who are exploiting and using you for their own (((captitalist))) gain?

>>127711948
>Provided we care for other humans' well-being
That's it... The opposite of the "left libertarians" OP talk about, only looking for lowcost employees and brainwashed pawns thinking it can't work otherwise

File: K8ZUEtI.png (636KB, 525x569px)

636KB, 525x569px

>>127712249
>Fleshlights
So what?

>Ariana Grande
Why do you care? Let people listen to whatever shit music they want.


>>127712295
Pic related.

Why would Soros finance a radical leftist movement that advocates bigger government. I thought libertarianism was the rich guys dream.

>exploiting
>Mutual agreements are exploitative
retarded burger

>>127712777
you live in an almost syndicalist nation society you retard

mutual agreements are great in sweden where literally every profession has a strong union.

>>127712777
>Why do you care? Let people listen to whatever shit music they want.

It's moral decay. You should care about the culture because you are part of it. It's not natural for girls of 12 years to idolize women, who are truly marketing proucts, that sing about anal sex and eating cum. If you think that's some grassroots natural human interest you are dumb, it is imposed on people by the aggregate marketing system. It doesn't matter THAT we are producing things, as a species. It matters WHAT we produce.

>>127699621
Because nobody give a fuck about the left....they have destroyed every country they touch. And there is NO room here for the left.

>Fuck off niggers, were full

What does /pol/ think about cooperatives?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

For me, that's a decent implementation of left-libertarian principles - a democratic business where the workers own the means of production, but done with the consent of all parties and operating within a competitive capitalist framework.

>>127713073
Unions are fine, since it's all voluntary. Government backed unions are fucking garbage, thought (the ones we have in Sweden), it is part of the reason for our healthcare system being so overcrowded here, despite us having the most healthcare professionals per capita in the world.

>>127713304
This moral decay is supported by the nanny state. In the abscence of a state, which ideology do you think succeeds? The "straight-edge" culture or the "degenerate" culture? Saying that degenerates would flourish over straight-edge people is basically admitting it is a better culture.

Removing the state would not be a boon to degenerates, it would be a boon to everyone who adopts honest, good and hard-working morals. The state isn't keeping degenrates in check, it is their catalyst.

>>127713870
>left-libertarian
That's an oxymoron. See >>127702028

>Cooperative
Who gives a shit, run your business however you want, as long as you're not initiating force against anyone.

File: image.jpg (81KB, 675x1200px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 675x1200px

>>127699819

>>127714078
It's not a bottom-up phenomenon. It's not the case that people living off of state support develop bad morals through lack of hard work and start acting like, for example, Ariana Grande. Ariana Grande is a manufactured brand.

>In the abscence of a state, which ideology do you think succeeds? The "straight-edge" culture or the "degenerate" culture? Saying that degenerates would flourish over straight-edge people is basically admitting it is a better culture.

When there was an abscence of a state, the state was created. That must mean the state is a better system? Right? Come on.

File: ancomstate.jpg (67KB, 1365x1042px)

67KB, 1365x1042px

tfw you're an unproductive degenerate who doesn't understand economics but you want free stuff and get along with everyone so everyone's friendly but nothing gets produced so there's no food so you create a totalitarian government to force people to produce stuff but it's ok because at least I'm not an ancap

File: 6mil-keks.jpg (15KB, 292x257px)

15KB, 292x257px

>>127699621
Because /pol/ can't even digest right-libertarianism, and your ideology is several orders of magnitude dumber. Your entire ideology is essentially this: "everyone should be equal, but everyone is naturally unequal and nobody should do anything about it".

>>127714582
The whole reason I brought up cooperatives are that they're socialist without being anything to do with government or the welfare state.
Surely that's evidence that left-libertarianism isn't necessarily an oxymoron.

File: wtf-am-i-reading.png (67KB, 404x404px)

67KB, 404x404px

>>127715122
>cooperatives
>Surely that's evidence that left-libertarianism isn't necessarily an oxymoron
It's literally evidence that left-libertarianism is an oxymoron because there's only a small handful of them, and only a minority of those can survive on their own, and this will always be the case without forcing it down peoples' throats.

>>127715122
yeah no wonder these retards laugh at colleges for being liberal havens they've never actually been to college or received an education to understand even the most basic fundamentals of different political leanings.

>>127700421
you can't criticize capitalism, it's perfect

>>127715122
Voluntary cooperation is just libertarianism. What the fuck is even left libertarianism? The OP of this thread claimed to be one, yet advocated state programs.

>>127714772
With the state out of the picture, there would be less degenerates for Ariana to target. She can develop whatever shitty music she wants, as long as she doesn't initiate force.

Whatever culture amasses most "followers" so to speak can be deemed the most succesful one. Sort of evolution, but for ideas and values. It is in our best interest to create an enviroment in which the cultures we think are shitty do not succeed. This would mean minimizing the state, since it supports moral degeneracy with welfare and by breaking up the core family.

>>127715920
>What the fuck is even left libertarianism?
"I hope that everyone just spontaneously agrees that equality is important and willingly participate in a socialist economy"

>>127701209
>from us
were you alive when that allegedly happened? remember, you can't take credit for doing something you weren't personally a part of or else that makes you a nationalist fascist racist.

>>127715920
>Whatever culture amasses most "followers" so to speak can be deemed the most succesful one. Sort of evolution, but for ideas and values. It is in our best interest to create an enviroment in which the cultures we think are shitty do not succeed. This would mean minimizing the state, since it supports moral degeneracy with welfare and by breaking up the core family.

Right-libertarians have this idea that they support the natural state. This is not true, the natural state has nothing to do with non-aggression or a system of privately managed capital. We ought to use all the means available to us to ensure better living, this includes violence; that's how evolution functions. There are lots of kinds of "force", even in nature, including deception, subversion, manipulation.

>>127716903
>We ought to use all the means available to us to ensure better living, this includes violence; that's how evolution functions
You're making an is-ought fallacy. The natural state is that which emerges naturally. Communism never emerges naturally, and always collapses despite all attempts to maintain it.

>>127715920
>Voluntary cooperation is just libertarianism. What the fuck is even left libertarianism? The OP of this thread claimed to be one, yet advocated state programs.
There's a couple of different definitions, which makes it confusing, but I don't think any of them call for state intervention, so I don't know what OP is on about.

>>127715355
Cooperatives are more common in places that have a culture of such, like the UK. I'll admit that they are better suited to certain types of organisation, but since there are long-running and successful examples, then you can't say that libertarian and socialist principles are mutually exclusive.

>>127716755
This is the problem really. A government could, for example, provide economic incentives to assist in adoption, but that rather defeats the point of keeping it a competitive market economy.

File: Karl Marx.jpg (375KB, 639x910px)

375KB, 639x910px

>>127715497
>You can't criticise Capitalism

Marx did it pretty well, lad.

>>127717385
I'm not making an is-ought fallacy. I'm stating my opinion and asking why am I expected to accept all manners of subversion and manipulation and never resort to violent measures like revolution or forceful reorganization of property in order to accomplish my personal goals. Do you have the answer?

>The natural state is that which emerges naturally. Communism never emerges naturally, and always collapses despite all attempts to maintain it.

The state occurs naturally.

>>127717440
>since there are long-running and successful examples, then you can't say that libertarian and socialist principles are mutually exclusive
Nobody is actively preventing them from forming, and yet there's only a small number of long-running examples, and their success is very moderate compared to other models. Since left-libertarianism inherently excludes the possibility of forcing people to start more coops through coercion or state indoctrination, you have no means to propagate your values of equality, so your ideology is self-defeating.

>>127714829
>Le doesn't understand economics meme
Because anyone who isn't an Anarcho-Capitalist doesn't understand economics despite there being tons of schools of economics, right, you elitist cunt?

>>127708505
How so?

>>127717440
>A government could, for example, provide economic incentives to assist in adoption, but that rather defeats the point of keeping it a competitive market economy.
At that point this is no longer libertarianism, because any money the government has comes from taxation, which is an anti-libertarian measure, and any laws the government can pass to meddle with a voluntary-association-based economy are also anti-libertarian.

>>127716903
You don't support violence in general, you support violence when you benefit from it. This thinking is the cause of all wars and genocides, and it needs to be eradicated by constant and factual debates.

But lets say we just want to ensure better living for our people, ignoring the NAP completely. The best method would be to adopt economic policies that have 0 government intervention, since those are the ones that create the most riches and most wellbeing for our people.

>>127699621
Because theres no such thing anymore. There's only the right and then living targets

File: Irish Karen #3.png (247KB, 850x850px)

247KB, 850x850px

>>127716812
You're trying to lump me in with the modern Authoritarian SJW Left. How Collectivist of you. I identify more with the Libertarian Left of the mid-20th Century-you know the type of Libertarians that actually accomplished stuff, in contrast to Right Libertarians who smoked weed while jerking off over Ayn Rand books

>>127699918
>he thinks the left can be moderate
if this isnt bait then bravo, the spirit of reddit is smiling upon you.

>>127717810
>I'm not making an is-ought fallacy
Then what's the point of discussing what is natural in the context of a discussion about what people ought to do?

>why am I expected to accept all manners of subversion and manipulation
You are not.

>never resort to violent measures like revolution or forceful reorganization of property in order to accomplish my personal goals
You're not expected too. Like every other communist, you're clearly too dumb and entitled to have any actual values or principles, so it's impossible to prove to you that you shouldn't chimp out to get your way except by showing you that chimping out won't help you get your way, but you're too dumb to understand that as well, so there's no sense arguing with you at all.

>>127717773
Lmao bring up his arguments instead of posting a picture of him.

>>127718030
It's no longer libertarianism if you force people to partake in your shitty programs. You're not a libertarian if you think that initiation of force is ok sometimes.

>>127718140
>The best method would be to adopt economic policies that have 0 government intervention, since those are the ones that create the most riches and most wellbeing for our people.

But they don't. Private organization of resources forms the same way state organization does. I'll ask you this, can a state hold legitimate property?

>>127718469
>His thinking is THIS black and white
Back to /r/Conservative, Redditor

>>127718140
>it needs to be eradicated by constant and factual debates
There's no amount of talking you can do to "eradicate" it. The only way is through more violence and more terrifying violence than the other side can muster. At this point we might as well accept that it's an eternal free-for-all and that killing the political opposition or preventing it from forming through heavy indoctrination are the only tools available.

>>127717932
>>127718091
Bingo, which is why I wouldn't call myself a left-libertarian exactly.

I'd say it's more of a personal philosophy within the mantle of libertarianism.

>>127718587
Well, for example, his theory of labour alienation-that is that within a Capitalist economy, the workers are divorced from the product of their labour. Do you enjoy going to work? Do you enjoy producing so you can have half the value of your labour taken by your boss? Didn't think so.

His argument in relation to how much Capitalism can actually produce is also devastating to wage-labour relations. The amount of people employed generally don't even need to be working because so much can be produced by automation; so you're essentially a slave to your corporate masters.

>>127718615
>Private organization of resources forms the same way state organization does
No it doesn't. First of all, working with a private organization is voluntary, you do it out of your own will. Second, a company has to listen to the needs of their consumers. If they don't, they can lose their montery support (their sales) in a matter of days.

The state, however, can not lose it's funds unless a violent revolution or a rewriting of the constitution occurs. This is why the state won't have your best interest in mind to the same extent a company will, the state simply doesn't need to (as much).

>can a state hold legitimate property?
If it was donated to them, yes.

And by the way, I just wanted to add that I am actually for tax reductions. For example, I disagree with the concept of a property tax and I think taxes in Ireland should be halved (10% and 20% income tax instead of current 20% and 40%). We need to streamline government, but make it provide for the people.

Universal healthcare, free tuition for STEM students, and social safety programmes can be provided at half the cost in taxation if we cut all the bullshit bureaucracy, end the war on drugs, end foreign aid, stifle immigration and cap the politicians' pay.

>>127719081
I don't particularly like my current job. But my liking for my earnings is greater than the dislike for my job. If I didn't feel it was worth it, I would quit. It's that simple. You're not entitled to have a job you like.

>so you're essentially a slave
A voluntary slave is, much like left-libertarianism, an oxymoron. If your job isn't worth it, quit. You dont get to exert violence over others because your job isn't pleasant.

>>127718937
>I'd say it's more of a personal philosophy
I used to consider myself right-libertarian, but at this point I just concede that any libertarian ideology will lose against a well-organized authoritarian hierarchy that successfully taps into peoples' primal instincts. I guess receding into your own internal world where all that matters is your personal compliance with some philosophy is as good a way to deal with it as any.

>>127699621
because it doesnt exist you shapeshifting marxist shill

>>127719742
>A voluntary slave is, much like left-libertarianism, an oxymoron
>I don't particularly like my current job. But my liking for my earnings is greater than the dislike for my job.
I don't particularly like serving my master, but my liking for my life is greater than the dislike I have for serving the him, so I choose to comply to avoid getting killed.

The thing you have to understand about leftists is that their minds are physically unable to differentiate between circumstances directly imposed on you by others which may "force" you to make a particular choice, and circumstances that emerge on their own through voluntarism and which may also "force" you to make a particular choice.

>>127699621
It's for fags that's why

>>127719346
>If it was donated to them, yes.

How does a private organization aquire legitimate property?

Can a private organization collect a fee from it's members to pay for it's overhead?

>>127699621
its discussed all the time in the form of memeball threads

>>127720671
>How does a private organization aquire legitimate property?
By buying it from a willing seller with money made through voluntary interactions.

>Can a private organization collect a fee from it's members to pay for it's overhead?
Yes, but the difference is that nobody in their right mind would claim that you automatically become a member of a particular organization by being born.

>>127720868
of a particular private organization*

>>127701769
Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are two different things. The former is an extension of personal liberty, the latter is forced equality like hiring quotas and letting niggers graduate highschool without being able to read.

>>127720868
>By buying it from a willing seller with money made through voluntary interactions.

Lacking money or capital, the only way to aquire property for a private organization would be through donation. Same as for a state.

>Yes, but the difference is that nobody in their right mind would claim that you automatically become a member of a particular organization by being born.

In fact in Sweden, if you don't enter into any contracts, you don't pay taxes. Taxes are paid when you make a contract to purchase or take employment within the state.

>>127720671
>How does a private organization aquire legitimate property?
Lmao you're coming real close to full communist here if you're implying that private groups can't acquire property in a legit way.

>Can a private organization collect a fee from it's members to pay for it's overhead?
Only if the members agree to it, how is this any difficult?

besides already stated leftist crap has to have a totalatarian government to enforce it.

Anarchism is inherently darwinistic, you cant hold up the scum of society. Right wing stuff like ancap works because the dregs of society... dissapear. And you are left with only those who can survive. Egalitarianism of the left is disgusting and incompatable with anarchism.

>>127721123
>Equality of opportunity ... is an extension of personal liberty
It absolutely isn't. Widespread discrimination (i.e. the opposite of equal opportunity) is the extension of personal liberty. Voluntary association permits this.

>>127721294
>In fact in Sweden, if you don't enter into any contracts, you don't pay taxes

In Sweden, if big daddy government finds out you haven't been paying taxes on your income, you get forcefully thrown in a jail cell

>>127721294
>Lacking money or capital, the only way to aquire property for a private organization would be through donation
A private organization can make money or capital without forcing people into a contract with it through the threat of deportation or imprisonment.

>Taxes are paid when you make a contract to purchase or take employment within the state.
That's just an indirect way for the state to force you to enter into a contract, by forcing all contracts to contain government-imposed clauses.

File: unicorn.jpg (118KB, 400x400px)

118KB, 400x400px

>>127699621
>Why are unicorns not discussed ever?

File: Hipster Faggot.jpg (111KB, 500x618px)

111KB, 500x618px

>>127699621

Because you need to die, and no one is confused about that around here except for shills, like you.

sage

>>127721415
You have the equal opportunity to freely associate with people who want to associate with you

>>127721901
>the equal opportunity to freely associate with people who want to associate with you
Sure, if you want to reduce the concept of "equal opportunity" to a literal synonym of free association. No point arguing semantics.

>>127719346
The state is a natural monopoly, in the same way that corporations can monopolise a market.
The states monopoly is essentially on force, and its legitimacy pretty much comes from benevolent use of that monopoly

>>127719839
Well I mean I work in a small business that's jointly owned by its employees, so it's not theoretical.
But yeah, since voluntaryism is part of the point you're basically relegated to advocating for the ideas and practising them yourself.

>>127701046
Yes, those things are anti-liberty.

>>127722068
Considering the opposite is the state using section 8 housing to import niggers into white communities with the thought that it will make them successful instead of just lowering property values and increasing the crime rate. Forced association is part of equality of outcome, as is all quota based solutions to inequality of outcome.

>>127722139
>The state is a natural monopoly, in the same way that corporations can monopolise a market.
Corporations don't monopolize the market by effectively forcing you into a contract with them as soon as you're born, and if someone chooses to stop buying products from a corporation, nobody is going to force them to. Your analogy is invalid on every level.

>>127722348
I'm not arguing against free association or discrimination. I'm just pointing out that your idea of "equal opportunity" is the same as free association, which is not what most people mean when they say "equal opportunity" and is needlessly confusing.

>>127721353
I'm not implying anything. If you can't trade, factually the only way to aquire something through voluntary interaction is by gift/donation.

>>127721545
Isn't taking employment or purchasing a voluntary agreement? In that case, how is it coercive? Are you saying it's voluntary slavery now all of a sudden?

>>127721687
>the threat of deportation or imprisonment.
You will get deported from the property, of course you will.

>>127722521
In the same way american "liberals" are fucking communists

Equality and "equality" are two different things and I think we're on the same page regarding which one is preferable.

>>127722548
>You will get deported from the property, of course you will.
Deported from what property, and why did you choose to ignore the bulk of my post?

>>127722711
>Equality and "equality" are two different things and I think we're on the same page regarding which one is preferable.
Equality and "equality in one specific aspect of my choice" are two different things, not that I'm in favor of equality.

File: rome soundtrack.png (86KB, 500x319px)

86KB, 500x319px

>>127699918
Why even have an edgy name like "left-libertarianism", why not just call it fucking centrism??

>>127722373
Depends on what they own.
You can be pretty sure the hospital you were born in gives you (your parents) a bill when youre born as well the other peripheral services.
The contract doesnt even affect you until 18 anyway, then you can relinquish it anytime

>>127722850
You are saying the state indirectly forces you through lack of options. The same can be said of any other private organization that holds property.

>>127721545
>>127722850
States are ""private"" organizations that hold virtually all the actual property on earth. Managing it internally through internal property laws. You fellas better show why that holding of property by people in free association is illegitimate.

>>127723096
>why not just call it fucking centrism??
Because it's as far from centrism as ancap. Don't get your definitions from a potato-nigger and you won't be so confused.

>>127723107
>he hospital you were born in gives you (your parents) a bill when youre born
It bills your parents, who are there by choice. What kind of dishonest kikery is this?

>>127701209
>Government is only anti-liberty when Conservatives are heading it.
And I am sure you would just love to grab all the guns from the population you filthy commie.

>>127723195
You may be right. The guy's selling centrism as this cool new ideology for pol, lol

>>127723302
Are you saying they did t live in the state by choice either?

>>127723169
>You are saying the state indirectly forces you through lack of options.
No, I'm saying the state indirectly forces me, by forcing others to help it force me.

>States are ""private"" organizations that hold virtually all the actual property on earth.
States don't hold any legitimate property because most of its capital comes from forcing payments from others.

>>127723469
>b...but they like in the state by choice
That's completely irrelevant. You're just moving up the chain, and then the same argument can be made for the parents (assuming they were born within the state) and so on and so forth.

File: 1477890948063.png (7KB, 420x420px)

7KB, 420x420px

>>127723096
Why even have an edgy name like "rigt-libertarianism", why not just call it fucking (((jewish controlled opposition)))??

>>127723793
Its not irrelevant at all, the principle should be universal or bunk

>>127723822
bc the latter is even edgier

File: wtf.jpg (41KB, 680x793px)

41KB, 680x793px

>>127723988
> the principle should be universal
It is universal, you cripple. The same argument applies to the parents, who did not sign any contract with the state by being born, and their parents, and their parents' parents ad infinitum, and your retarded distraction tactics are not working. Of course, none of it is even relevant, because even if the parents did sign a contract with the state, it doesn't mean that the child signs a contract with the state by being born.

>>127724529
As a minor you do not sign any contracts. The law does not even let you. Your parents sign on your behalf.
Then when you reach adulthood you have the choice to move the fuck away under a different contract.

>>127724828
>Your parents sign on your behalf.
A contract on another person's behalf without their consent is illegitimate, as you'll find when you're thrown in jail for fraud if you try it. This argument is based on a special pleading fallacy.

>when you reach adulthood you have the choice to move the fuck away
Why should I move the fuck away? What gives your gangsters a right to assault me for refusing to sign a contract with them?

>>127725083
1. A legal guardians signature on behalf of a minor is legal and legitimate.
2. A contract is a consensual agreement between 2 parties. If you dont like the contract, negotiate.

>>127725483
>A legal guardians signature on behalf of a minor is legal and legitimate
By your logic, your parents can sign a contract on your behalf that when you grow up, 50% of your income will go to Mr. Noseberg to pay off their debts. If you don't see that you're being absurd, I can't help you. You need a professional.

>a contract is a consensual agreement between 2 parties
Right, and I didn't sign any contract with the state by being born, and a control signed on my behalf by others WITHOUT my CONSENT is NOT CONSENSUAL. You're literally a mental cripple. You lose. Thanks for playing.

>>127725913
Parents sign when youre a minor you stupid kike fuck
You decide when youre an adult. If you didnt sign anything, maybe you should take it up with the government, if they give a fuck.
Youre especially retarded for a kike, i thought you guys are supposed to be good at this arguing shit.

>>127726222
>You decide when youre an adult.
Okay, so I decide that I don't want to sign a contract with the state. What gives your gangsters a right to assault me for refusing to sign a contract with them?

>>127726419
Nothing, you relinquish your citizenship, and leave

>>127726951
>you relinquish your citizenship, and leave
No, I just decide to stay. What gives your thugs a right to come and assault me then?

It's even more retarded than communism.

>>127699621
It's kind of stupid for one main reason.

>Hey guise let's have a large a large state while having as much liberty as possible.

Anyone who knows the nature of government can see that this wouldn't last for long. Once the state has far more power than you it begins to put into effect changes that benefit it. The extreme left is fucking retarded because they simultaneously support state power and gun control. These two things mixed together can only lead to the state eventually having absolute control over everyone's lives. At least communism is consistent in the sense that you're not trying for liberty while having lots of state power.

>>127727096
They give themselves the right by being the sovereign state.

>>127727096
>What gives your thugs a right to come and assault me then?

The strong and many shall rule the weak and few.

I don't see it working, thus it's in the same league as anarcho-capitalism, except their motivations are purer and they aren't sociopaths, I guess.

>>127727436
>They give themselves the right
So you're finally admitting the obvious fact that they operate in exactly the same way that mafia extortionists. Your argument is literally "might makes right", so good job "justifying" Stalinism, you stupid cunt.

>>127727460
>The strong and many shall rule the weak and few.
You mean like they did in communist regimes you keep crying about? :)

>>127727787
Might is right is a simplification but i suppose you could paraphrase it as such.
The concept of rights has always been held with the necessity to defend and uphold your right. This is the entire basis of sovereignty.
If you relinquish your citizenship, and having no other, are effectively sovereign. However, being sovereign, you are also entirely and solely accountable for defense of your own rights.
Nothing stops you from dying a free man.

File: 1495195466749.gif (564KB, 800x430px)

564KB, 800x430px

>>127701209
I vote we make potatos honorary leafs.

>>127727839
You didn't read my post at all. I was saying communism makes more sense for people on the left than left libertarians. I don't recall shedding tears or otherwise being upset. Should have lurked long enough.

>>127728152
>you are also entirely and solely accountable for defense of your own rights
And that makes it acceptable for you to support assaulting me because I don't comply with your wishes? Fair enough. It's impossible to argue about what actions are or are not legitimate with someone who literally thinks that all actions are legitimate as long as they're committed by a state.

>>127728703
I support nothing of the sort, but that doesnt stop you getting assaulted does it

>>127700467
the more free you are, the less equal you are, the more equal you are, the less free you are.

File: 1446050504168.png (85KB, 248x344px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 248x344px

>>127699918
>a system wherein the workers control the means of production and unions organise labour and distribution of goods

>>127728152
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Thucydides

>>127728879
>I support nothing of the sort
If you support nothing of the sort, why do you keep desperately trying to justify the state instead of arguing against it?

>>127729064
>"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Your reasoning is purely circular, because the only thing that gives the state power is people believing that there's something giving its actions legitimacy beyond the ability to use violence against citizens.

>>127700467
because equality does not exist.
ever
at all
and it never will
but people who want to bring about equality invariably use violent means to bring it about
If I work really hard and make a lot of money, the only way to equalize the situation is to point guns at me and give some of my money to others.
The only way to bring about equality is to make sure every person is raised in exactly the same way with exactly the same amounts of resources. And even then, genetic variability will ensure equality is never met.
It is an unattainable pipe dream upon which millions of graves are dug.

>>127729106
Because i believe the state is a net good over what would otherwise be anarchy.

>>127729349
>Your reasoning is purely circular,
no, linear, from top down.

>because the only thing that gives the state power is people believing that there's something giving its actions legitimacy beyond the ability to use violence against citizens.
Is that so? Does the government claim a monopoly of force? Is the government always the last instance? Do to sets of law exist, one for us and one for them, private and public, one time outlaw robbery, one time requiring it? All this is imposed upon us, thus we suffer what we must.

>>127729602
>Because i believe the state is a net good
Do you have any consistent values and principles that help you tell apart good from bad, or is it a "net good" just because you feel like it?

>>127729602
Then you support assaulting someone for not complying with your wishes. That's the very definition of a state, Geralt

>>127729349
I wouldnt say its circular but rather a rationalisation.
The state already has power, it would not be a state otherwise.
The philosophy of the state and right is not that those things should not exist, but how to wield power so as to achieve justice.

File: Absolutely disgusting.jpg (11KB, 251x201px)

11KB, 251x201px

>>127728900
They're not mutually exclusive. How can freedom exist when one can be oppressed?

>>127729353
>Equality will never exist
Why do you Right-wingers always think we're talking about genetic equality or outcome equality? What a strawman. No, we are for equal opportunity and equal rights and freedom from discrimination. For example, the legalisation of gay marriage that Leftists, once again, achieved.

Funny how Right Libertarians are never the ones accomplishing these goals. The Left has accomplished every socially progressive policy for the last forty years beyond gun rights (e.g. gay marriage, sexual revolution, abortion legalisation, divorce legalisation, desegregation, etc)

>>127729353
>>127730168
Oh, and let's not forget marijuana legalisation. Where were the Right Libertarians during all of this? Oh, that's right, cumming over pictures of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand in their basement

>>127729739
I have my personal views but as always they must be balanced vis a vis society.
I do not believe in an ideal state. Any system is only as good as the people who run it.
However, put simply, the state is a system that can be run, as opposed to no state and no system.

>>127729724
>no, linear, from top down
No, it's precisely circular: "rights" don't exist because the state has the power, the state has the power because people submit to it, people should submit to the state because the state has the power.

>rulers never lose power when the legitimacy of their rule is rejected by the people
Okay, Hans. Go lick a boot somewhere else with this German version of history.

>>127730168
>They're not mutually exclusive. How can freedom exist when one can be oppressed?

equality only exist when its enforced, thus it is a form of oppression curbing any form of individualism.

>>127730168
Because the Left isn't about opportunity. They want to redistribute wealth. That's outcome. Being pro gay marriage is not a left wing position. Left vs Right within econ/society contexts is about hierarchy, not social conservatism.

>>127699918
>>127700067
>no government
>welfare state

Wow, you guys really are mentally disabled, aren't you?

>>127730366
That's not a very concrete argument. What's your hierarchy of values, and where does justice lie in this hierarchy?

>>127729602
>the state is a net good

Despite the fact "the state" is actually responsible for the most evil in human history. Billions of people have died thanks to decisions of "the state" whether is be through war, mismanagment or willful action.

The perfect government in my mind is one with very little state power and well armed militias instead of a military. That way there can be no imperialism or dictatorship that sprouts from it. Decentralization is the way to go. Centralized power will always lead to evil.

>>127729813
Perhaps you could ask why schlomo flag wants to stay in the state borders after he decides he doesnt want to be citizen anymore? I could argue hes just trying to stir up shit

>>127699621
Libertarianism is about freedom and liberty. Leftism is about totalitarianism. Oil and water.

>>127699621
Social tolerance which is something they profess is only practically attainable with some sort of coercive force, IE, not Libertarian.

>>127730438
>Not about social Conservatism?

Oh really? When did Leftists support Christian morality or heteronormative legislation?

>>127730528
>He thinks all Leftists believe the same thing
Okay, then I can say you're an Anarcho-Capitalist with no evidence then

>>127730330
funny, because all of the right libs I listen to have been pro gay marriage and anti drug war since the start. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Which is true of pretty much everyone who's too emotionally invested in the left label to renounce it.

>>127730403
>No, it's precisely circular: "rights" don't exist because the state has the power, the state has the power because people submit to it, people should submit to the state because the state has the power.
That's nonsense, first of all in a republic the people are the state, hence my reference to the regime/goverment, secondly people can not opt out of what the regime orders, thus involunteerly comply.
The regime having power over the people exactly fulfills a master-slave relationship.

>Okay, Hans. Go lick a boot somewhere else with this German version of history.
Oy Yossele, Hitler so volunteerly resigned out of reasonable reasons, right?

>>127730633
>why schlomo flag wants to stay in the state borders after he decides he doesnt want to be citizen anymore
Not wanting to submit to illegitimate state power =/= not wanting to be part of a society at all.

>>127730674
>Leftism is about Totalitarianism
Sorry, did you forget the Right had Totalitarians too? Hitler and Stalin come to mind.

You can't just be this black and white and consider yourself well-versed on ideology and political spectrum.

>>127730873
I could name you a dozen right libertarians who are in favor of positions you myopically label "left"

File: images.duckduckgo.com.png (453KB, 831x831px)

453KB, 831x831px

>>127731010
>Stalin?
You mean the person in this left-wing meme made by left-wingers to support left-wing ideas.

>>127730922
Your brain is literally just stuck in a loop. The citizenry has the power to enforce its own property rights if most of it acknowledges that property rights are worth enforcing.

>>127731010
>the Right
>Stalin

ohahah, you're not trying anymore

File: Strawman.jpg (91KB, 600x450px)

91KB, 600x450px

>>127730904
I never said Right Libertarians weren't for gay marriage or against the drug war. I said that they did and continue to do nothing to social liberties. They never have. They've always left it up to Leftists. From the sexual revolution of the 1970's to the modern day fight for trans equality and gay marriage and marijuana legalisation, you fuckers did nothing.

>>127730578
Id consider myself a centrist (third way) and am admanatly anti communist and anti anarchist. I do not believe in any set prescription. I would not govern china the same way i would govern the us.
A relatively large state or a minimalist one isnt as importsnt as whos running the state apparatus.

>>127700621
Anarcho-Communism

You don't need a state for public ownership

>>127731170
>>127731244
Shit, I meant Pinochet. Sorry.

>>127731234
>Your brain is literally just stuck in a loop.
nope, its rather you can't think logically.

>The citizenry has the power to enforce its own property rights if most of it acknowledges that property rights are worth enforcing.
When? Where?
You know very well what happens to those no longer paying taxes.
Where does citizenry still exist?

>>127731045
i'll do it now

Tom Woods
Lew Rockwell
Michael Malice
Ron Paul
Bob Murphy
Peter Schiff
Stephan Molyneux
Gavin Mccinnes
Hans Hermann Hoppe
Austin Peterson
That Guy T
Rand Paul

There's a dozen right libs from various walks of life, religious persuasions and levels of fame who are opposed to the drug war and in favor or homo marriage.

>>127731329
>i'm a centrist and i don't have any hierarchy of values
So you have no rational and consistent way to judge good and bad, and your arbitrary evaluation about "net good" is inherently irrelevant. Thanks for playing.

>>127731305
well that's just stupid
you're talking about popular support amongst the mass of socially conservative republican types vs the borderline communist popular left. You have zero knowledge of Libertarianism.

>>127731375
well, right-wing means something else in the USA than it does in Europe (just like with the term liberal), in Europe the right-wing always was as etatistic as the left, indeed. E.g Le Pen was the more leftist candidate than Macron.

>>127731305
and you absolutely implied that when you said that "right" is synonymous with social conservatism.

>>127731514
>>127731045
I didn't ask you to name Right-wingers in favour of social Liberalism. I asked you to name Left-wingers in favour of social Conservatism, because you stated that the Left-Right dichotomy is about hierarchies and not social restrictions. The Left has always been opposed to the Right's social Conservatism, and Right-wing Libertarianism in itself is quite recent.

>>127731463
>You know very well what happens to those no longer paying taxes.
I know what happens when the population decides that taxation is illegitimate, you bootlicking kraut. e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

This case is closed. Take your denialist """logic""" somewhere else.

>>127731341
>You don't need a state for public ownership
No?
Who then decides what is public and what's private?

>>127699918
It might sound good in theory butwould never work in communities larger than 50 people. Economic equality needs to be enforced and for enforcing most of financial aspects you need an authorian government. If you don't have one then people will either start trading freely or making an authorian government. In the end your system will not even last a few weeks.

>>127699621
Syndicalism is the best economic system.
Only paired with a strong state tho

>>127731783
>making a false dichotomy between approving of something and actively opposing it
How are left-libertarians going to "oppose" social conservatism if most of the population is socially conservative?

>>127731820
I'm not for Anarcho-Syndicalism. I'm a moderate Left Libertarian. I support a welfare state with universal healthcare for the working class, lower taxes, free college for those majoring in STEM, and social housing for the homeless, along with welfare programmes for those who fall out of work.

>>127731820
>It might sound good in theory butwould never work in communities larger than 50 people.
What are the odds that this correlates with Dunbar's Number, do you reckon?

File: _1 caran.gif (286KB, 800x1049px)

286KB, 800x1049px

>>127731803
>I know what happens when the population decides that taxation is illegitimate, you bootlicking kraut. e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

You must be quite confused. Also, that said revolution was quite a while ago, taxation and regulation of private business and lives now is a manifold more rigid than it has been under any king George.

>This case is closed. Take your denialist """logic""" somewhere else.
I accept your surrender.

>>127732085
this is a fucking troll
>i'm a libertarian who favors state control over vast swathes of the market

fuck off back to plebbit
you're a social democrat who wants to pay less taxes (because you're a retard who doesn't know how social spending works)
stop ruining libertarianism with your bullshit

>>127730609
This is my personal belief, obviously i have no way of proving a state is superior to a lack of one.
However having studied history, i can make my own conclusions: that the state is quite a natural product of civilised human society, perhaps being its most stable upholder, at the expense of varying degrees of freedom.
This loss of freedom is often a net gain for the protection a state offers for otherwise defenseless people.
A state of anarchy usually comes in the presence of a power vacuum. These periods are described by feudal arrangements of land and people where security is based entirely on local magnates or lords with the resources to engage in warfare. A classic example is the middle ages.
But thats not to say the middle ages didnt produce anything, it paved the way for the european enlightenment, so its definitely not without advantages.
I wouldnt want to live in a feudal social arrangement though

>>127732085
and where do you derive the hustigication to tax others

>>127731533
Good and bad are subjective, if you think you can prove otherwise, go ahead

File: 903.png (379KB, 960x640px)

379KB, 960x640px

>>127702564
You don't have to ban them, who said that?
>>127702692
No such thing as government in Anarcho-Communism/Communism
>>127702028
>>127714582
And Capitalism creates hierarchies, so by your definiton, no such thing as "libertarianism" exists
>>127714971
I'm a capitalist, but honestly, why am I not surprised about this?
>>127717773
Yeah but that doesn't mean we a have better alternative, capitalism has it's flaws but it's more efficient than socialism and pushes for innovation
>>127721371
No, in a commune everyone is armed and anyone trying to "steal" the means of production or some shit would be shot down immediately, not to mention that there would be literally no incentive for anyone to fight on your side.
Anarchism does not mean "no government", Anarchism means self government.
>>127727153
You don't even know what "communism" means do you?

>>127732170
>taxation and regulation of private business and lives now is a manifold more rigid than it has been under any king George.
maybe in germany

>>127732170
>You must be quite confused.
You must be mentally challenged, because my example literally contradicts your moronic thesis. The colonists decided that British rule is illegitimate, defeated it and installed their own government instead. And ironically enough, a lot of it revolved around unfair taxation.

>>127732341
and then what? states fail more than niggers rob

>>127732423
>there is no difference between sex and rape
thats you

>>127732423
>Good and bad are subjective
I wasn't talking about objectivity. I was talking about the total worthlessness of evaluations that aren't based on a concrete hierarchy of (subjective) values in a rational discussion, because it's inherently impossible to judge whether your evaluations are even consistent or not.

>>127732281
>State control over vast swathes of the market
That's hyperbole if I've ever seen it. You Rightists never fail to exaggerate. I'm not asking for a fucking Communist society. I am just asking for government support for those who get fucked by the Capitalist system. I'm pro-Capitalism for the most part.
>I want social housing for the homeless. That suddenly means I want no private housing in your mind.
>I want universal healthcare for the poor and working classes. That suddenly means I want no private option in your mind.
>I want free tuition for those majoring in useful subjects, and that means in your mind I want free college

Fuck off back to /r/Anarcho-Capitalism