/lrg/ - LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL: TURN UP THE ROTORS EDITION

File: ancap squad.png (252KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1920x1080px

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

File: mises pepe background_00000.png (136KB, 1251x1838px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1251x1838px

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

File: rothbard pepe background.png (112KB, 772x1055px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 772x1055px

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

File: you talkin to me.jpg (77KB, 625x714px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 625x714px

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

File: based anime ancap grill.png (1MB, 3729x4010px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3729x4010px

MUSIC:
>Eric July - AnCap Rap pt.1 - youtube.com/watch?v=pGuj-Z3PNg8
>Eric July - AnCap Rap pt.2 - youtube.com/watch?v=zqV4RXLX1Hc
>I Need a Pinochet - youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o
>Ain't I Right - youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ
>Metallica - Don't Tread On Me - youtube.com/watch?v=fh-TKJTCtnw
>Dixie's Land - youtube.com/watch?v=IUjLE_N1Cuc
>Yankee Doodle - youtube.com/watch?v=IzRhFH5OyHo
>Battle of New Orleans (if you counter-signal Jackson I swear on me mum I'll skullfuck you - plus it's a good song so fuck you) - youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0
>Mi General Augusto Pinochet - youtube.com/watch?v=R9R4zPTpS9w
>Adios Mi General - youtube.com/watch?v=5rsb7dT6sEM
>Rhodesians Never Die - youtube.com/watch?v=r1J8F6YQjBg
>Hammer Of The Right - youtube.com/watch?v=5WzAFG0Wntc
>The Edgytarian Song (/lrg/'s anthem) - youtube.com/watch?v=3qX8B02NDHI

>>128149805

Chris Cantwell is a fucking joke though mate.

>>128149805
heya portubro

File: cecilia.jpg (99KB, 960x812px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 960x812px

>>128150228
He's great at rants and actually knows what he's talking about in my opinion.

File: anarcho-cute 2.png (532KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1000x1000px

>>128150314
Sup Frenchbro. How is Henry de Lesquen doing? Has he banned negro music yet?

>>128150334

He was a total embarrassment on (what was it?) Colbert Show or something. Made it way too easy to make fun of him.

>>128150405
right now he is lowering the number of congoïds and burning the labour code
irl he has celebrated his 10 000 subscribers on youtube but he created a new twitter count because he got shoad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_DoZTzUQD8

File: hoppe secessionism.png (668KB, 659x824px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 659x824px

>>128151405
LMAO

He even put in pepes and anime icons. top fucking kek, what a madman

>>128151219
I don't think CC has ever gone into a mainstream talkshow. You're not confusing him with Milo Yiannopoulos who went on Bill Maher?

>>128151686

...Those two could not be more different. And no, it was Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vQ5h8iWa0Q

>>128152001

No wait, not that one. He was definitely on one of them though, a load of the more gun-interested libertarians were pissed off cos he muzzle-swept someone during it.

>>128152152

This is annoying me now. Can't find it.

>>128152001
>>128152152
>>128152438
don't worry. but who cares what Colbert thinks about? His only audience are politically braindead adults. Who cares.

>>128152526

I agree, but a lot of libertarians are former leftists, myself included, and he really didn't help the cause.

File: neo.jpg (493KB, 1275x1650px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1275x1650px

Wassup Helicopter Bros? Who in the LRG crowd knows about the Dark Enlightenment/Neoreaction? Has anyone else gone "from Mises to Carlyle?" the Dark Enlightenment is essentially a mutation of libertarianism that stresses anti-egalitiarianism and sees ORDER as more important than LIBERTY, so it seems that right-wing libertarians would naturally be drawn to it. The thought leaders are Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land. The motto is "No Voice, Free Exit," and the plan is to run governments like joint stock corporations which compete for residents. I have included a link to the "Mises to Caryle" article and to the "Neoreactionary Canon," which contains all essential Dark Enlightenment writings. I would love to get a discussion going about this "post-libertarian" philosophy!

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey.html

Neoreactionary Canon: jbboehr.github.io/NeoreactionaryCanon.epub/NeoreactionaryCanon.pdf

>>128149805
I appreciate these lrg generals... I'm starting to read again after being delusional of seeing left-libertarians destroy the west.

>>128151587
he is made of pure memetics

File: ancap pill.png (3MB, 1500x1297px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1500x1297px

>>128152721
I know what it is and I've been dying to read more Moldbug and some of Land's cocaine-fueled writings.

>The motto is "No Voice, Free Exit," and the plan is to run governments like joint stock corporations which compete for residents.
I 1000000% percent agree with this. It's neo-monarchism or neo-cameralism or whatever you want to call it. I haven't gone from Mises to Carlyle, since I believe Hoppean libertarianism is the end-game, but NRx is totally compatible with it.

File: Libertarian Left.png (169KB, 1200x627px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x627px

Unlike you Right-wing Libertarians, we Left-wing Libertarians actually have revolutions. Have fun LARPing about helicopters while your precious NAP forbids murder, autists.

Fuck your property

File: chriscantwell.jpg (117KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x720px

Bump for the best thread on /pol/
>>128150228
Cantwell is ourguy as fuck. What's your beef with him?

>>128154585
The nap Forbids murder, but not killing.

>>128154734
It prevents aggression. You can't kill us but we can kill you

File: pinochet meme.jpg (49KB, 1065x800px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1065x800px

>>128154996
Yes we can.

File: 9eef2504c872f6672f32776942d92d0b64dde449cc085d1c71d968359891dc3c.jpg (337KB, 1240x1334px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1240x1334px

>>128154585
Modern Left-wing Libertarian revolutionary

>>128154996
but by trying to kill us we can kill you

File: rigtwinglpidiots.jpg (41KB, 754x382px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 754x382px

>>128149805

This triggers the ancap

>>128154585
>we Left-wing Libertarians actually have revolutions
and they always fail unless they become totalitarian
*cough* Paris commune *cough*

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

71KB, 800x800px

>>128154996
It's perfectly within non aggression to kill commie scum like yourself. Ethics only apply to the ethical, of which you have admitted you are not.

>>128154996
>but we can kill you

you know self-defense is a thing right? You strike, and strike back harder

>>128155273
>one is legitimate the others isn't

File: AnCap_Landlord.png (491KB, 1168x1266px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1168x1266px

>>128155273
This triggers the geofag. AnCap Landlords ftw.

File: 1496174985739.jpg (73KB, 960x768px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 960x768px

>>128154585
>flag
there's literally one of you on this board
irish flag
every.single.time

>>128154606
he's dumb and an ethnonationalist
that's all the reason I need

Btw wassap portubro, me n slovakia were wondering when you'd show up again.

>>128154996
the second you get uppity we are merely engaging in self defense by splitting your skull with a rifle butt

File: A_I_R_B_O_R_N_E.png (1MB, 2248x1980px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2248x1980px

>>128155565
Lol okay whatever.

File: propertyrights.jpg (517KB, 1637x866px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 1637x866px

>>128155395
So whomever finds it first gets to keep it forever regardless of whether they use it or not? And they are also allowed to profit off of state granted titles in land?

Why are ancaps for state granted privileges again?

I dont think you understand natural rights senpai
read pic related and educate yourself

File: smuggy.png (465KB, 933x975px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 933x975px

>>128155671
>>128155485
>>128155296
>>128155285
>>128155314
Pathetic Bourgeois scum. What are you going to do, hire a private police force that all of the Capitalists have already bought and paid for?

Oh, I know! You'll voluntarily form a militia, right? Oh wait, no you won't because the Capitalists will have disarmed you already.....

>>128155846
>So whomever finds it first gets to keep it forever regardless of whether they use it or not?
what's the point of not using it ? you can build a house on it,a farm,a bunker owning land is very useful
>And they are also allowed to profit off of state granted titles in land?
never said that

>>128155982
>Oh wait, no you won't because the Capitalists will have disarmed you already....

>the democrats are capitalists now

File: 9F1A9B07_A14B_4F25_A25D_76C15C067A1B_3061_000004786CB7E6C6.jpg (27KB, 334x440px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 334x440px

>>128155982
Speak for yourself potatocuck. I'm well armed. What about yourself? Got some rocks to throw at the cops?

>>128155982
>Capitalists will have disarmed you already
>being disarmed in Ancapistan
>ever

waow lad

>>128156213
>tfw you're a frog so you can only have rifles and shotguns with a shitton of years to wait

being french and libertarian is suffering

File: atlantis aint free 01.png (50KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 853x543px

>>128154585
>“One of these centuries,” said Danneskjöld, turning to them for a moment, “the brutes, private or public, who believe that they can rule their betters by force, will learn the lesson of what happens when brute force encounters mind and force.”

Get McNuked, you pathetic parasites

What do you lads do here?

File: Smug.jpg (187KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1920x1080px

>>128156181
>>128156213
>>128156260
>He think the Bourgeoisie won't just have more power to disarm him now that the politician middle man is out of the way of the big Corporations.

>>128156472
Circle jerk about roads.

>>128156526
>He doesn't realise large corporations are the best friend of large government

>>128156526
>thinks big corporations have the same power as the state
hahah potato

>>128156526
Yeah I do think that. They've got the cash, but we have the numbers and the guns.

Plus I'm sure the state currency will maintain it's value without the state.

>>128156526
>he thinks a workers union can't do the same

>>128156526
>no politician to disarm me as a central force of authority
>b-but you will still be disarmed somehow!

do you even read what you type

>>128156526
>politician middle man who passes anticompetitive legislation because big business bribes him is somehow in the way of big business

>>128156526
>Corporation A sends a McDeath Squad to take away muh guns
>At my door they are met by a squad of Police™ from Corporation B
>Corporation B realizes that by protecting me, they will keep my subscription and profit off it
>Corporation A realizes that disarming me isn't worth their money and their employees' lives
>Everyone goes their own way, no violence needed

File: Consider the following.png (472KB, 957x535px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 957x535px

>>128156762
>>128156776
>>128156778
>>128156796
>>128156800
>>128156796
>>128156823
>He thinks that even without Government large Corporations like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Sony and Walmart won't continue to dominate

Oh yeah? Who's going to use their alternatives? They have such a large market share for a reason

Nobody uses AVG search engine or Bing. It's all Google, fedoras.

You're just swapping State coercion for Corporate coercion. And you can't vote a sociopathic Corporate Executive out.

>>128157188
>They have such a large market share for a reason
Because they provide a good service? And if they cease to provide a good service they will no longer have a large market share?

>>128157188
>Nobody uses AVG search engine or Bing. It's all Google, fedoras.
Their.fucking.problems,also
>he unirocally believe in the too big to fail meme

>>128157188
>corporate coercion
>sociopathic CEOs
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PRODUCT
DON'T BUY IT
>tfw i'm an ebil CEO and the worst I can do to take my sociopathy out on the world is make Windows 10 force updates when you've got 12 spreadsheets open

>>128157188
>you can't vote a sociopathic Corporate Executive out

wtf are you a cuck that believes in democracy?

we just stop giving him money if he goes bad and watch his business flop if he stops delivering the goods. He can't force us to give him money anymore unlike a state, no resources, no survival

>>128157615
Union leaders are regularly assassinated by Corporations in under-developed countries, and cartels regularly murder their opposition. What the fuck makes you think they wouldn't seize the opportunity to make your life a living hell?

Are you trying to tell me that the police force wouldn't be bought and paid for? The army?

Please. As Noam Chomsky said, the idea that a contract between a Bourgeois employer and his starving subject is voluntary is a sick joke.

>>128157188
>literally identifies as a libertarian while arguing for totalitarian controls of people's economic decisions.

>>128157961
>No resources
Except enough money to buy large shares in the market and enough influence to buy private militias. If you think Corporations don't have influence outside the domain of their market specialty you clearly haven't been paying attention to American politics

>>128158145
>Totalitarian control
No that's what you want. We Left-Libertarians want totally decentralised, non-hierarchical economic communes.

>>128158268
you mean the politics that involve the state?
>hurr durr cancer and the human body both exist together, so clearly we need to eradicate the human body as much aa the cancer
lefty logic

>>128158090
>slaving subject
This meme needs to die. You're not a "slave" to your employer just because you don't receive the full revenue from the product you make.
>“When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing.
>“The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics’ Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden [an industrialist who invents a new metal, if you haven't read Atlas Shrugged]? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden."
Also, the whole idea behind AnCap is that there isn't a single police, judiciary, army etc. that can be bought. If there's a market for the protection of the rights of workers, then some enterprising businessman will exploit it by providing such a service and profiting off it.

>>128158566
yeah and the way you get there is by murdering people who disagree with you
you even felatted the "revolution" faggotry
you're just a bloodthirsty tyrant with a fag accent

>>128158651
That's not the point. The point is that your argument that Corporations would have no ability to buy factors of aggression such as private police or militias goes against empirical reality.

>>128158090
>Union leaders are regularly assassinated

breaks the NAP, there will be consequences for this

>cartels regularly murder their opposition

cartels inherently break the NAP just by existing because they operate on violence, they will be the first to be thrown out of helicopters

>What the fuck makes you think they wouldn't seize the opportunity to make your life a living hell?

because I'm not a paranoid cuck who gets triggered at the thought that some people are more successful than them in business?

>Are you trying to tell me that the police force wouldn't be bought and paid for? The army?
>hurr private police and private militias are bad just because i say so

they're "bought" and "paid for" by the common people that fund them, meaning they're obliged to serve those people or they don't get funding

>As Noam Chomsky said, the idea that a contract between a Bourgeois employer and his starving subject is voluntary is a sick joke.

not an argument

>>128158268
>you clearly haven't been paying attention to American politics

oh yeah, american politics that have a STATE and CENTRAL GOVERNMENT in them to give these people SPECIAL FAVORS and PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

you've just proved me right when you brought up US politics

>>128155273
You obviously don't understand our stance on taxation and land-ownership. Fuck off with your shitty ideology, geofag

>>128158788
>Regularly LARPs about murdering Leftists with helicopters
>Complains about others going on about revolution

>>128158769
You don't need the Capitalist exploiting you through theft of your surplus value in order to invest in the business which you operate. It's not like more money is added when it goes to the boss as was originally there when you produced said item.

Let the worker keep all of the revenue and decide for himself if he wants to invest in the business, with the workers controlling the means of production.

Why should I have to give my excess revenue value to the Capitalist? This is the exact same argument you Right Libertarians have against government with taxation, yet when it comes to private companies it's okay.

>>128158566
In AnCap, there's nothing to stop you having your communes - as long as everyone who signs up does so of their own free will. The difference is that in AnCap you will not be permitted to FORCE anyone to give up their labor or property to you - you will not be able to ENSLAVE the productive people.
Do you think the best, most intelligent, hardest working, most productive people will choose to join your communes and work to pay for your weed and vidya? Or will they choose to get a job in a business and earn a salary, or start their own business?
Your entire ideology is nothing but a thin veil for being able to put the true workers - industrialists, businessmen, doctors, engineers, scientists, anyone who aspires to something better - in chains to support YOUR OWN worthless existence. And then you have the gall to call US selfish.

>>128158912
Who is going to bring about these consequences?
Wolves don't care about "muh nap". They'll eat you without any moral permission.
I wish'd you'd all stop using "voluntary", "violence", "NAP" as arguments in themselves.

File: Alcohol.jpg (98KB, 767x767px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 767x767px

>>128158912
>breaks the NAP, there will be consequences for this

Consequences? Inflicted upon them by who? You do realise that in this society you've basically just created a private government, right? Do you think that these huge Corporations that curried favour with government will suddenly see their market value and share nosedive over night? No, they'll obviously find other ways to strangle competition, and if that means assassinating the competition don't think for a second these sociopaths would be above that. They do it all the time in third world countries.

>they're "bought" and "paid for" by the common people that fund them, meaning they're obliged to serve those people or they don't get funding

Hmm, who will these listen to:
>The man will millions/billions at his disposal
>The cucks with a half empty packet of chewing gum and $5

>not an argument

Yes, it is. It destroys your entire ideology of faux-voluntaryism.

>>128159708
there will be entire companies dedicated to putting down wolves, paid for by the people you are claiming will b e helpless

>>128159988
As if the Proletariat have an infinite amount of resources in comparison with the Bourgeoisie.

Delusional.

>>128159276
>Why should I have to give my excess revenue value to the Capitalist?
Because it was his work, his effort, his managerial expertise, his willingness to take risks, his mind, that created the factory that allows you to produce 100 times what you could produce on your own. If you yourself have the mind and the ambition to do what he did, there is nothing stopping you in a free market - and, in fact, many of the great industrialists of the economically free 19th century did in fact begin at the bottom and accomplish great productive feats by pure ability.
If you and a bunch of other workers think you can do what he did, there is nothing stopping you from saving up collectively and doing it. However, you can't lay claim to the profits and the capital that you, yourself, in fact, in reality, DID NOT produce - regardless of any little ideas you might have about whether you 'could' have done it.

>>128160092
Enjoy you mass democratic dictatorship.

What makes you think other "proletariat" will give a shit about respecting your "personal property"?

File: 1494023256160.png (95KB, 884x1376px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 884x1376px

>>128159821
>Consequences? Inflicted upon them by who?

privative courts nigga

>You do realise that in this society you've basically just created a private government, right?

yes, private, voluntary government, now you're getting it

>Do you think that these huge Corporations that curried favour with government will suddenly see their market value and share nosedive over night?

are you assuming that it will nosedive? The successful businesses will continue t prosper as always

>No, they'll obviously find other ways to strangle competition,

and they do that by making a better and more appealing product than them

>if that means assassinating the competition don't think for a second these sociopaths would be above that.

yeah which is more likely: assassinating someone, breaking the NAP, incurring all the consequences OR just use that time and money to develop a better product instead

hmmmm

>They do it all the time in third world countries.

because government lets them get away with it

>Yes, it is. It destroys your entire ideology of faux-voluntaryism.

nice non-argument, faggot

wait hold on a minute, you're that left-libertarian from yesterday who made that shitty left-libertarian thread that got absolutely shat on by everyone right? holy shit lmfao

>>128159276
>Why should I have to give my excess revenue value to the Capitalist?
If this were not permitted, owners of capital would have no reason to invest and the economy would be crippled.
>exploiting you through theft
Moralistic framing just obscures the reality. Without that "theft" nobody will invest. You will be conquered by those with stronger economies.
>Let the worker keep all of the revenue and decide for himself if he wants to invest in the business, with the workers controlling the means of production.
Workers won't be able to run the business well democratically. If labor is necessary for ownership, your firm is not going to obtain capital investment. Companies without the restrictive ethic will recieve investment and beat you.
>This is the exact same argument you Right Libertarians have against government with taxation, yet when it comes to private companies it's okay.
You are right, and they are wrong to make that argument. There needs to be an incentive for the creators of the market commons and enforcers of the market norms to do their work, and fund future work. That is taxation.

>>128160206
Let me just rephrase your argument

>Why should I have to give taxes to the Government official?
Because it's for the common good, it's for the upkeep of the roads and infrastructure and society. It's because of him that you have police to protect you and regulations to ensure your food is safe to eat. If you yourself have the mind and the ambition to do all that, there's nothing stopping you from becoming a government official in a liberal Democracy-and, in fact, many great people did in fact begin at the bottom and become government officials through hard fought elections.
If you and a bunch of other Voluntaryists think you can live in a society without taxation, there is nothing stopping you from saving up collectively and moving to a nation with no taxation. However, you can't lay claim to the profits that go towards the upkeep of the things you use every single day-regardless of any little ideas you might have about whether you 'could' have done it.

See? It's the same argument. Just change a few words. But when it's one thing it's bad and when it's another thing it's good.

Be consistent like us Left Anarchists and condemn both taxation AND profit.

>>128159708
private courts, private police, and of course, private militias can all incur consequences on those that break the NAP

>stop using the NAP as an argument

why? the NAP is the argument. Non-Aggression Principle, no violence outside self-defense. Initiate the use of force outside self-defense, and consequences are there. You're freedom government (who has a monopoly on consequence-free violence), but not consequences

>>128160551
What makes you think anyone in your class or any other class will give a shit about your "private property"?

File: 1493824534900.jpg (55KB, 464x640px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 464x640px

>>128160092
>muh proletariat

listen kid the world isn't black and white, these "proletariat" CAN be the "bourgeois" and the "bourgeois" CAN degrade themselves into being "proletariats" because these labels are just self-imposed Marx meme labels

>>128161079
because if my private property isn't respected, then THEIR private property is not to be respected either. That's how it works

>>128161079
They won't. I don't expect them to care.unless I create value for them. now please answer my question without another question.

Why will the "proletariat" not steal or destroy your personal property? why do you think they will play nice just because you share the same social class?

>>128161421
Sure, it can happen, but there will always be Bourgeoisie and Proletariat until class is abolished.

>>128161058
They can also defect and plunder you.
NAP is not an argument. It is an ethic you wish to enforce. You can so it three ways: moralism and deceit, violence, making trade more profitable than war

>>128161655
Class will never be abolished, unless everyone dies. Hierarchy is inherent to life.

>>128161655
>until class is abolished.
not gonna happen. ever.

Equality is the worst philosophy. only in chains or in death will all of mankind be equal.

>>128161629
This same argument can apply to any system. What reason do they have to respect it now? Well, the fact that they're not thieves in general is one. My neighbours are not thieves. Another is because they know they will be punished if it's found that they did steal my property.

>>128161655
>there will always be Bourgeoisie and Proletariat unless everyone is equally enslaved

fixed that for you

>>128161663
If they defect, then the non-rogue private militias will seek to neutralize the common threat that does not respect Non-Aggression and are clear threats to themselves by extension

It's not completely an ethic, it is in many ways a practical application on rational courses of action

File: atlas.jpg (296KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1920x1080px

>>128161079
Philosophy, m8
We can have civilization only to the extent that people do not desire the unearned - i.e. they realize that to live as a thief, a beggar, a thug, or any other kind of parasite is MORALLY WRONG - i.e. is not in their real self-interest. To some extent, this is true of advanced societies today. If everyone simply desired and took whatever they wanted, regardless of whether they had earned it, we would be in a Hobbesian state of nature and trying to gouge each other's eyes out for the protein. There is no such thing as a civilization of savages, thugs and thieves, and could never be under ANY political system. Civilization can exist only on the basis of PRODUCERS: traders, businessmen, practical thinkers, honest workers. And producers have too much self-esteem to sink to thievery.

...Well, philosophy and McNukes.

>>128161953
Since ancaps don't share that pathology with the real anarchists, they should just drop the "an".

>>128161790
>>128161953
Not rigid hierarchy, though.
You're assuming human nature is biological and not formed by environment and society.

>>128162207
>implying human nature isn't biological
>Implying humans don't have volition to choose their actions in life
What is 'the bell curve' and what is 'Aristotle' for $2000, Alex?

File: 1496425174889.jpg (116KB, 596x390px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 596x390px

>>128162370
oy t-those are just burgergrease propaganda

they are just poor poopytarryrats! they dindu nuffins! people are equal!

>>128149805
I think Bastiat shouldn't be approved, he is not our guy, he is for open borders and such.

>>128162639
Revolutionary Catalonia didn't have shortages. In fact, it had improved medical and literacy standards and total equality (at least as much as possible) with worker (NOT State) control over the means of production.

File: 1496425349215.gif (2MB, 1800x996px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1800x996px

>>128162934
ahahaha next you're gonna tell me stalin dindu nuffins too and the famines didn't happen

christ lad, yer a riot

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

16KB, 506x581px

Active Right Libertarian Telegram Community:

Group:
http://t.me/LibertarianRG
Channel
http://t.me/LibertarianRight

>>128162934
So, what's stopping modern workers from building their own factories and mines, owning them, producing abundance and living in utopia?
Oh yeah, because they DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY. If any one of them does have the ability, the mind and the will to build all those things, he will do so, thus becoming an Evil Capitalist™. Workers' collectives are, if anything, dumber than their weakest member because democracy a shit. Building a great and complex productive enterprise takes a great mind motivated by dispassionate reason, not a collective motivated by gibsmedats and feels.
The only reason any of those tiny little 'communist paradises' survived any time at all, and the reason why they all failed, is that they were living on borrowed time. They were consuming the capital they had taken from the capitalists before them, which they could not have created and could not maintain. Once that ran out, they were finished.

>>128163774
is there an IRC or something I'm too old-schooled for Skype or this Discord Telegram shit

File: Screenshot_20170602-180534.png (140KB, 480x800px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 480x800px

>We
>Us
>Our

Might I ask, exactly
>Whom?

File: 1495051125452.png (17KB, 605x397px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 605x397px

>lolberts

le anti-immigrant and fascist libertarians

>>128165487
I see something wrong with that, question is why am I on their property? This clearly isn't my property or they'd be physically removed already.

>>128165487
are they masturbating on my property?

if yes, they can masturbate as they fall off the helicopter

>>128149861
On the open borders thing:
What if I own a large property on the border? Can I take in as many refugees as I want? It's my land.

>>128167503
sure, and then after your neighbors see how shitty your land gets, they buff up their own border

afterwards once your land becomes uninhabitably shitty, you might try to leave in desperation and sell your land. Once you sell it underpriced because of how low its value is from all the shitters you imported, the pro-border lads can buy your property. physically remove the shitters, and then place even stronger border control since the land is now theirs

the only other way would be is if you somehow continue to endure your shitskin land's shittiness, in which case, your neighbors will just have all the more reason to abandon you and prop up high border control on their side

>>128167503
Why don't you start with asking how a border exists in the first place

>>128165487
>implying there are no rules in ancapistan
>implying city owners can't set rules on their property

>>128168214
you can have private borders senpai

>>128168331
That span across a whole country?

>>128168067
What if I'm in the middle of the country? Can I take them in?
Or what if I have a bunch of likeminded friends throughout the country and we all do it? Then we've polluted everywhere with them. We don't sell our property because we did it for humanitarian reasons. We leave the land to our new shitkin kin so now they own it.
They breed like fuckin mad and now they can't be stopped by the neighbors alone.
That wouldn't be problematic?

>>128168493
Private citizens would own the land on the border. The neighboring country would have a border with all the private property owners.
That part is easy, but keeping people out seems impossible.

>>128168548
People can't stay on your property forever.

>>128168808
Why not? It's my property.

Go read Curt Doolittle and talk to of_ice_and_rock on reddit.

>>128168493
an Ancapistan border is the sum of all private borders together

>>128168548
>what if I have a bunch of likeminded friends throughout the country and we all do it? Then we've polluted everywhere with them.

so you do your thing, and then your realize these refuges are dead weights and you can't sustain them before there's no centrally-enforced welfare to give them gibs. You also realize these are violent, savage apes, and that they destroy your property. Your land value sinks, people leave your property, leave working for you. You are now alone with just you and your hellhole buddies plus the shitskins you've imported. Congratulations, everyone else around you now has extremely strong borders around your property because they've been watching how shitty your land got

Chances are, the smarter ones among your group will bail because humanitarian aid doesn't mean shit if you're being niggered on a daily basis. He will sell, shitskins physically removed, and everybody learns a valuable lesson

>We don't sell our property because we did it for humanitarian reasons. We leave the land to our new shitkin kin so now they own it.

Ah ok, so you give land ownership to these shitskins? We entice them then to sell, and the owner of the shitskin group will likely do it if it means getting tons of shit in return compared to other shitskins. The land is still purchased and polished back in the end, while shitskin hatred is learned

>They breed like fuckin mad and now they can't be stopped by the neighbors alone. That wouldn't be problematic?

how are they sustaining this breeding? They don't have the skillset or jobs, and no welfare means no gibs. If they just get violent, that breaks the NAP and they can be killed on the spot for being violent apes.

Liberalism doesn't work in Ancapistan, at least not for long. It just doesn't.

>>128168891
I mean, they /can/, but at that point it's basically just a prison for them, a containment zone. As soon as they step outside your property they are outside your jurisdiction.

Under anarcho-capitalism, largely the role of the government in society regulation (e.g. border control, public indecency) is replaced by the community. Due to it's decentralised nature, cities set rules via a form of contract or covenant (decided either by the provider of essential services or the community as a whole). This way, groups of people who desire a certain community get to live with others who live that way, and those who oppose this view are barred from living there - they must seek another community. In this way, towns compete for citizens in an open market.
Basically, this means that if you violate a community's standards by, for example, importing hundreds of refugees, you are no longer welcome in the community (and neither are they).

File: froglegsinwinter45.jpg (22KB, 600x406px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x406px

>>128160739

>>128170225
whatcha trying to say senpai, Hoover and Obama were both massive shitters

>>128169423
I have enough land to feed them.
What if they actually did create value for me or I continued to create value for myself? What if I end up buying the properties next to mine after driving their land value down because people hate me? Then I'm expanding my state and the neighboring properties continue to lose land value just because people don't like me and my foreigners.

>>128169812
>Due to it's decentralised nature, cities set rules via a form of contract or covenant (decided either by the provider of essential services or the community as a whole).
This makes more sense. So I'd actually be signing a "social contract" instead of just accepting that I've agreed to one by virtue of being born.
How do we decide on the terms, though? We vote? Doesn't democracy lead to physical removal?

>>128170382
>I have enough land to feed them.

Oh, but they're breeding remember? You can't feed them indefinitely, and they don't really work, so you're just in a state of eventual self-destruction

>What if they actually did create value for me or I continued to create value for myself?

If you can tame wild animals, fine by me, just keep them off my property.

>What if I end up buying the properties next to mine after driving their land value down because people hate me? Then I'm expanding my state and the neighboring properties continue to lose land value just because people don't like me and my foreigners.

First, I highly doubt you'd have the money to buy land if you're supporting degenerate shitskins. Yes, you said somehow you make it work, but honestly if you're telling me shitskins are capable of being self-sufficient and productive their homeland wouldn't be a shithole in the first place and they would have no need to be migrants. They're refugees for a reason, anon, and that's because they're goatfucking shitters to the core.

Next, you're only assuming the neighboring land next to you will both decrease in value and sell to YOU. They can just ramp up border control on their side, or sell to someone else who can, while still developing and cherishing their land because they KNOW it's a waiting game, and you are more likely to snap first from your refugee problem which lets them buy YOUR property.

People don't just flee because of a few shitskins. They're not cowards, they act accordingly and plan ahead.

>>128169423
So is every piece of land within this border privately owned?

>>128170382
>What if they actually did create value for me or I continued to create value for myself?
That's not how you end up with money to buy neighboring properties. You need to create value for OTHER people. Good luck doing that with unskilled savages.

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

176KB, 800x1740px

>>128171211
Yeah.

>>128170662
>So I'd actually be signing a "social contract" instead of just accepting that I've agreed to one by virtue of being born.

That's the idea. It's more an actual voluntary social contract rather one imposed to people by force.

>How do we decide on the terms, though? We vote? Doesn't democracy lead to physical removal?

Depends on the private property owners. Some people may be more democratic than others, it doesn't matter. They have further rules and restrictions on their democracy, or you can go full monarch on your own property handing it down by family lines. It's your property, your rules.

>>128171211
Owned to their private property owners instead of a government, yes. Still a border nonetheless. That is what Anarcho-Capitalism is all about.

File: argumentation.jpg (111KB, 760x760px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 760x760px

>>128170662
You do "vote" — with your feet. You're asking us how humans get together to form Wacos, Free State Projects, Liberlands and other types of seeming utopias. People would just organize themselves and do it. Hell, there would probably be companies whose entire purpose was to enforce contractual obligations within certain jurisdictions as to create covenants and private societies.

>>128171538
How do you get the land and remove the state presently presiding over it voluntarily?
How do you stop some other nation state from annexing you?

>>128171371
>>128171538
So then what the American guy said. I'm George Soros, I own a shitload of private property and I invite 100 million refugees to the heart of the nation.

>>128171207
Well I'm going to put them to work in my factories. They'll work for just food and shelter because their homeland sucks.

It would totally drive down the property value of my neighbors. The added need for security on the border is a cost than any purchaser would need to take into consideration. The more security I make my neighbors think they need, the less valuable their property becomes.

Why wouldn't they sell to me? Who else wants to pay for all that security? I can offer more than anyone else because I don't need to pay for that security.

You all gonna boycott my cheap goods because my workers are brown?

>>128171246
I'm putting them to work in factories. Unskilled labor. I'll dominate cheap manufacturing because I can pay them in food and shelter.

>>128171872
People will protest and boycott you once they find out about what you're doing. Then if you *still* haven't learned your lesson, people will defend themselves and their properties by killing your "guests", since they are trespassers and will, as implied by you, destroy property.

>>128171789
>>128171538
Pretty sure democrats are subject to physical removal, though.
>There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.
So how do we come to an agreement about the covenants and contracts that affect ten properties?
A mediation firm?
But isn't that basically a democracy. Your vote is your agreement or disagreement with the terms instead of a ballot, but that's still rather democratic.

>>128172033
>pay them in food and shelter.
Hahaha, you have no idea how the world works. Even in the poorest shitholes of the world, people will not voluntarily slave away for only food and shelter.

>>128171872
Could happen I'm theory. It's unlikely that someone would devote their life to building an empire just to destroy it.

People who own property an want to profit from it aren't going to scare away the people who pay them.

What's stopping the Fuhrer from deciding he really likes niggers and going open borders for the Reich?

>>128172460
That's why I'm taking them from war torn areas. They're refugees. I take them from danger, provide them food and shelter and safety, in return for their labor. I'll have them all sign contracts before they come. If they get uppity I'll deport them and import different ones. If they get real uppity I'll put them down.

>>128172450
Mediation firms, yes. It's also possible that no covenants formed and life would go on about as usual. Not every inch of the world would be under a covenant agreement.

>>128171848
>How do you get the land and remove the state presently presiding over it voluntarily?

There are many ways to achieve Anarcho-Capitalism, peaceful and non-peaceful. Economic state collapse, or just an uprising of private militias. There is little "voluntary" obligation when it comes to dealing with a state, because a state isn't voluntary.

>How do you stop some other nation state from annexing you?

Private militias complete with modern military technology, volunteer soldier who wish to defend their homeland not just for themselves or fellow free man, but for their children. Guns, tanks, planes, ships, battlecruisers, bombers, jet fighters, all will still be there. Just privately researched, developed, produced, and manufactured. These private militias can still organize, cooperate, and communicate with each other to eliminate a common outsider invasion threat that seeks to undermine their own freedom.

So, how does ancapistan protect itself from other nation states? Virtually the same way states already protect themselves from each other: superior military might.

>>128171872
So you George Soros decides to waste tons of his time and money to ruin his own private property? Ok, go do it George, everybody will just blacklist you from business, set up borders, and then just wait until your private property collapses in value to buy it back.

>b-but I won't ever sell it back!

Not much else to do with it after it becomes a complete shithole. You might not sell it, but certainly your children might or whoever gets their hands on ownership of your property.

>>128172765
But what's the difference between the mediation firm and a small scale democracy? One leads to physical removal and the other doesn't, but why?

File: Untitled.png (382KB, 1058x876px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1058x876px

>>128171872
?

>>128173027
Replace one of the dindus with Soros and you got it

>>128172033
>Why wouldn't they sell to me? Who else wants to pay for all that security?

Someone else who has the money?

>I can offer more than anyone else because I don't need to pay for that security.

You don't have infinite money my man.

>You all gonna boycott my cheap goods because my workers are brown?

What are you gonna do about it?

>I'll dominate cheap manufacturing because I can pay them in food and shelter.

Are you sure this will work out 100% according to plan, and that you will absolutely dominate the market? You know your shitskin workers still need food, shelter, housing, medicine, and other shit that people can blacklist/refuse to trade with you right?

The civil unrest that spawns from this could damage worker morale and they might just chimp out on your and steal your shit/raze your land for resources. Logistically it just seems like you're causing much more problems than you are solving, especially if it gets harder and harder to sustain your shitskin population.

File: libertariansurprise.png (468KB, 1924x1284px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1924x1284px

>>128154585

>>128149805
But what are you people actually doing?
You have cucked out and let the far-right wing be the main force.

You need to create the structure of small/ involved businesses and build up the networks.
You need to make a society that fits the politics or they will keep going for gibs and expanding out not upwards into enfranchisement.

Where is your brand?
Where are your education outlets?
Where is the non precarious local community base from which to gain political power?
You wobbly tools let the institutions get over run.

File: 1494546389819.jpg (35KB, 563x623px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 563x623px

Keep up the good work, gents

>>128172450
>But isn't that basically a democracy. Your vote is your agreement or disagreement with the terms instead of a ballot, but that's still rather democratic.

Well sure a lot of things can still be somewhat democratic in principle, but democracy by money is still much, much better and more efficient than democracy by votes of the easily manipulated masses.

>>128172757
you're making some really big assumptions there, especially from unskilled war-torn shithole workers. You might just end up having to put them all down for your own good because you'd have to control so many damn savages accounting for so many factors and costs.

It would be infinitely cheaper to just hire local workers, but I guess in your humanitarian (hardly humanitarian if you're just enslaving them...) dreams you pave the way for self-destruction.

File: 20170602_211934.png (74KB, 328x671px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 328x671px

>>128172233
>>128172817
This is what I keep seeing every time. The We. The Us. Ironic that the philosophy that advocates for the most personal freedom starts on the pretense of a collective, with most if not all of the people sharing the same opinions and values. Secondly, this idea that private entities can group together to create things that a state makes up now, namely a border and an army. Why would you want to create a society where a labourer lives next door to someone with multiple nuclear missilies? The great paradox of ancapistan. A democratic government can't be allowed to have a monopoly, but a single person with billions of dollars can.

>>128173027
top fucking kek

>>128173492
It's not about infinite money, it's about the land being more valuable to me because I don't have to worry about the added security costs.
>What are you gonna do about it?
Nothing obviously, but people usually don't pay more for shit unless they have to or get a benefit from it. How many people bitch about American jobs leaving but don't pay more to buy American?
Of course I'm not sure it will work. It's a hypothetical. I lean libertarian and I'm trying to figure this shit out by playing devil's advocate. Are you sure t won't work?
>The civil unrest that spawns from this could damage worker morale and they might just chimp out on your and steal your shit/raze your land for resources.
This is why I'd hire the most racist men I could find for my security. They'll be itching to put down a riot.

>>128173992
>There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.
Well I guess I get to remove you and expand my brown state.
I'm still not getting what the underlying difference is. The covenant is basically a law, the mediation is basically a voting booth. It's democracy.

Yeah I might have to put them down. It's a risk I'm willing to take for the sake of diversity. Why would it be cheaper to hire local workers? I'd have to pay them enough to cover food and shelter and then some, while still having to pay for accounting and management or whatever. I'm paying my slaves just food and shelter, which I make them grow and build.

>>128172967
Hoppe says that "even Rousseau, the most fanatic supporter of democracy, thought that it could maybe only work in small places where everyone knew each other and therefore the natural instincts to loot the property of those who have more than themselves would somehow be curtailed."

So there you have it: democracy can work in small villages or groups where the consequences only affect those who are involved (and those who abstain should also have the right not to be affected by any outcome of the democratic decision). But modern democracies where millions of anonymous voters vote themselves the loot and the spoils of their countrymen is deficient.

>>128174088
>you can't be a voluntary "we", all "we"s and "us" are all collectivist and contradictory to ancap!

what a strawman.

>Why would you want to create a society where a labourer lives next door to someone with multiple nuclear missilies?

Because that labourer also has the freedom to purchase his own multiple nuclear missiles? It's about freedom, not >muh equality

>A democratic government can't be allowed to have a monopoly, but a single person with billions of dollars can.

Yes, because a government owns that monopoly by force. A single person with a monopoly must compete constantly with others in order to stay at the top, refining his product, service, business line, etc.

That billionaire isn't violent and got there by merit. That's the point.

>>128174239
I understand, I am just messing around. I'm aware you're just sparring for fun.

>but people usually don't pay more for shit unless they have to or get a benefit from it.

this is true, but you also cannot say that your hypothetical will also be guaranteed cheaper or that it would be viable. If anything, it sounds like it would have massive startup costs with little projected gains because >shitskin savages

>Are you sure t won't work?

Like I said, if shitskins were competent then they wouldn't be from shitholes in the first place. They're just shitty people, importing tons of them for no reason just makes you're crippling yourself. It never works out, and is why the west is killing itself by allowing these rapefugees to flood in. I'm sure you're well familiar with this already.

>This is why I'd hire the most racist men I could find for my security. They'll be itching to put down a riot.

So you'd just end up cleansing a lot of shitskins? I don't see how that's a bad thing then if you're at least getting some productive output from them before it all comes crashing down. Word might go back to their homeland and they'll just come to distrust your racist, bigoted, private property land anyways.

>>128175068
Democrats are communists are in context to a democratic and communist state, not against any and all things democratic as an absolute.

>Why would it be cheaper to hire local workers?

Because a wage might be cheaper than paying for food, shelter, and other crap people need instead of just money outright.

>while still having to pay for accounting and management or whatever.

wait hold on, so you're not even going to have accountants and management to run your little shitskin factory? that business is not going to last, especially when you're dealing with savages. You only have one body anon, the apes will be all over you with complaints and other things managers are supposed to soak up as abuse sponges

File: b51bd2a97a07c98c117dd2966a368d39d726d60c2d6f407bf36415a66b354943.jpg (205KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1600x900px

ancaps are stupid.

if theres no child safety agencies how will the government get the opportunity to take my children and sell them into sex slavery?

i mean come the fuck on.

>>128175298
Yep that sums it up for me. Freedom at whatever cost. But what is this "freedom" worth if you won't even live to see it? The problem: Government. The solution: Death.

>>128175112
Okay. So basically the community that is affected by the covenant can all decide something with 100% acceptance and that's an agreement that is permissible.
But once the agreements affect people who don't agree with them it becomes a democracy and you get removed. That makes sense.
That way it prevents mob rule and the tyranny of the majority.

>>128175298
Well the west isn't forcing them to integrate. We're trying to change the westbto suit them. I'd put them down if they got uppity. I'd have overseers and the whole nine yards.
Maybe I can't deport them because I can't let the word out that I'm killing so many. I'll have to goad them into violating the NAP so I could kill them.
If my slave runs into your propert can I be the one who shoots him? I'd compensate you for the cleanup cost, but I just want you to know I fired into your property in an attempt to mitigate your losses.

>>128176497
>The solution: Death.
Albert Camus get the fuck out of this body

>>128175846
Of course I'll have accountants. I just mean hiring locally doesn't seem to save me much because there's the same amount of overhead, and no one will want to work for less money than can sustain them. I'd have to pay them enough to buy food and rent shelter at the very least. I guess I could pay the locals in food and shelter too, but they'd probably want something on top of that and might be able to get it somewhere else.
My refugees have no option but me. They can take their complaints to one of my overseers.

>>128176497
>But what is this "freedom" worth if you won't even live to see it?

I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say. People die from freedom? What?

>The solution: Death.

what did he mean by this

>>128176620
hey man you do what you want with your private property and your private factories. Those people chose to be there, and while I don't want them on my property, I'm not gonna stop your operation

the evolution of your system is just amusing since you went from being a refugee humanitarian advocate for the hell of it to an industrialist capitalizing on labor with strict rules and consequences. Even compensation for runaway workers. good stuff lad

>>128177201
sounds like a lot of hassle and you'd definitely have to keep balancing cost and benefits between local and outside workers

now you must also realize, that the transportation of your future workers into your property in the first place costs money. And then the food that families eat, if that is all up to you, then they will want more and more since they assume you have unlimited food like children having no sense of finances like their parents

and then the women of your workers get pregnant or something -- do you give them leave? there's also medical complications if someone gets sick and can't work but is less profit to you while they still eat

it's gonna be tough hanging onto your system

Is this the thread for people who want minimal government such as national defense? Or is this purely ancap?

>>128178002
>what did he mean by this
Camus claims the only escape from the absurdism of life is death.
>the evolution of your system is just amusing since you went from being a refugee humanitarian advocate for the hell of it to an industrialist capitalizing on labor with strict rules and consequences. Even compensation for runaway workers.
Ha, I'm just trying to import as many people you don't like into the nation as possible to see if and how I can.
The covenant idea seems like the best solution, but only if it exists when I purchase the land because I won't enter into one after I've purchased the property as it would ruin my plan.
>now you must also realize, that the transportation of your future workers into your property in the first place costs money.
Slavery was profitable for a reason. Slave owners bore all the same costs I'm going to.
I could rent my slaves, I mean my independent contractors, to my neighbors to increase my profit. Now I'm polluting more than just my land, but my workers will be cheaper than anyone else you could get so you'd likely accept.

>>128179073
do you respect private property? do you want less gov?

if yes, you're all welcome lad

most of us are AnCap (myself included), but there's definitely Minarchists among us and they're very fine fellows of sophistication worth respecting

>>128179450
Ok. Im just getting into it so i was thinking of starting with ron paul, locke, or hoppe.

>>128179366
>I could rent my slaves, I mean my independent contractors, to my neighbors to increase my profit. Now I'm polluting more than just my land, but my workers will be cheaper than anyone else you could get so you'd likely accept.

well yeah but there's no guarantee they're going to allow these people in

also, I forgot to mention one little ace in the hold: automaton. Your workers won't mean much in the competitive world if they're being outskilled by robots doing menial tasks. There's only so much uneducated shitskin savages can do in terms of labor, and if they're not being imported for labor, no welfare means no direct gibs so those guys would just be pure losses on your part

File: 1494308578832.jpg (45KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x480px

>>128178002
You are replacing an orderly system with monopolies and tyrants. At the time of Brexit, people voted against being able to vote. In Turkey they made a democratic vote to have less democratic power. Likewise ancaps will try to achieve "freedom" and at best achieve a new totalitarian regime, not ruled by kings or dictators but by megacorps and multimillionaires. All in the name of freedom.

I really thought ancap was just about the best system for a long time, but these threads make me lose more hope every time. The migrant crisis was a big game changer for politics and for the world. And especially for Hungary, it was a real eye opener. And now even Libertarians are somehow jumping on the hype of border control after realising a nation cannot be sustained without it. It seems to me a little bit of freedom is sacrificed every time a little bit of security is needed. And you can keep making these "private property so we can control our own borders" arguments, but like I keep saying you have to understand that it is impossible that there will be no one who wants to undermine your way of life. And if you leave the door open, if you say its only about freedom, then you will lose all that you have worked for in a day.

File: 1494550357361.jpg (1MB, 2426x2676px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2426x2676px

>>128179833
all good choices lad, happy to see your enthusiasm. Keep it up

pic related might be a helpful reading list for you

>>128175068
>I'm paying my slaves just food and shelter, which I make them grow and build.
>yfw you realize hiring a free man's labor in the antebellum South was far cheaper than owning slaves, who needed you to provide food, shelter, clothing, security, and medical care

Again, you're imagining some sort of fantasy land scenario to make your argument, so continuing the argument is fruitless. No refugee would come to your slave territory when they could get food and shelter for free from UN refugee camps. You greatly overestimate people's desperation, and the level of destruction that modern war brings.

Most people in Syria still go to work every morning. Kids still go to class. It's not some smoking wasteland, the reason people become emigrant refugees is to avoid the conflict entirely, or for economic purposes.

>>128180052
>a new totalitarian regime, not ruled by kings or dictators but by megacorps and multimillionaires

how can you have a totalitarian regime if there's no state?

>Libertarians are somehow jumping on the hype of border control after realising a nation cannot be sustained without it. It seems to me a little bit of freedom is sacrificed every time a little bit of security is needed

wait hold up, so you're against border control? you want open borders? what?

>you have to understand that it is impossible that there will be no one who wants to undermine your way of life. And if you leave the door open, if you say its only about freedom, then you will lose all that you have worked for in a day.

I'm sorry but I don't really get what you're trying to say. How does having closed borders hurt me?

and then there's that bit about democratic vote and less democratic power. Do you believe in democracy, in the tyranny of the masses, in soft communism?

there is nothing wrong with freedom, I just don't see how any of this bad. You are telling me that I want totalitarianism by wanting more freedom. Don't you see the contradiction in what you're saying?

>>128180005
Automation is a big hurdle for my master plan, but I'd probably find someway to work around it. There's got to be something that would still require human labor, at least for a while.
Or maybe st that point I'd divide my property and give all my slaves their own plot of land with machinery so they could compete with everyone else and we'll see what happens.
Or I'd keep them as a reserve force for manufacturing arms for defense firms so they could still manufacture even if we get hit with an emp.
They don't need gibs from the government. They'll be working my fields for food.

>>128149805
Anarcho-Capitalist flag represents Anarchy, Not libertarianism. There are a significant amount of Anarcho-Capitalists in the libertarian movement, however those are two different ideologies as Libertarians do believe that some government structure needs to exist (unlike anarchists); They are not one and the same as anarchist casually categorize.

File: file.png (30KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 229x220px

>>128180316
>>128179450
>yanks using 'lad'
OI BRUV

>>128181144
>Again, you're imagining some sort of fantasy land scenario to make your argument,
You're in a fucking ancap thread. We're all in a fantasy land here.
I'd bait them with promises of economic freedom and prosperity, have them sign my contract, and ship the into my sweatshops while telling them that's it's way worse everywhere else.
Syria is a developed nation. I'd be pulling people from Africa where they barely have clean water and warlords steal their children, rape their women, and kill their men. Not the Middle East with its tiny armed conflicts.

>>128181842
you do what you want if you say you can make it work (within your private property)

I'm just telling you that from your own business plan's premise that it seems unsustainable, unstable, and wholly inefficient. The startup costs would be out the ass, and then to maintain not only the factory and its tools, but housing, food, and shelter for live people instead seems extremely tricky. All while at the same time you'd beat the machines and beat automation.

If I was an investor, I certainly wouldn't be giving you any kind of loan at all. And then you're telling me you would have enough profit to expand your business and buy more land? I just don't see it happening, but I'm not gonna stop you. People are just going to act accordingly and watch you fail if you do. I'm sorry but chances are that's likely as the endgame of your mini slave empire

>>128182393
I also use mate :^)

>>128182490
>We're all in a fantasy land here.

for now.

>>128149861
>protect the rights of the citizens.
how can their be citizen on a borderless country
>We support Palestine over Israel (because it's their land
according to who

>>128182795
So say I do fail. I end up broke with 1,000 slaves who are still reproducing. I grant them freedom, sell them my land for nothing, and leave.
Now you've got a problem on your hands if you don't like blacks, right?
I've successfully imported a bunch of people into the nation who shouldn't be there.
If they won't sell you the land you're stuck with them as your neighbors, and as long as they don't violate the NAP there's nothing you can do.

>>128181266
>how can you have a totalitarian regime if there's no state?

By giving more power to act to a private company than you could give to a government. I'm a huge banker or warlord, I own all the big guns and now I enslave every little private property because there is no cohesion, no common army, nothing

>wait hold up, so you're against border control? you want open borders? what?

I'm all for strong border control. But expecting the same results from privatising all land cannot work. You're basically inviting armies to your doorstep.

>Do you believe in democracy, in the tyranny of the masses, in soft communism?

I have lost faith in democracy too, as people in their current state cannot be trusted with power.

>You are telling me that I want totalitarianism by wanting more freedom. Don't you see the contradiction in what you're saying?

You're the one who doesn't see the contradictions in your own reasoning. That taking away the borders of a government and dividing it up into a thousand or million pieces would make borders -stronger-. That privatising all land and basically restricting people to just their own land unless given permission somehow results in more freedom.

I agree that many things with current governments are wrong. And that the free market can fix most of these things. But the only lasting solution the free market can bring in order to defend this nation is a complete monopoly.

>>128183587
Wrong just, wrong mate. Open borders has to be enforced by the state as people naturally want to protect their property. I say fuck the Jews and the shitskins. Nuke the whole thing.

>>128184631
>>Open borders has to be enforced by the state
>State
and by that you mean goverment?

>>128164103
There is Telegram CLI. It sucks though. Honestly Telegram is a great app. Worth it. Available on desktop/linux etc

>>128184787
Sorta. There's a difference in Libertarian jargon but for sake of understanding yes. The government.

>>128184787
Yeah. Thing is there's no public property in this nation, so where would the people go? Unless they have permission to come onto someone's private property in the nation they wouldn't be allowed in the nation.

>>128183664
>as long as they don't violate the NAP there's nothing you can do.
>starving niggers with no gibs and tons of children
>too stupid to even sell the land

they're gonna steal and get violent, and when they do, the consequences will be swift. It will be open nigger hunting season on anon's property, winner claims the land because it would then be unclaimed land once they're all dead

desu some people would have a field day on your former property

>>128183903
>By giving more power to act to a private company
>there's just going to be one private company

there's gonna be tons of them

>I'm a huge banker or warlord, I own all the big guns and now I enslave every little private property because there is no cohesion, no common army, nothing

There IS cohesion. Everybody loves freedom in Ancapistan, else it would no longer be a part of it. There's also multiple private militias, and they would all gang up against you because you're trying to establish a state and ruin everybody's good time

>But expecting the same results from privatising all land cannot work

why not?

>You're basically inviting armies to your doorstep.

how, if the private borders are still closed? are you meaning to say that ancap can't defend themselves from outside threat? see my earlier post >>128172817

>That privatising all land and basically restricting people to just their own land unless given permission somehow results in more freedom.

that IS freedom. They have freedom over what happens in their land.

I'm still not seeing what's wrong. If it's just outside threat, like I said, that's easily countered. Is it mass foreign immigration? Hard to enforce that when private property laws vary so much. There's also no centralized gibs so why would people even want to immigrate unless they're there to work and are high-skilled, which is good since that mostly comes from non-shitskin countries

>>128185081
>>sorta.
>>128185119
>>yeah.
>the current state of the ancap
*inhales* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
*exhales*

>>128185496
what are you trying to say, mexican intellectual

some people give shitty vague answers. You can see that anywhere

>>128185820
>mexican intellectual
someone is salty over here

>>128185496
"Government" is often used as slang for "the state" by really government is people organising society. This is fair game in AnCap.

"The State" is corruption. A gang of murderers, thieves, and rapists.

>>128185494
Maybe. We'll see. Still a problem if I arm them.
>>128185496
Oh did I need to specify that we're talking about a hypothetical nation?
No woder you're still in Mexico, too dumb to come to a real country.

File: 1495994568440.jpg (258KB, 1412x1604px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1412x1604px

>>128150228
I love him because he's such a degenerate.

>>128185906
>"The State" is corruption. A gang of murderers, thieves, and rapists.
but you somehow still need their corruption, innit?
>>128185916
>hypothetical nation
yeah, because otherwise it would fail like communism did IRL

>>128185886
the only salt will be from your countrymen once the wall is made and they're forced to go back

>>128185906
ehh I wouldn't bother with that semantics game. Just say "covenant" or "private society" for a voluntary organized group of people

State and government are synonyms now, too much confusion otherwise

File: 000_OQ93K-e1495460003763[1].jpg (48KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 768x432px

>>128186271
>once the wall is made
will it be like the wall your president, Donalberg Trumpstein fisted?

>>128186577
checked and kek'd

you're alright juan

>>128186143
Or worse it might fail like Mexico.

>>128186143
No one needs corruption. How do you figure that.

>>128149805
Ancaps and lolberts are dlusional necbeard sheltered faggots.Want a taste of how your society would be like?Try Somalia or more recently South Africa.
Your shitty ideology may work for the US since its in between oceans and does not have neibgours that pose a threat but it would also need to be majority white so it does not turn into complete shithole.
A weak state will be defeated by its nibghours and under lolberts ancaps it would be as weak as a state can be.
You all know that this odeology is recipie for disaster that will lead to anarchy,barbarism and finally colapse.And deep down you also know that you weak faggots would be amongst the first ones to die when Jamal shoots you because you cant afford security....kek.

>>128185494
This is what I mean, you are far too presumptive. That people would somehow band together. Like at this rate I could talk about how awesome anarcho communism is and how once we destroy the state everything will be awesome because people will work to the best of their abilities and give to the most in need. And we'll make all the tanks and jets ourselves. And no one will ever be able to defeat us because theres MORE of us and we're stronger.

The freedom sentiment is admirable but as Oswald Mosley said, expansion without authority to control ends only in disaster. Either you take control of everything else that's private, or eventually they will take control of YOU.

>>128187378
(You)

>>128187378
>ancap is incompatible with niggers

this isn't news

>>128187378
You're ignoring the fact that Africa fell prey to the resource curse.
While I agree there are issues with this ideology, that's a bad anaology

>>128187597
>That people would somehow band together.

people naturally band together though, that's the thing

>Like at this rate I could talk about how awesome anarcho communism is and how once we destroy the state everything will be awesome because people will work to the best of their abilities and give to the most in need.

yeah but ancom is retarded and doesn't work economically speaking. We don't expect people to work to the best of their abilities and give to the most in need at all, that has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. The best of the best are rewarded in ancap, whereas the weak, degenerate, and unwilling are offered no gibs and left to their own voluntary suffering by choice

>we'll make all the tanks and jets ourselves.

I don't see why not. You don't need a state to privately research, develop, produce, and manufacturer tanks and jets as long as the funding is there from voluntary entities

>And no one will ever be able to defeat us because theres MORE of us and we're stronger.

well yes, that goes for any human system. The idea though, is that ancap is a system that rewards strength and punishes weakness; economic domination is an inevitability as wealth is massively generated

>but as Oswald Mosley said, expansion without authority to control ends only in disaster.

I respect Mosley, but there's way am I going to give up freedom in the HOPES that resources are allocated best by politicians, instead of by people who know what they're doing.

>Either you take control of everything else that's private, or eventually they will take control of YOU.

I disagree, and I'm sure you would disagree with a complete authoritarian and totalitarian system like that

>>128187652
>>128187680
>>128187878
If the US was 90% it might work,would you live better then the actual standard or the one under another type of system.....doubtfull.You would trade alot of conforts for freedoms that you mostly already have.
This is just my dumb gypsy opinion that has seen a bit of communism and the "beauty" of consumerism capitalism at work,its not worth it,trust me.
Even with its actual demografics the US has one of the highest living standards in the world it is the world leader some improvements can be made,but ine as radical as yours may lead to the death of your country as you know it.

>>128189104
I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that niggers are a problem? Yeah. We know. Ancap is brutal against niggers, there's no gibs or welfare for them to live on. People would have guns so the publicly violent ones can just be shot anyways.

I don't see how Ancap leads to the death of our country. If anything, it seems to strongly suggest that it would purify and cleanse it once and for all against all these degenerates enabled by the state.

BUT WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO BUILT THE ROADS YOU RETARDS???

>>128189512
where we're going we don't need roads

>>128187597
I don't think people would magically band together. I think those that don't will die and you'd only be left with those that do.

>>128189512
Road companies.

>>128188750
You see Hunaryanbro is right,the US already has most of its politicians and ots corporation tightly togheter.Is he a leader of a big corporation?!That means he will have tremendous power since he will sponsor politicians.
Most of the media in your country is owned by the same private investors,the central banks dictate war to your country.Trump tryed to fuck with big pharma corporations and was told kindly to fuck off and he did,because those are the big boys.
Just with this level of free market,no regulation and corruption corporations have a big say and some may even lead from the shadows.
Now imagine a libertarian system it would be somewhat nice while it lasts....and then it would turn into corporatist dictatorship.
Its just like the ancient times a stronger tribe will unite and rule the others,if that falls another will rise.Its simply a capitalist hydra if left unchecked it will devour you.

>>128188750
>instead of by people who know what they're doing.

That's the big fear. That they know how to do things so well that they take control of everything. As long as we have laws and a state at least this can be prevented. I know that sounds like I'm betraying my free market ideals, but honestly I don't hate my country's government. They kept us safe from terrorism while France and Germany could not. And the biggest thing for me, especially on this topic of people naturally banding together, is that ancap isn't achieved through a political shift but through a cultural shift. In order to achieve and maintain this society there must be one strong culture that cares so much about freedom that they would die for it. Maybe this is only achievable through glovalism? Hopefully not. But it will not happen anytime soon that's for sure.

>>128189104
Let me explain how I look at the ideology.
It's like an ideal, something I don't think needs to be realized, but is fun to look at to form opinions of policy I do want realized.
Less welfare, less regulations on business, more rights for property owners, more gun rights, less government.
Is talking about Ancapistan and shit just utopia talk on the same level as commies? Of course. But doing it helps me discover where I think we do need government and why I think we need it there.
As an aside US would probably become close to 90% white if we got rid of welfare, or at least the people who survived would adopt white western culture and wouldn't be an issue.
The madness would come from switching from what we have now directly to an ancap society. But if we start lowering taxes, reducing welfare, reducing government, etc at a slow rate it could end up pretty close without too many issues. I don't think it's a thing to be pushed on people by force like communism has been.

>>128189512
Get a 4 wheel drive, fag.

>>128179833
Start off with Rothbard, with his book "Man, Economy, and State". Excellent book

>>128190187
Well that sounds more resonable and it might work out for the people,but the state will be weaker and that means less army,less intervetions and global presence,since the army is dependent o tax money.And lets be honest the big globalist guys would never let that happen.

Who will organize the roads? If anyone and their mother can just throw money at a construction company to build a road every which way won't the entire country devolve into an unoptimized maze of pavement?

>>128190048
ok so you're telling me all these corporations and corrupt politicians are bad, and that's fine, I understand that. I'm completely on board with not mixing government and corporations, but are you really just going to give government a pass and blame it all on muh ebil corporations?

Then you tell me, that Ancap would lead to a corporatist dictatorship. There's no state in ancap, no politicians to butter up, no central state to even enforce a dictatorship. You understand that you're not really making much sense at this point, right?

>Its just like the ancient times a stronger tribe will unite and rule the others,if that falls another will rise.Its simply a capitalist hydra if left unchecked it will devour you.

oh yes, the capitalist hydra is the problem, not the giant fucking authoritarian government telling you what can and can't do, what you can and can't think. Coca-cola can't bust into your home and force you to buy their product. Governments do it all the time, especially if you don't pay your taxes you had no say over

I'm just not seeing this capitalist bogeyman play out, when capitalism can't force you to do anything. Government does that.

File: 1492476647352.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>>128189512
>he needs roads to travel

>>128190117
>That they know how to do things so well that they take control of everything.

what kind of strawmanned assumption is this. How can they take control of everything if there's no central means of control that allows them so?

>As long as we have laws and a state at least this can be prevented.

prevent what? prevent them from forcing you to do stuff? That's what government does! No-one is forced to do anything in Ancapistan, that's the point, you have freedom first and foremost.

>In order to achieve and maintain this society there must be one strong culture that cares so much about freedom that they would die for it.

you don't need a state for this. You can have people voluntarily believing in freedom

>Maybe this is only achievable through glovalism?

no, fuck globalism

>But it will not happen anytime soon that's for sure.

we'll see

>>128190561
>that means less army,less intervetions and global presence,since the army is dependent o tax money

you can fund these things privately and voluntarily you know. Military does NOT have to be exclusively from tax.

>>128191000
Kek you did not understand what i meant,in a libertarian society one corporation or group that owns several of them may buy/take contoll by any means of the others,thus achieving monopolly over the market(or close enough).What woul stop them.....nothing,as long as they are capable they will rule,simple as that.
And dont get so triggered by totalotarian states.In my eyes all the political systems are equal communism,national socialism,fascism,capitalism etc.
They equally take and give you something,now which one you prefer is up to you and what you like to be given and what you are willing to sacrifice for it.

>>128190561
The military is my biggest issue here.
Isolationism sounds well and good in theory, but neglects the fact that China and Russia aren't going to play along with it. If we don't keep them in check they could go imperialistic again, then dominate the globe while we sit back with our private roads. Then they finally decide to take us over and we can't fight against a unified world military force.

>>128190774
>Who will organize the roads? If anyone and their mother can just throw money at a construction company to build a road every which way won't the entire country devolve into an unoptimized maze of pavement?
Building roads is expensive, which is one of the big excuses governments use for subsidizing them. It doesn't make sense for every single person to build their own road. It's in people's interests to spread the costs over multiple people, so naturally a rental model will take hold for the same reason that rental car companies exist.
Private roads will be subject to supply and demand just like any other good. The market will create very close to the most efficient number of roads.

>>128191604
>one corporation or group that owns several of them may buy/take contoll by any means of the others,thus achieving monopolly over the market(or close enough).What woul stop them.....nothing,as long as they are capable they will rule,simple as that.

there's nothing wrong about monopolies if they're natural, meaning some companies are just the best at what they do and everybody continues to pay them money to keep it up. But then I saw you said

>by any means of the others

if you're saying these companies break the NAP by going against the rules, then others will neutralize them as a threat because they value freedom and their own livelihood

>And dont get so triggered by totalotarian states.I

I'm not triggered at all, just puzzled by how you would prefer a state that forces you to do things over corporations that can't force you to do anything at all

I see nothing wrong with natural monopolies if they got there by merit. Having them rule on a voluntary basis, why not? If they do a shit job, they get replaced, we have that power in freedom. At this point, it just seems like you're bogeymanning corporations as ebil as usual like a commie, which is ridiculous because I know you're better than that

>>128191893
>corporations that can't force you to do anything at all
>I see nothing wrong with natural monopolies

Sounds as if you haven't considered monopolies enough then. In many countries electricity, heating and water wre already privatised. In ancap it would be 100% ptivatised. Now let's say one company gains total control of all these things. Still don't see the problem?

Oh well people would band together and fight it oh an alternative would emerge oh total monopoly violates nap

Right. And how would you do anything about it when you literally have nothing to drink.

>>128191604
Monopolies and anti-competitive practices aren't as pathological in the absence of the state. If you're going to maintain a monopoly, you'd better moderate your "exploitation" so that there's less incentive to compete with you.
In certain situations, monopolies are actually good. Patents are semi-good monopolies because they provide a weak guarantee that investing in R&D is worth it. Patent monopolies incentivize innovation (although expensive patent races disincentivize it even more.) In the absence of intellectual property, there are situations such as in pharmaceuticals where anti-competitive conglomerates will have the highest incentive to innovate.
You may have one big conglomerate that offers hospitals the very best medicine only under an exclusivity clause, i.e. don't buy bootleg drugs that rip off our innovations.

>>128193864
>Now let's say one company gains total control of all these things. Still don't see the problem?

No I don't see the problem. If it works out, that's good, if it doesn't, then people go elsewhere. That's the idea, they have that freedom.

>Oh well people would band together and fight it oh an alternative would emerge oh total monopoly violates nap

What are you rambling about?

>how would you do anything about it when you literally have nothing to drink.

Why would I have nothing to drink?

>>128194317
Dude you can't ignore the underlying issue with a monopoly: complete control of either a specific resource, or a specific means of production.
That leads to the ability to gouge prices and sell inferior products because you have no competition and since you own all the specific resource or specific means of producing your goods no one can compete with you. At a point a real monopoly could make it so cost prohibitive to compete there wouldn't be an alternative. When one sprung up the monopoly would have such a large market share it could make a superior product, sell it next to its competitor at a huge loss, put him out of business, then go back to making an expensive and inferior product.

>>128194794
What I've been trying to explain but not just with monopolies on products but armed forces and borders. There are some things you can't privatise on a large enough scale.

But let me just say I like the idea of a monopoly myself. Or to quote Donald Trump; "I like war in a way. But only when we win."

>>128194794
>That leads to the ability to gouge prices and sell inferior products

so the people start getting fed up with their bullshit

>you have no competition and since you own all the specific resource or specific means of producing your goods no one can compete with you.

ah, but that just makes the people all the more willing for an alternative. People working in that monopoly might decide to branch off with the knowledge they know to make more money for themselves, or develop something that competes. They will find a way, because it's most profitable to do so. No government is going to stop them with regulation requirements that make small competing business difficult.

>At a point a real monopoly could make it so cost prohibitive to compete there wouldn't be an alternative.

Such as? What? Electricity? Water? They presently have such privileges because the state grants them it. You would see it split in Ancap, because it's more profitable that way.

>When one sprung up the monopoly would have such a large market share it could make a superior product, sell it next to its competitor at a huge loss, put him out of business, then go back to making an expensive and inferior product.

Yes, and then the cycle repeats because there's that brief moment when it does compete and the consumers benefit from low prices. That's plural by the way, competitors, more than one will compete and without a state to enforce regulations that cripple startups, it will make it all the harder to maintain a monopoly by buyout instead of developing their own goddamn product to better service people.

You're proving exactly my point that not all monopolies are bad, because natural monopolies are massively difficult to maintain by merit.

>>128195327
>What I've been trying to explain but not just with monopolies on products but armed forces and borders

I don't see why such things still cannot be privatized. Different competing private militias would still exist you know.

Why are lolbertarians so afraid of letting go of the state?

>>128195858
How so?

>>128195858
>ancaps
>afraid of abolishing the state

what

>>128194794
1. How are state granted monopolies like charters and patents ever better than natural monopolies?
2. A monopolist will almost never raise his prices above the point where volume * price starts going down.
3. If you have a monopoly on cars, you'd better keep your prices low enough that people don't start using bicycles, living closer to town, inventing flying cars etc.
4. If people are voluntarily transacting, then both parties come out ahead. Always. Always. Voluntary transactions are positive sum.
5. In the end, if you use violence or the threat of violence to make a monopolist lower his prices, then that's qualitatively no different than robbing a store. They only differ in degree.

>>128195927
>>128195942
lolbertarians are minarchists, not anarchists.

>>128195882
oh hey brazilbro, you came in just in time

>>128196026
yeah some people are pussies, I get you now

>>128196026
I approve of this meme.

>>128196026
Even minarchists shouldn't be afraid of the state.
Ancaps are libertarians, but in a deeper level of awakeness.

>>128195714
Historically this isn't how it's happened.
Standard oil wasn't receiving shit from the government.
>Using highly effective tactics, later widely criticized, it absorbed or destroyed most of its competition in Cleveland in less than two months in 1872 and later throughout the northeastern United States.
Those tactics are what I'm describing.
The CA energy crisis was a result of privatizing our electricity, which lead to similar market manipulation.
You can't ignore historical evidence and real world experiences with this shit in favor of theory or you're no better than the commiefags.

>>128182490
>I'd be pulling people from Africa where they barely have clean water and warlords steal their children, rape their women, and kill their men.
This is mostly a meme, m8. That shit happens in isolated incidents, and in all cases there are parts of the country that are "safe" and those than aren't. They don't have to emigrate in order to have food and shelter.

And even then, you've failed to explain why they would come to your slave camps rather than simply move to a neighboring country and start a life there, or enjoy free UN food and shelter.

You may think the hypothetical you're arguing raises a valid concern, but if it's built on a wholly unrealistic premise, it's a self-defeating exercise.

>>128196395
Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly by any sane definition. Is Wal Mart a monopoly? Is Microsoft?

>>128195990
>1
I didn't say they were.
>2
They can do whatever they want because you don't have an alternative.
>3
If you have to commute 20 miles you're not using a bike. I only have to keep my product just barely more valuable than a bike.
>4
The point about monopolies is they remove the voluntary side of it. If you need what I have and I'm the only one who has it you have to pay me what I ask.
>5
Nobody said anything about this

>>128191000
>There's no state in ancap, no politicians to butter up, no central state to even enforce a dictatorship.
You forget: there is no state to kick out private military organisation from taxing everyone on their land. Or maybe we just call this PMC state.

>>128196869
>In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales
Seriously that's about as much of a monopoly as has ever been seen.
No other company that exists today is anywhere near that level. Microsoft competes with Apple, Walmart with target and sams club.

>>128196395
>Standard oil wasn't receiving shit from the government. Using highly effective tactics, later widely criticized, it absorbed or destroyed most of its competition in Cleveland in less than two months in 1872 and later throughout the northeastern United States. Those tactics are what I'm describing.

I don't see the problem as Standard Oil literally did nothing wrong. People LOVED Stanard Oil's low prices, and it was extremely efficient at what it did. You don't break a natural monopoly for the sake of it, when it helped the common man afford kerosene to light up his home with lamps instead of candles.

People gave SO money because they liked the service it provided.

>The CA energy crisis was a result of privatizing our electricity, which lead to similar market manipulation.

Oh yes, market manipulation in the presence of a state. Am I supposed to be surprised?

>You can't ignore historical evidence and real world experiences with this shit in favor of theory or you're no better than the commiefags.

I understand and acknowledge the importance of history, but to base actions on history alone is historical speculation. This isn't just theory, this is logical, practical, reason based on free market realities.

I don't see myself in any way like commiefags when I'm neither preaching for revolution or to seize the means of production in order to uphold a convoluted shitty system like the labor theory of value. I talk about free markets, and the free market that works and has brought us success and innumerable wealth.

>>128149805
MUH WEED MUH DEBT MUH GOVERNMENT BAD MUH RATIONALIZING MY AUTISM

>>128196963
if rogue military organizations are forcefully taxing people like a state, then they are breaking the NAP and other private militias can take care of them

>>128197526
> Not including muh natural rights

How's the state dick in your butt today?

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

87KB, 850x400px

discord /2EYpja


Book club, starting next weej.

>>128198339
>next weej

>>128197487
They liked it when it was putting its competitors out of business. They didn't when they raised prices to gouge more profit after the competition was gone.
What does the state have to do with the market manipulation? They had no idea it was happening.
You're not being logical. You are falling into the same trap of assuming everyone is as well meaning and good natured as yourself and you're wrong.
I agree that the free market has brought us lots of wealth, but I'm not sure how free the market can be without competition. If you have a monopoly that's able and willing to crush any competition then how free is that market? Not very free for the consumer.

Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarianism is good as long as it's the Ron Paul type. Stay away from mainstream cuckservative libertarianism, such as that of Johnson and Weld.

>>128196902
>I didn't say they were.
>complete control of either a specific resource, or a specific means of production.
What did he mean by this?

>They can do whatever they want because you don't have an alternative.
You always have the alternative not to transact. Always. If they raise their prices too high, volume will drop off a cliff at some point and it won't be worth it.

>If you have to commute 20 miles you're not using a bike.
So you'll move closer or carpool.
>I only have to keep my product just barely more valuable than a bike.
Well what's the problem then? You're still better off buying a car than not buying a car. They've still done you a favor.

>The point about monopolies is they remove the voluntary side of it. If you need what I have and I'm the only one who has it you have to pay me what I ask.
You never remove the voluntary side of it. You can always go back to subsistence farming like your ancestors were happy to do.

>Nobody said anything about this
Anti-trust laws are exactly this. Are you not supporting anti-trust laws?
You can always imagine you're living in a time before X was invented. You can't say "now that X is invented I'm worse worse off". In the sense that you might lose your job, the cost of living will go down more than enough to compensate, but that's an entirely different can of worms.

>>128198339
that's not even a link you dumbass

>>128198439
>They didn't when they raised prices to gouge more profit after the competition was gone.

Then more competition would come in, making Standard Oil bring prices back down. I honestly don't see what's wrong with this, the moment it raises prices too high, the more people are going to want to look for alternatives.

>You are falling into the same trap of assuming everyone is as well meaning and good natured as yourself and you're wrong.

I assume nothing but that most people are rational. The irrational ones are quickly driven out of the market. I don't assume they're well-meaning or good-natured at all, I'm no fool. If a monopoly abuses its position, people will look elsewhere because the market makes it extremely rewarding to those that provide an alternative. This is perfectly logical.

>If you have a monopoly that's able and willing to crush any competition then how free is that market?

Because the only way it can "crush" the competition is by being better than them, not by crying to big daddy state to put in more regulations into their favor that cripples competitors or subsidize their shitty business practices.

The people benefit better, superior goods in a complete free market, as well as lower and lower prices.

>>128197756
>now too PMC/states fighting each other
How is it different from what we have today?

***IMPORTANT***
>>128195239 → #
>>128195239 → #
>>128195239 → #
***IMPORTANT***

YOUTUBE TRYING TO JEW BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION!

I'M SURE THE LAST THING A LIBERTARIAN WANTS IS A NEAR-COMMIE BRITAIN.

>>128199306
it's voluntary and you're not taxed for shitty, useless, inefficient garbage that is only propped up by tax money instead of its own merit.

Privately funded militias mean only the best ones remain, else a competing ones take over and people jump ship to that one. Those that can't compete for being too shitty aren't paid for and abandoned, as they should be for being shitty

File: DO_IT.jpg (565KB, 2002x1124px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 2002x1124px

>>128152721
This desu

>>128199504
Disgusting, cosmopolite trash. Sure I'll smash that dislike button.

>>128198659
Show me where I said state granted monopolies are better than natural ones.
>You always have the alternative not to transact.
So you can pay me double what the gas should be worth or you can fuck off. That's not an alternative. An alternative would be a competitor I can go to. An alternative means of purchasing what I need.
>Well what's the problem then? You're still better off buying a car than not buying a car. They've still done you a favor.
The problem is that it's the competition aspect of capitalism that leads to innovation. I don't just want "favors" I want the world to get progressively better and I think the way to do that is through capitalist competition.
>You never remove the voluntary side of it. You can always go back to subsistence farming like your ancestors were happy to do.
Sure. But this is a cop-out. You're using "voluntary" too literally. I'm forced to either submit to your monopolistic high prices for inferior goods or go live like a savage.
>Anti-trust laws are exactly this.
Yeah I suppose that's right. And I don't know if I support them, but I know there's a huge fucking problem with monopolies.

>>128199206
>Then more competition would come in, making Standard Oil bring prices back down. I honestly don't see what's wrong with this, the moment it raises prices too high, the more people are going to want to look for alternatives.
The problem is the entry cost. The cost to start up to compete, only to be crushed within a week. Then the consumer gets dicked around for higher prices again.
>Because the only way it can "crush" the competition is by being better than them,
Until there's no competition that they need to be better than. Then they can be as shit as they want as long as they are in an industry with a high cost to enter, like cable and internet. You're not going to run all the fuckin wires and shit if you know you'll get your ass handed to you within a month, it would be a waste of capital.
You are. You are assuming the monopolies won't find a way to screw everyone from their consumers to their competition and back again, and they absolutely will.

>>128200784
>You are assuming the monopolies won't find a way to screw everyone from their consumers to their competition and back again, and they absolutely will.

They won't, which is why they lobbied for these legal barriers to entry to exist. They didn't do it for fun my man

File: 1496096444866.png (175KB, 1302x722px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1302x722px

>>128149805
Guys, I have a question, I am a minarchist and I firmly believe that governmental influence should be limited to the extreme basics to minimize all possibility of corruption, but at the same time I also strongly believe that it should be completely illegal to be muslim, jew, nigger of halfnigger.
Does that still make me minarchist ? I get along well enough with natsoc guys but I believe that system is more flawed because it's still an authoritarian regime that can take advantage of the people, the moment the leader(s) want to do so.

>>128200784
>The problem is the entry cost. The cost to start up to compete, only to be crushed within a week. Then the consumer gets dicked around for higher prices again.

Startup cost is relative, if the benefit from entering the market outweighs the costs then you would see more people do it because they're not gonna let the monopoly keep getting away with it. The people would continue to get upset, and continue to look for more alternatives when it comes up.

There's not even any guarantee that this competitor would sell itself to the monopoly. Assuming that it just gets "crushed" always as an absolute is just unfounded.

>Until there's no competition that they need to be better than.

That's why competitors join in.

>Then they can be as shit as they want as long as they are in an industry with a high cost to enter, like cable and internet.

Oh please, this is a piss-poor example. Why does the cable and ISP industry have monopolies? Gee I don't know, maybe it's the state that lets them get away with it by having regulations and other shenanigans.

>You're not going to run all the fuckin wires and shit if you know you'll get your ass handed to you within a month, it would be a waste of capital.

Not really, because if you compete, then for a brief time all the customers would go for you. It will be worth it, because the people have been abused and they will make the switch in a heartbeat.

>You are assuming the monopolies won't find a way to screw everyone from their consumers to their competition and back again, and they absolutely will.

And how do they magically "screw" people over? with that? a state? don't be ridiculous. They have no more power to "screw" people over than their product alone

>>128200784
>You are assuming the monopolies won't find a way to screw everyone from their consumers to their competition and back again, and they absolutely will.

They won't, which is why they lobbied for these legal barriers to entry to exist. They didn't do it for fun my man.

Natural monopolies are a commie meme.

>>128201459
Lol they will. They lobbied for the legal barriers to entry as a way to fuck their consumers and their competition.
You don't think they'd find a free market way to do that, but you think they'd find a way to get the government to do that? That's absurd.

>>128201518
It makes you a "small government nationalist" I guess.

>>128197243
>91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales
In the US. They had plenty of global competition. Also, the reason they had 85% of final sales was because their kerosene was the cheapest on the market. That's called competition, and is precisely what we wanted.

Is it any surprise that Standard's far less competitive and efficient rivals were the most vocal proponents of its dissolution by the government? Cronyism at its finest.

>>128201674
>but you think they'd find a way to get the government to do that? That's absurd.

They just get a laws passed by government, much easier...

>>128201518
>I firmly believe that governmental influence should be limited to the extreme basics to minimize all possibility of corruption,
>it should be completely illegal to be muslim, jew, nigger of halfnigger.

I see no contradiction. Welcome aboard, minarchist

>>128201674
>You don't think they'd find a free market way to do that

How would you even do this in a free market when there's no central state to lobby to

>>128201518
watch this video, it should answer your question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8RY48UVX8Y

>>128201674
If someone owns all the smart phone production (what apple had some years ago), then apple can charge whatever price they want for the product. If apple starts to blow up the factories of android smartphones, that's property damage.

The difference is, a legal barrier is a law enforced by the government. It's very hard to change something like that. Hair cutters asked for a license to be necessary to cut other's hair, in order to keep out new competition that could not get a license. How many people you know care about getting the government out of haircutting? It is such a small law and it is so hard to individually remove, the better solution is to reduce the government's power as a whole.

Fellow lrg comrades, for who would you vote in the UK election?

>>128201550
They run them out of business, they don't need to buy them. Look at standard oil. They put their competitors out of business then jacked prices. Any new kid on the block got a standard oil across the street with lower prices to knock him out, then jack prices up again once he was gone.
>Why does the cable and ISP industry have monopolies?
Gee I don't know, what is infrastructure cost? You can't blame the state for everything, just most things.

What do you mean how do you magically screw people over? You eliminatethe competition, scare people from becoming your competitors by eliminating your competition fiercely, then jack up prices and sell inferior products. It's a really simple scheme. So simple in fact that drug dealers do it.

>>128149805
REMOVE THEM

>>128199604
>voluntary
been here done that. Voluntary military loses to enforced military. Classic case Russian Civil war. As much ANCAP as you can be in modern times. Red Army started as voluntary staffed and supplied , democratically ruled organisation all carding to fair tail from marx book but very fast switched to forced conscription, extortion of food and central command from Petersburg all under threat of instant death sentence punishment. Extortion (taxes) is too effective method of obtaining resources competitor not having access to this method loses.

BTW similar happened in USA to when federal government state to grow and push taxes, regulations federal reserve system on states. And states were have no choice but to agree as feds accumulated to much resources and therefore military power to compete with.


>Privately funded militias mean only the best ones remain...
Your just destined why violence market is inherently unstable and drift to the monopolization side. And who have monopoly of violence now? Oh boy.
>but monopoly can't grow infinitely because x-inefficiency
This how were have limited size states with borders.