/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL

>>128207364
16 minutes old
Page 10

Anyway Gary North published a recommend reading list on economics

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/gary-north/books-austrian-economics/

What is everyone's opinion on soldiers who got to fight in foreign wars?

Particularly

> Vietnam
Justified since we were defending the pro-freedom South Viets.
> Gulf/Iraqi
Unjustified. We had no reason to enter the war.
> Afghanistan
Unjustified. Plenty of reasons why the elite would want American troops on Afghani soil.

ya fuck off m8

c u c k

File: 1496192748785.png (783KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 793x794px

>>128207364

Founding Father reporting in. lets rev this shit up.

File: 8 LEVELS OF CONTROL.png (94KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x800px

ALL SOCIALISM IS TOTALITARIAN IN INTENT.

discord /fr6hDT

book club

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

2MB, 800x1975px

The state does not fend off degeneracy, the state subsidizes it

>>128212877
What is the group reading? I'd get involved if I knew it wasn't somthing ive read already.

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

176KB, 800x1740px

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

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

Any state that enforces a policy of open borders is violating the proprietors right to exclusion. Open borders is a very anti-libertarian policy, and an assault on private property.

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

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

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

>>128212972
We are still deciding, going to start on Monday for sure.

I mean there's no harm in joining and taking part of the discussion for works you already read, or just taking a hiatus until we get to something you want to read and talk about.

We are probably gonna spend a few weeks on a book, and at the same time read an essay/novella a week.

>>128207364
Why didn't jewnigger Ayn speak against the "most primitive form of collectivism" is Israel? A schizo or a kike?

How does libertarianism deal with things like planned obsolescence and environmental conservation?

>>128213915
I haven't put much thought into planned obsolescence, maybe if one company kept making products that became useless after a few years someone would buy the guys product whose didn't. just a thought

as far as the enviorment goes, in a private property society all land is privately owned, so you can only dump your waste on your property, or someone elses with their allowance. dumping sewage into your own lake destroys the value of your property, making it unsellable. because of this people may rely more on waste removal services, industry for the purpose of removing and de-toxifying waste.

File: ThisInfrastructureKillsAncaps.jpg (865KB, 1180x842px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 1180x842px

>>128207364
I never can get a straight answer from you guys.

How do roads work in Ancap utopia?

>>128214721
I never thought about the property value component of environmental destruction, makes sense.

File: dude.png (52KB, 666x490px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 666x490px

>>128214920

File: aFUCKINGleaf.png (23KB, 632x709px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 632x709px

>>128214972
They don't. We've evolved to embrace a road free society.

>>128213915
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160612-heres-the-truth-about-the-planned-obsolescence-of-tech

File: 1486694850560.jpg (167KB, 1197x1123px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1197x1123px

>>128214972

>The answer: yes, but with caveats. Beyond the crude caricature of greedy companies wantonly fleecing their customers, the practice does have silver linings. To an extent, planned obsolescence is an inevitable consequence of sustainable businesses giving people goods they desire. In this way, planned obsolescence serves as a reflection of a ravenous, consumer culture which industries did create for their benefit, yet were hardly alone in doing so.

>“Fundamentally, firms are reacting to the tastes of the consumers,” says Judith Chevalier, a professor of finance and economics at Yale University. “I think there are some avenues where [businesses] are kind of tricking the consumer, but I think there are also situations where I might put the fault on the consumer.”

They're not only admitting it's real, and common practice. They're justifying it

>>128215840
see here>>128215537

>>128215656
Were's the article about the Russian bootleggers fixing potholes in secrecy over night to boost their business?

File: Pyramidz.jpg (159KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1000x667px

>>128207364

Alternative/Independent Party's should work on filling the gaps the DNC is leaving.

http://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge%20bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/%21%219O2tecpDHQ6/

File: download (2).jpg (12KB, 200x252px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x252px

>>128214972
Privately owned and built.

File: enhanced-buzz-29173-1318023524-5.jpg (56KB, 625x419px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 625x419px

You guys know Ron Paul has a wicked high /lrg/ power level right?

File: IMG_2709.gif (22KB, 537x771px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 537x771px

>>128207364

File: strawmeme.jpg (44KB, 480x529px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x529px

>>128214920
Once again, the bottom right is the only one not murdering

>>128214972
Ancap is not Libertarian.

Utopia is a statist idea.

Roads aren't exactly the first thing on the libertarian agenda.

File: Rothbard.png (126KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1000x1000px

>>128218412
nice timing.

File: ron_on_homos.jpg (302KB, 799x517px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 799x517px

>>128218043
yep

17 IP's in this thread

This is pitiful

File: NoRoads.png (121KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1000x1000px

We have a few more

File: IMG_2153.jpg (133KB, 728x663px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 728x663px

>>128218218
>>128218073
>>128218043
RON PAUL STAND TALL!

File: pol_ancap_logo.png (314KB, 2087x2087px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 2087x2087px

>>128218652
Ron Paul Stand Tall

File: Froggo.png (102KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1000x1000px

>>128218632
I've got the rares.

File: IMG_0965.jpg (37KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 184x184px

>>128218801
Poast all rares!

>>128218572
Did he actually say these things? If so, he is based.

>>128218627
There is a psychology to statism

File: 1488_1776.png (338KB, 1052x1064px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1052x1064px

>>128218905
Did you save the thumbnail there or something?

File: Monarchy.png (285KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1000x1000px

>>128218905
Heres the crypto-monarchist death metal version

>>128218928
He denies he wrote them. but its pretty clear he did.

>>128218988
I might've, yeah. Do you have a clean one? Also, checked.

>>128219052
They're all true and it pisses me off that lefties would decry that for being racist or sexist just because it hurts their feelings. The fact these irrational morons have a say in society makes me angry.

File: acb.jpg (39KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x640px

yall need Jesus you degenerate fucks!

>>128219376
Jesus is cool man. I like that guy.

File: nbVuniX.jpg (25KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 625x626px

>>128219376
see >>128212931

>>128219376
In my commune we would only permit Christians in. Think New England Puritan colonies.

Does it bother you all that libertarianism doesn't seem to appeal to people?

Seems almost like it's very hollow, disconnected from real humans

>>128219760
I have also noticed most people are completely disinterested in philosophy. Like asking the big questions in life, whether there is a God, or what is the purpose of life?

Many people are just boring. The public school system doesn't help. Instead it produces these drones who are very unquestioning of authority.

Have you noticed the rises in tattoos? That's just a sign people are sheep and do whatever the people on TV do. Always have been. That's why we will have seceded from the rest of them.

But also, a lot of people depend on government handouts and have become to complacent.

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

24KB, 100x200px

>>128219727
>commune

I'm ancap a/f... and Anarcho-Capitalism can reign supreme but it first needs to ditch the NAP as an inherent property of mankind and instead fully embrace a David Freidman consequentialist stance. Only then, can it begin to start being taken as a serious proposition.

>>128220269
I think we need a Christian framework.

>>128220049
You want to know an ideology that actually inspires people? That gets their blood pumping, and their eyes burning with fire?
Nationalism.

An actual high-tier heavyweight ideology that can stand toe-to-toe in the ring with Communism

>>128220347
Yep I agree. I believe Christianity will do just that. The Bible recognizes the nation was an extension of the divinely instituted family unit.

Man is head of the family. Many families make up a clan, and many claims make up a nation.

I can't see white nationalism working. Anglo-Saxon nationalism is the only viable way for Americans.

>>128220535
Nationalism is rising. It's almost a mathematical reaction to the massive social upheaval caused by immigration and degeneracy.
This is not fading away, it's getting stronger and stronger. This is our way to win

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2_RbFfkAv0

>>128220813
Please stop with European nationalism. No such thing exists. Ethnic nationalism is what I stand for. Not this ambiguous "white" nationalism.

>>128220958
no fuck that, no more brother wars

Untied we stand, divided we fall

>>128221036
I see you're one of those 'mutts'. I have more in common with a Greek than a Zambian. But I am nonetheless different from him. It's funny that you're a 'white nationalist' yet the form of nationalism you want is one where everyone speaks English and celebrates Anglo and Germanic holidays.

Flaws in Austrian economics and the writings of Rothbard + Mises

**2.1 Utility Scales**
Modern neoclassical economics use utility functions to describe the preference of individuals. For example, it may be established that an individual’s utility U=a*1n(quantity of apples)+(1-a)*1n(quantity of oranges).

Rothbard instead preferred to discuss the concept of ‘value scales’ for individuals. For example, an individual person’s preferences could be given by {1st apple, 2nd apple, 1st orange, 3rd apple... etc}. Both approaches provide an obvious interpretation of “utility maximisation”. For neoclassical economics, the individual person would be selecting the largest feasible value of U, while for Rothbard a maximizing individual satisfied the highest-ranked feasible preferences on his value scale.

Rothbard’s criticism of the utility functions is this - ```“Value scales of each individual are purely ordinal (first, second, third) and there is no concept of ‘distance’ or ‘measurement’ between things eg cardinality (One, two, three, fourteen, etc)”```

**Rothbard writes:** ```“The chief errors here consist in conceiving utility as a certain quantity, a definite function of an increment of the commodity…”```
Utility is not a set number but a rank - dismissing the cardinal utility functions that neoclassical economists use.

**Rothbard goes on to dismiss an ‘intermediate’ microeconomics theory of:** ```“in equilibrium the ratio of the marginal utilities of the various goods equals the ratio of their prices Without going into tons of detail and boring on for ages, we can see its absurd conclusion since utilities are quantities and therefore cannot be divided into the ratios the theory speaks of”```

However Rothbard doesn’t understand the position he is attacking here. Utility function approach is based as solidly on ordinal utility as his own theory is although he misunderstands the point neoclassicals make.. The modern neoclassical theorists like Debreau who developed this utility function approach went out of their way to avoid the use of cardinal utility. For example they might say that ```“bundle A offers utility of 8, while bundle B offers utility of 7”``` - Rothbard concludes this means that they are talking about cardinal utility. But the language here is technical and you need to check the definitions. Upon doing so you can find that the meaning of the statement is nothing more or less than *“bundle one is preferred to bundle two”* - the function itself is just a shorthand way of expressing this. This is why neoclassicals say that the utility function is uniquely defined *up to a monotonic transformation (scaled mapping)*. You can rescale the utility function any way you want and it will still work, provided it’s monotonic.

This comes to absurd conclusions. Rothbard rejected this utility-function approach, and it led to ad hoc concessions and admittals in his writings.

writings. Using the value scale method he developed, he could derive the laws of supply and demand as theorems. For whatever reason after that though, he decided to concede that ‘backward’ bending supply curves can exist. Furthermore in his discussion on taxation’s impact on economics, he admits the possibility of greater taxation of labour income could induce an increase in labour supply, even going into the realm of mention a ‘substitution’ and an ‘income’ effect which his initial treatment of utility theory and demand utterly failed to mention. What’s pretty interesting here is that Rothbard was unable to derive the substitution and income effects from *his own method*. Rather he borrowed it from the standard utility function analysis which he criticised so much.

In short, Rothbard dismissed the neoclassical economic approach to utility theory, but decided to apply it ad hoc when it suited his arguments or lines of thinking.
**2.2 Indifference**
So the utility function approach has a final implication that Rothbard ALSO rejected for reasons I don’t fully understand. Let’s go back to using your typical neoclassical definitions and mathematical expressions. U(a)>U(b) simply means that given choice *a* or choice *b* both with utility U, *a* will be chosen. The same way U(a)<U(b) means *b* will be chosen. Simple stuff. What happens if U(a) = U(b); ie the person/agent is *indifferent* between two alternatives. Rothbard developed what Mises said and rejected the possibility of this happening as incoherent, and therefore rejecting the use of *indifference curves*, a building block of neoclassical economic theory.

The essential objection to these curves and their analyses is that it’s impossible for action to demonstrate indifference. Action demonstrates *preference*, not *indifference*. Rothbard put it this way ```“The crucial fallacy is *that indifference cannot be a basis for action*. If a man were really indifferent between two alternatives he could not make any choice, and therefore the choice wouldn’t be revealed in action.”```

The important assumption here - one that Mises and Rothbard both shared, is that no preference can exist which cannot be revealed in action. But why bother assuming this? Is this not an importation of behaviourism into a body of solely economic thought which purports to be militantly anti-behavioural? Rothbard tells us in his introduction to Mises’ *Theory and History:* ```One example that Mises liked to use in his class to demonstrate the difference between two fundamental ways of approaching human behavior was looking at Grand Central Station behavior during rush hour. The "objective" or "truly scientific" behaviorist, he pointed out, would observe the empirical events: e.g., people rushing back and forth, aimlessly at certain predictable times of day. And that is all he would know. But the true student of human action would start from the fact that all human behavior is purposive, and he would see the purpose is to get from home to the train to work in the morning, the opposite at night, etc. It is obvious which one would discover and know more about human behavior, and therefore which one would be the genuine 'scientist.```

Just as there is more to my actions than my behaviour, there is more to my preferences than my action. I can have all sorts of preferences that are not - *and could not be*- revealed in my actions. For example my preference for ice cream yesterday can no longer be revealed, since I had no ice cream yesterday and any present action regarding ice cream would merely reveal a *present* preference for it, not a past one. However I still have introspective knowledge of my ice cream preference from *yesterday*. Similarly I can’t ever reveal my preferences for products other than the market price, but by introspection I can know them.

In exactly the same way as this, I can know some cases in which I’m indifferent. I know I don’t really care about the colours of clothes, I pick one, I know for certain that I would have picked the other if the prices were not equal. The behaviourist type person might deny the reality of this and my mental states, but clearly that’s not the route Mises and Rothbard would want to take. Instead they use hypothetical preferences in other contexts. The interaction of supply and demand let us observe a single point - the equilibrium price and quantity - but nevertheless Rothbard draws demand curves showing the quantity desired at all possible prices. Similarly you can only *observe* that you chose a green jumper, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that I was indifferent between the green one and the blue one.

File: Libertarians.png (952KB, 1262x2094px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 1262x2094px

Grow up faggots

>>128221521
>>128221556
>>128221577
>>128221609
>>128221640
>>128221692
Retarded Keynesian "economist" detected.

File: keynesian Economics.jpg (164KB, 626x960px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 626x960px

>>128221821
Reminder Keynesian Economics have actually been used and have brought nations from poverty to extreme prosperity. Grow up and listen to a paul krugman lecture you retard

>>128222148
Keynesian economics is doomed to failure and always has been. No fiat currency has ever succeeded, they have all gone to zero. Every last one of them.

I've gotten back into contact with a right-libertarian, whose even more right and more libertarian than I. It's been refreshin, considering all my friends are either paleocons or center-libertarians.

>>128222148
Listen to the Contrakrugman show.

>>128221821
Also Caplan has been responded to

https://mises.org/blog/caplan-and-responses