/Llg/-Left Libertarian General

File: Leftist literature recommended.jpg (252KB, 1200x1252px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1200x1252px

>Recommended Leftist literature
>Pic related, from /leftypol/

>>128057230
Thanks for coming here and not blatantly shitposting like commie or an fem genrals
Bump

File: burniesandy.jpg (40KB, 584x328px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 584x328px

Hi, do you mind telling me how does an economy know whether a good is worth its costs in a non-capitalist system?

How can someone vote on the costs other people should incur, how would that even be moral?

Furthermore, how can you be a leftists and libertarian at the same time? Taxation is non-libertarian, you can't call yourself libertarian if you want to force everyone to give 30% of their income to you with threats of destroying them.

>>128057559
Thanks, lad. I'm a recently turned Leftist, and I'm hoping to engage in discourse with some of the more intelligent voices on /pol/

>SYNDICATES ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT FROM CORPORATIONS GUYS

ok bud

>>128057610
>taxation is non libertarian

taxation isn't nessesarily non libertarian, and socialism doesn't nessesarily imply taxation - the soviet bloc payed a lot less tax then the western world

>>128057610
I'm not a Marxist personally, but I can try to explain.

Depending on who you speak to in relation to Left-Anarchism, you may be given different answers ranging from "Distribution based on need" to "Labour vouchers with value based on the entire value of the production of the labourer"

What the second one means is that instead of a hierarchical system where the boss reaps profit-or surplus value-the labourer takes it all and chooses to invest it to purchase things. This may sound like the wage-labour system, but it's not because the worker is not giving his surplus value to his boss. So worth would be based on need, and subsequently wants once the individual's needs have been catered to.

I can be a Libertarian because 'Libertarian' in this sense simply means freedom from government social control, not the Right Libertarian definition.

>>128057685
I understand that on an ancom society unions like distribute the wealth. Now how would we keep the unions in check? What's stopping corruption from taking over?

>>128057801
They are, though. How are they not?

>>128058185
Democracy. Any managers found unfit to rule would be democratically voted out, just as they were democratically voted in.
Everything managerial in a Left-Anarchist society (again, not one myself, but I'm defending it here) would be done democratically.

>>128058185
I'm on mobile. Didn't mean to type that like a retard

>>128058072
>taxation isn't nessesarily non libertarian
How can "give me 30% of your income or have your life be destroyed by the government" a libertarian principle? Do you care about elaborating instead of saying "nuh huh"?

>the soviet bloc payed a lot less tax then the western world
Only if you are a completely delusional person. Countries like North Korea take the revenue from their national controlled corporations because its more difficult for the citizens to notice and to fight against. If taxation in places like North Korea or the Soviet block had to be voluntarily filled by the individual, then they would rebel against the government in no time. Same thing how US and modern economies do, they make the employer pay your taxes and tariffs most of the time to leave the citizen no room for questioning.

Also, I just wanted to clear the air about Left Libertarianism.

>Isn't it a contradiction?
No. You have two types:Liberals and Anarchists. 'Libertarian' in this sense means control from government social control.

>>128058072
>taxation isnt nessesarily non libertarian
>a-and the nap isnt even that good of an idea desu
>maybe we should have group rights and free healthcare
you guys arent libertarian at all. taxation is the use of force to ensure an otherwise declined trade. its fundementally non libertarian to use taxation beyond bare necessity to keep a government running.
>give me 35% of your earnings made by voluntary trade or else i will point a gun to your head and throw you in a cell
so libertarian

File: tmp_30906-dont tread on my wife-149583525.png (47KB, 741x457px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 741x457px

>>128058400
there is plenty of corruption in a democracy. See the thing is I agree that the world should function like this but we would need something fool proof to ensure that the wealth is distributed fairly.

>>128058160
That was a non-answer.
> So worth would be based on need,
That's how the current system works, dummie. How should this magical system that will replace the current system look like?

>This may sound like the wage-labour system, but it's not because the worker is not giving his surplus value to his boss.
There's no such things as surplus value. It's bogus marxist nonsense that was never accepted in the economics academia. Why do you deserve the returns from the investments you never made?

So basically, not only you cannot explain socialism, or communism, or any system you advocate for as a replacement to capitalism and individual freedom, but also, you base yourself on a canned economic framework.

>>128058858
You're operating on the Right Libertarian definition as the only one.

Taxation can be justified with the existence of a Welfare State. Now, I personally think taxes are too high on all classes, but a Welfare State is not necessarily anti-Libertarian if you define a Libertarian who wants freedom from government control

>>128058400
>unfit to rule
What happened to no gods no kings?

>>128058936
Well, corruption in any society is unavoidable. It's about limiting corruption, not eliminating it, and Democracy is the best way to do that.

>>128059113
>Taxation can be justified with the existence of a Welfare State.
No it cannot. If it could you would have justified it in your post, instead of saying "it can be justified" without explaining anything.

You need to actually explain your axiom that justifies taxation. A vague claim that it can be justified is not an explanation.

>>128059300
that's not anarchy. I know you said you're not an ancom but it pisses me off when they claim to be anarchists.

>>128058986
>That's how the current system works, dummie. How should this magical system that will replace the current system look like?
Look, you'd be better off asking an actual Marxist about this, but the system as far as I understand it would distributed goods in a society with automated production, and depending on who you talk to these goods would either be bought with labour vouchers or distributed by unions to the masses.

>There's no such things as surplus value
Yes there is, objectively. A labourer always produces more in value in an hour than he makes in an hour. A McDonald's worker always produces far more in value in an hour than $8 or $9 or $10 or whatever the minimum wage at the moment is.

>>128059316
We're down to moral arguments now, which are subjective. My subjective reasoning for moral justification of a Welfare State is that those who can't afford private healthcare or become unemployed do not deserve to have nothing and do not deserve to starve.

>inb4 charity
It's not enough. It's never been enough. If it was, then government wouldn't be needed to provide welfare.

>>128059734
>>There's no such things as surplus value
>Yes there is, objectively.
>A labourer always produces more in value in an hour than he makes in an hour.
You are mentally retarded. The laborer did not do the investments on the building, or the tools, or any of the capital he's utilizing. Why should the laborer deserve the investments he never made?

So, if I invest my money, and I hire people, those people deserve all the money I invested plus the returns of my investment? Why? How does that make even the tiniest amount of sense?

>>128059513
Well, to them it is Anarchism because there is no State

>>128059513
All that would do is not only create another state but that state would be in control of all the wealth.

>>128060124
It is tho. also what are your beliefs exactly?

>>128060064
Hold on, I'm not arguing for Marxism. I am simply stating to you that surplus value is an objective fact; profit is an objective fact. A worker produces more value than his hourly wage. Again, the McDonald's worker never produces value less than or equal to the minimum wage. I mean, fuck, one McDonald's meal alone is almost half the minimum wage, and they take a very short time to create.

You are speaking to me as if I'm advocating that the worker receive all of the value. I'm not. I'm just stating it as fact.

>>128060045
>My subjective reasoning for moral justification of a Welfare State is that those who can't afford private healthcare or become unemployed do not deserve to have nothing and do not deserve to starve.
That's a bogus and broad moral axiom that I can't take.
So, basically, being a fuck up justifies the theft against honest people? Sounds like a child like belief that has no respect for the integrity of individuals.

If your life depends on the servitude of others, then other should decide whether you live or not, not a superstate.

>>128060265
I guess you could call me somewhat of a Liberal. I'm only recently turned Leftist, so I'm not fully in the shoes of a Leftist yet. I still hold some Rightist sympathies like being fair to business, being anti-immigration and being for lower taxes.

I support a streamlined Welfare State and maximum civil liberties.

File: Glorious democratic socialist grocery store.jpg (87KB, 670x335px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 670x335px

>>128059734
How exactly do you determine "need" though.

The problem with systems like this, is that they always underproduce instead of overproduce, because they're scared shitless of producing so much that they devalue their own product.

Let's say you have a farm that produces milk.
Some "democratically elected" government bureaucrat decides YOU SHALL PRODUCE NO MORE MILK THAN IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ONE GALLON OF MILK PER HOUSEHOLD PER WEEK AS THIS HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO SATISFY PUBLIC NEEDS

well what the fuck if I want more milk than that?
what if somebody buys more than 1 gallon before I make it to the store?

Yeah this is a small example, but take this idea and apply it to literally EVERYTHING and you'll see how badly it works for actual needs.

>>128060630
>Fuck up
Are you employing that anyone who's unemployed is a fuck up? What about construction workers who regularly fall out of work because that's the nature of construction work? Should they just be told to go fuck themselves in between construction contracts?

What about disabled people? Should they be told to fuck off too?

You're being an ideologue

>>128060945
Sorry, I meant *implying, not 'employing'

>>128060435
No, the surplus value is not an objective fact. There's no "surplus" value coming from the laborer. What you call surplus value is the return from the investments other people made.

>A worker produces more value than his hourly wage
No he doesn't. Investments focused on having a return had to be made in order for in a long period of time, the enterprise gets a return. The worker does not magically make more money than his costs. Otherwise, why aren't you just hiring people to make infinite money?

>>You are speaking to me as if I'm advocating that the worker receive all of the value. I'm not.
>This may sound like the wage-labour system, but it's not because the worker is not giving his surplus value to his boss.
You were trying to explain a system where your alleged definition of surplus value goes to the worker. Don't try to shift goalposts.

>>128060736
>How exactly do you determine "need" though.
I don't know, man. I'd like to answer this question, but again I'm not the most well-versed on Left-Anarchist theory. /r/Anarchism is a good place to go if you want to know more.

>The problem with systems like this, is that they always underproduce instead of overproduce, because they're scared shitless of producing so much that they devalue their own product.
I agree. In fact, Marx argued that Capitalism actually produces too much; far more than anyone needs to consume. He argued that the excess production should be distributed to those in need, and I can agree to some extent. For example, when a supermarket is about to throw out bread or any other food item that hasn't been bought, why not have a government agency buy it off them and distribute it to the homeless or those in need instead of allowing it to go to waste in some landfill?

File: sftfi1{image0}.gif (5KB, 462x347px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 462x347px

>>128060945
Maybe if you stop drinking the coolaid you would see as clear as water.
Black and white people: equal IQ = equal chance of getting out of poverty.
Most countries that are in extreme poverty have an average IQ bellow 80.
An IQ of 90 is about what it takes to read instructions and follow them without mistakes. So, poorer people drink more alcohol, study less, are more violent, and respect each other less.

So, basically, the bigger of a fuck up you are, the more you deserve, because we are all meant to be equal according to a post modernist neo-marxist dogma. If you are better at taking care of yourself, your friends and family, and the people who live around you, it means you deserve less and need to be taxed. Correct?

>>128061447
>I don't know, man. I'd like to answer this question
If there's anything you convinced people here is that left "libertarians" are completely clueless about everything and can't defend anything they believe in in a rational manner.

>>128061447
>I agree. In fact, Marx argued that Capitalism actually produces too much; far more than anyone needs to consume.

And you'd rather live in a system that produces too little rather than too much?

>>128061447
>He argued that the excess production should be distributed to those in need, and I can agree to some extent.

>I'm totally not a marxist but I agree with what he says about things and go onto the internet and advocate it

>>128061790
No, not correct. I am not arguing for high taxation, nor am I arguing for race-based welfare.

I am simply advocating for a social safety net for the unemployed, not simply a way of life for low IQ retards. Not everyone who's unemployed has a low IQ.

>An IQ of 90 is about what it takes to read instructions and follow them without mistakes. So, poorer people drink more alcohol, study less, are more violent, and respect each other less.
What does any of this have to do with whether or not they deserve unemployment benefits? If you became unemployed, would you like others making such assumptions about you?

I agree that lower IQ people generally tend to be more unemployed, but it's not as if every avenue of work requires a high IQ. It's just that the labour market shifts frequently and those who had a job yesterday might not have one today.

>>128060945
Also, pretty ironic how you call me an Ideology when you are defending a dogma that states people deserve more for no reason other than they need it more, and people deserve the have the actual fruits of their labor stolen from them if they are better at making wealth and prosperity than others because others need it more.

You follow an extreme ideological dogma that states all what humans produce need to be stolen and relocated just for the sake of having more equality.

>>128062065
>Agreeing with someone on one or two things suddenly means you're an advocate for their ideas
Right, so if I agreed with Hitler or Pinochet on one or two things that'd suddenly mean I'm a Nazi or a violent Dictator? Come on, how black and white.

>>128062016
Am I not allowed to admit gaps in my knowledge? Oh please, enlightened one, teach me your ways.
Fuck face.

>>128062419
So I take it you're an Anarcho-Capitalist then? Because taking your second sentence to its logical conclusion leads to that.

>>128062309
Hey, how about this, how about you start sending me some checks for my health care? Do you think everyone in Brazil can get the same access of health care as people in Ireland? Why isn't your country being heavily taxes so I can get free health care if I have no money?

Seems like you only believe in what you do because you want to steal from people richer than you. You want the marginal benefits of having an extra 10% taxes on the rich, but if what you believed was truly applied, everyone in the place you live would be taxed so indians and chinese get better health care.

I bet you don't believe in the axioms you stated whenever you remember that there are 6 billion human beings that would benefit if your entire country is taxed for them.

>>128057230
>Everyone is equal lmao
>Anarchism will totally work, nobody will go mass killing and looting.

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

102KB, 752x1668px

>>128057230
Daily reminder that you're all stalinists in denial.

>>128062930
I'm not a Marxist.

>>128063002
How many times do I have to say I'm not a Marxist? I'm a Liberal with some Right-wing sympathies.

>>128063207
>I'm not a Marxist.
>>Welcome
>Marxists
Hmmm.

>>128062652
Admitting gaps in your knowledge is perfectly fine.
Not being able to defend a single case in everything you believe in in the thread you made about your beliefs is pathetic.
I think left "libertarians" should just lay off their political labels, shut the fuck up for 3-5 years, and observe things from a neutral point of view. Instead of going on about how the USSR was actually great and that the least developed state in mexico is a successful socialist revolution; which will only make your future self cringe.

>>128058072
>the soviet bloc payed a lot less tax then the western world
You don't need to tax slaves, just appease them with vodka and cigarettes, and hope they don't get a glimpse of the outside world.

>>128062903
>Hey, how about this, how about you start sending me some checks for my health care? Do you think everyone in Brazil can get the same access of health care as people in Ireland? Why isn't your country being heavily taxes so I can get free health care if I have no money?
What a ridiculous argument. I have no obligation to non-Irish people, just as Brazil has no obligation to Irish people, you fucking nigger.

I pay taxes to upkeep the healthcare system here, and I'm pissed at the way the government handles it. I'd rather it was reformed.

>Seems like you only believe in what you do because you want to steal from people richer than you.
I have no qualm with the rich. In fact, I'd like to see all classes get a tax reduction.

>>128062652
>Am I not allowed to admit gaps in my knowledge? Oh please, enlightened one, teach me your ways.

You shouldn't be advocating for us to switch to a system that you yourself cannot explain or rationalize beyond your own emotions.

>how exactly does your system provide people with better goods and services and a higher quality of life?

>I DONT KNOW HOW IT WORKS BUT I HOPE SOMEBODY IN CHARGE KNOWS HOW IT WORKS AFTER I VOTE FOR THEM

If you create an economic system in which there is absolutely positively no way to fail at life, then you have created a system in which a majority of people will figure out how to contribute as little as possible while benefiting as much as possible.

Why would I want to work 40-60 hours a week away from my family for my basic needs, when I can work less than that and have my basic needs provided by some other workaholic sucker?

(1/2)....

>>128063393
Just because I disagree doesn't mean they're not part of the discussion.

(2/2)

If working or not working both give me access to basic need, what is the incentive to produce more than a bare minimum

How do you extract productivity from people?

If you want me to produce 100 widgets an hour for my basic income, and I only produce 50 widgets, what the fuck are you going to do to me?

Fire me and give me basic unemployment income for no work at all? What a terrible punishment.

>>128063758
Only a marxist can accept marxists.
That's how it works.

File: Anime anger.jpg (8KB, 299x169px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 299x169px

>>128063614
I'm NOT advocating for that system. I'm simply explaining the system to you. Jesus, I think I've told you like five times I don't want it.

File: socialistthoughttolerance.png (400KB, 887x621px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 887x621px

By the way, you just learned why the autistic spaniard that makes commie threads never tries to actually debate and engage with people on a free speech forum.

>>128058185
>What's stopping corruption from taking over?
Nothing, hence you get figures like Stalin. An-com is communism btw, but the middle class hippies that actually try and start a commune get purged quickly in favour of a strongman who likes the idea of running "the dictatorship of the proletariat" indefinitely.

Left libertarianism has inherent contradictions. Admit that you are a communist. Freedom to smoke dope isn't freedom.

>>128057346
>(((trotsky)))
>No Mao
>No clouscard

bad

Plus,add "The origins of Familly, private property and the sate"

>>128063985
>i dont want this system but I will fiercely defend it from anybody who also doesn't want it

>>128065252
You asked me to explain it and I did to the best of my ability. That's not me "fiercely defending" it.

>>128060657
Maximum civil liberties is really a right-wing libertarian belief.

Just look how the left is banning and regulating every thing they dislike. They are far worse for civil liberties then even the religious right. They only legalize their leftist bullshit degeneracy, while making the social response to that degeneracy illegal.

Refer to this OP.
>>128063002
Whether you identify as a Stalinist or not, this is the reality.
You are questioning things which is good. You have further to go. Shake off the taboo surrounding right-wing politics and go from there.

>>128065759
Well, that's the modern Left. If you go back to the 1960's and 1970's you'll see the Left spearheading the sexual revolution, fighting for marijuana legalisation and the acceptance of porn and women's rights

>>128065496
>>128065786
If you are going down the loberg route. It has to be right libertarianism. Finicial incentive is the only way a libertarian society can function, since they so heavily favour individualism.

>>128065496
I'm not sure how familiar you are with social services in america, so I'll explain it briefly just in case you've never been here.

The "social safety net for unemployment and disability" thing you talk about?

We already have it. It's called Social security.

We also have people who abuse the system for their entire lives.

They're called niggers and white trash.

The government requires that people deemed able to work must attempt to work in order to receive unemployment benefits.

So what happens is a nigger gets a job at mcdonalds, does the shittiest job they can possibly do, and hopefully gets fired so they can keep collecting unemployment again for another 6 months, rinse and repeat indefinitely.

>>128065961
You mean classical liberals?
They are now considered right wing libertarians by almost everyone.

File: 1447181735736.jpg (43KB, 720x783px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 720x783px

PoMo Deconstructionism isn't thoughtful or productive. Declaring that ideas are "a bunch of macho cishet horsepuckies" or something to that effect and dismissing them doesn't actually discredit or challenge them in any way. You're just pretending like they don't exist for the sake of your one-sided, aggressive discourse.

>>128066425
>>128066425
>>128066425
This.

"Antifa" communists now classify the term "classical liberal" as a code word for "alt right"

>>128057685
Uh... You the /sg/ guy?

File: 1491688352414.jpg (124KB, 1024x752px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x752px

>>128057230
Explain me how your ideology "works".

>>128066425
Not necessarily Classical Liberals. A lot of the people advocating these things would have been Welfare Statists and even some Anarchists and Marxists. Probably some Neo-Liberals too. Classical Liberals probably took part as well.

A lot of different groups, but the point is that the Left fought for these things. In fact, hippy culture-which arose out of these movements-is largely considered Left-wing

>>128063988

leftism operates like a sect,

because leftism IS a sect.

( no hyperboly )

File: 1495834394108.jpg (46KB, 468x895px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 468x895px

>Libertarian
>Statists & Marxists
please elaborate

>>128057346

Too much tankie shit in that list

>No...
>Chomsky
>Kropotkin
>Emma Goldman
>Bakunin
>Berkman
>Godwin

>>128066944
it doesn't

>>128057230
Gaaaaaaay

Take your jewish free market bullshit and shove it up your fat ass Italia

File: 9145f93556f9c593334bdb1f33ac4834.jpg (30KB, 468x326px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 468x326px

>>128067204

They cant. Left libertarianism is a sham. It cant exist in any practical shape or form.

>>128067204
Liberals, then.
Marxists fit depending on how you define Libertarianism. They advocate the abolition of government.

The Left were the original Libertarians
>We wuz Libertarians n sheeit

>>128067819

Personal property is permitted in Lib Soc societies.

>>128068118

Its not really property if the state allows you to have now is it?

>>128067071
None of those groups (with the exception of classical liberals) are libertarian. The are classic, big government lefties or retards (anarchist s). Leftist policies, like the NHS for example, require a large government and taxation, none of which are libertarian.

>>128068228

There's no state in Lib Soc societies.

How bout you go on to a Marxist board, on a Marxist internet, on a Marxist computer and talk with your Marxist friends on you Marxist country?

Ohh what's that? Communism in an inherently inestable system and will fall every time you empose it?

Well, then fuck off commie scum

>>128059113
>a Welfare State is not necessarily anti-Libertarian if you define a Libertarian who wants freedom from government control
how can you be free from government control in a situation where the government defines who gets welfare, for what reasons and in which quantities though

>>128067861
>The Left were the original Libertarians
How have you reached this conclusion? They pushed social equality for decades, not libertarianism. Social equality from the leftist point of view requires taxation and wealth redistribution; everything a libertarian is against. The original libertarians where Americas founding fathers.

>>128068290
Not necessarily a large government. Just because you have a social safety net and universal healthcare for the poor doesn't mean you need a huge government or high taxation, as long as you deregulate and don't extend government too far.

Welfare and healthcare and education are okay to fund. Immigration, environmental experiments, EU payments and other non-essentials are not.

It's not a binary choice between Minarchy and overbearing government. There's a gradient

>>128058400
>>128059300
>and Democracy is the best way to do that
I highly disagree. Every system -democracy, monarchy, aristocracy- can be corrupted but democracy is without a doubt the most corruptible of all. Better have a meritocracy than a system that choose by numbers and popularity.

>>128068906
The founding fathers were liberal. The libertarians are liberals who are afraid of the word because it has been taken over by marxists

>>128068390
>There's no state in Lib Soc societies.
So like we said, OP is a communist. Not a meme, the truth. If you are a communist, then you are unwittingly a Stalinist. Left libertarianism is profoundly retarded

File: 1479423487108.jpg (65KB, 674x640px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 674x640px

>>128068906
I've reached that conclusion because even Rothbard bragged about taking the term away from Leftists

>>128068906
technically classical liberals were on the left when they invented the left/right axis, people on the right were monarchists. That was way before Marx though, no one cares

>>128069310
I'm not a fucking Communist or Marxist or anything. I'm a very moderate Leftist who just wants a light Welfare State.

>>128069072
So you are a liberal then? That is what I am getting from this thread.

>>128069530
Moderate Modern Liberal, yes. Right Libertarian up until recently

File: 1484358648607.gif (113KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x1000px

>>128066944
Ask, Rojava.

>>128069512
Just call yourself a liberal in future, christ sake. Left libertarian implies anarchy (or at very least small government). The biggest meme term I've heard on here. I know the word liberal is taboo around here, but it best fits your political stance.

>>128069512
You started this thread welcoming marxists and anarchists, you were not a moderate leftists when this thread started. Your views are just being brutally stumped.

And you can't even defend your views rationally. If the believe in equality for the sake of welfare is a moral axiom, then why is it limited to national borders? Why aren't you being taxed for my countries's benefit?

> I have no obligation to non-Irish people, just as Brazil has no obligation to Irish people, you fucking nigger.
Except you had a moral axiom that the pursuit of equality justifies the taxation of unrelated individuals, all of a sudden, this moral axiom stops existing outside your borders.

What's more likely is that you are immoral and have no moral axiom to back your belief in welfare, you just want to receive more safety at the expense of the rights of others.

>>128069775
What made you switch?

>>128070074
If I call myself a Liberal I get strapped with all the baggage. People will assume I'm pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalism and ethnic replacement, pro-nigger, and have a hate boner for the rich

>>128070248
The realisation that the unemployed are fucked in lassez-faire and that charity isn't enough because it's not a fixed income or guaranteed, plus the fact that working class and poor people often can't afford purely privatised healthcare. I think a private option should be there for those who can afford it, though

>>128070392
If you are what you claim you are then it begs the question why you posted that book list. Perhaps you didn't read any of those books at all. Or maybe you completely changed your views in the time spam of 2 hours.

>>128070392
>If I call myself a Liberal I get strapped with all the baggage
You didn't help much by welcoming communists. FYI, they don't belong in political discussion, their logic is cyclical and infuriatingly retarded. They can't grasp that their ideology doesn't work. Humans need some form of incentive/structured competition to peacefully co-exist, otherwise we'll just find something to fight over.

>>128070902
You can't just lock them out. That incentivises echo chamber creation

>>128070776
The unemployed is not fucked by lassez-faire; that is a completely nonsensical claim.

The unemployed is unemployed because the government purposely, at the request of leftists, makes it more difficult for people to be hired. A truly free economy would have a tiny unemployment rate. Because everyone wants a productive occupation and almost everyone also wants to invest their money to get future returns, and there would be no barriers in between making ends meet.

>>128070776
>The realisation that the unemployed are fucked in lassez-faire and that charity isn't enough because it's not a fixed income or guaranteed, plus the fact that working class and poor people often can't afford purely privatised healthcare. I think a private option should be there for those who can afford it, though
We have a liberal society at the moment. It comes with its own baggage. Another possible solution to this problem without going full commie was nat soc. Hitler ruined that with all his ethnic cleansing though.

>>128071166
What about people on temporary contracts? What about people who are disabled? People who want a career change? People who are in college? People who are let go by their employer for disagreements or because automation is cheaper?

There are so many variables to unemployment you're purposely leaving out to push a narrative

>>128071160
Commies are already in an echochamber. They should be allowed to listen while we point out their retardation.

>>128057230
O X Y M O R O N
X
Y
M
O
R
O
N

>>128071707
Every ideology on Reddit has its own echo chamber.

>>128071658
We have first world societies that does exactly what you want for about 30 years, and we also have the significant unemployment you are complaining about.

Your logic is failing at some point here. I guess the 1/3 governments take from the economy is not enough? But then you say :
>" I'd like to see all classes get a tax reduction."
So, which is it? Is it Laissez-faire freedom fucking up with people or not?

>>128071658
Unemployment is not the problem. The fact people need to find a job instead of make a business or be self-sufficient is the problem.

>>128072384
Lower taxes doesn't equal no Welfare State. You can have both if you trim the size of government and stop giving bennies to migrants.

A light Welfare State with low taxes is possible. In fact, Ireland in the 1920s was just that

>>128057346
>calls himself a left-"libertarian"
>no Bakunin
>bunch of authoritarian Marxist garbage

kys, you have no idea what libertarian means

>>128072338
/pol/ might seem like an echochamber at first (it is on some issues ie Islam) but there is a common ideological progression that we all followed, each at different times and each reaching slightly different conclusions.

Also postmodernism is the most horrible goddamn movement in the world, bless your heart if you bought into that denunciation of all things tangible for even a second.

>>128073181
I didn't

>>128073181
>Also postmodernism is the most horrible goddamn movement in the world,
Second this. It is changing the human psyche. It has had effects so profound that people don't even realize what has changed.

>>128057230
Fuck off antifa. Stop trying to colonize /pol/ and go back to tumblr

>>128072836
I think you overestimate how much government can be cut to increase welfare. Specially if you want to keep immigrants out, which would imply in an increase in taxes and structural costs. I also assume the "light" welfare state you are talking about didn't have professional health care and had to provide free penicillin to millions of people.

>>128072836
>>128074307
Without even mentioning the feedback loop problem of trying to fix unemployment by putting a bounty on unemployment.

>>128070074

> Left libertarian implies anarchy (or at very least small government).

>left
>small government

Pick one. Anarchy would be the extreme right wing of the political spectrum. Conservatives favor small government, so no government would necessarily be ultra conservatism.

Can any lefties educate me? I actually want to embrace anarchism, but I'm leaning more towards anarcho-capitalism (GASP!) or Egoism, because of this

>leftist anarchism is very well thought out
>based on sound philosophies and economics
>relied on the public to be educated in economic dealing and understanding how the system works

I just can't make myself bridge the last gap. I hear leftists talking about this utopia, but I can't believe that even 1/3 of the population would understand the idea of anarcho-syndicalism and implement it correctly.

Meanwhile, capitalism is so fucking easy and it's been tested and evolved from knights and peasants to kings to parliaments. Literally give me money for your goods, and your goods better be well-made or else I'm not buying them.

It's only ever muddled up when socialism and authoritarian leftists get involved, placing taxes on everything, which authoritarian right wingers then siphon to use to fund the military-industrial complex. Left and right in traditional politics is two jackboots on the same soldier.

>>128075538
>Anarchy would be the extreme right wing of the political spectrum. Conservatives favor small government, so no government would necessarily be ultra conservatism.
Wow, its almost like political ideologies don't fit neatly on a linear line! Conservatives favour small government, not no government. Anarchists/communists (communism: a stateless, classless society) favour no government. Libertarianism suggests a move away from authoritarianism, so left libertarianism is an oxymoron considering that the left favours bigger government. Drop your 2 dimensional understanding of politics. There are commonalities across ideologies, but they can't be properly represented on a graph.

Ayy gotta love that Anarchy, nibba. We don't need The Man to tell us right from wrong or to take our money.

Get the fuck out of /pol/. This is worse than leftypol general.

>>128076383
Not a lefty, but anarchism (not anarcho-capitalism) is as stupid as it sounds. Either it results in some form of post-apocalyptic authoritarianism, anarch-capitalism or communism. I suspect lefties hope they will all be living in some utopian commune where they will farm for an hour a day and live like kings, but it would most likely result in some form of authoritarianism when someone with better weapons comes along.

>>128058218
How are they different?

>>128077215
I think leftist anarchism would work in small scale situations. There's a village in Spain that's still communist, but all the residents know how to farm and fend for themselves. The same goes for the villages in the states, all utopias are farming communities that just break even and their residents describe how they actually get pleasure from doing work - while most modern leftists have no idea how to farm or even survive alone for a few days.

AnCap is also a meme but less so than ancom

>>128076383
>the military-industrial complex.
The whole point of the military industrial complex is that it makes money, hence the industrial part. So "siphoned" tax money is made back through arms sales.

>>128069512
What is property?

>>128057230
>he who has the biggest stick takes what he wants

Anarchy will always devolve to this, or people will band together for protection and create something that could only be described as a form of government thus ceasing to be anarchy.

Anarcho-anything is the definition of naive retarded thinking.

>>128078151
>I think leftist anarchism would work in small scale situations.
It would, but you are talking about a way of life that doesn't require political labels. In the modern era; virtually impossible with a mass cull of humans, there is just too many of us, with too many different agendas. So it is pretty much off the table.

>>128057230
>used to be right libertarian

You suck at LARPING.

>>128078982
*without

>>128058160
Based on need?

Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave.

>>128070776
> the unemployed are fucked in lassez-faire and that charity isn't enough because it's not a fixed income or guaranteed

What are mutual aid societies for 20 points John?
What are higher employment opportunities?
What is highly funded & targeted charity with foundations?
What is family/friends/community?
What is a society of responsibility & saving for a rainy day?
Again what are mutual aid societies that paid an income for redundancy & disability in a far more targetted & humane manner than centralized government welfare?

You'd be surprised at just how far prices are driven down & access increased with laissez-faire compared to our current regulated messes, ignoring for the moment that our current systems are unsustainable long term.

Not very regulated areas like digital & computer tech have increased access so much that people have free content online and people even without jobs all have smart phones.

These fears people have that everyone will just lose access to various services is ahistorical & a little ridiculous if you look into it yourself.

File: SO_TO_SPEAK.jpg (24KB, 100x200px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 100x200px

>>128057230

>>128078398
Which is true, but it's spent pretty horribly if you're asking the countries on the other side of the world who we have to wage war with to keep it going. The money from the MIC also goes to militarizing the police here and making the system slowly more controlling.

>>128078982
I think that most people would subscribe to libertarianism if only it were seen as more mainstream. It's basically minarchy and close to anarchy. I can't count how many times I heard people back in the US say "I'd vote Libertarian, if they had any chance." The media is leading us all to the slaughterhouse

File: BeatitFag.png (16KB, 506x581px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 506x581px

>>128057230
Irish commie was never a right libertarian.