/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL - WHAT IF THE COMMIE CONSENTS

File: Paleo.jpg (67KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1200x675px

Aww shit its the /lrg/

File: 1495824504850.jpg (91KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1280x720px

Communists have only one goal. Absolute control. Don't let it happen you fucks.

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

2MB, 800x1975px

The promotion and tolerance of "degeneracy" is a tool used by the state to take power from the citizens.

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

176KB, 800x1740px

Open borders is an assault on private property.

File: harpoon.png (445KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1280x720px

Has anyone been paying attention to Porcfest or the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance? They're having seminars on "Physically Removing the alt-right" from libertarianism, led by this land whale, Leslee Petersen.
Cantwell does a good job breaking it down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JF0Y2Thbsw

>>128752158
Fuck wrong link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9wrwQK6q1g

>>128752199
in the the name of jesus,mary and joseph this bitch's group is worse than libertarian bleeding hearts

>>128752142
So a ranch owner on the Texas/Mexico border is allowed to invite in as many Mexicans as he wants? Don't be a moron. Open borders = border security.

>>128755595
Sure, he can destroy his property by letting Mexicans live there and buy his property. How does open borders equal border security?

>>128752158
No I'm afraid to see what horrible shit they're up to.

>>128756613
separates the good apples from the bad apples. allowing border police to catch the bad apples. good apples go and register and document themselves.

>>128758133
I like border police, you should protect your property. Open borders does not equal border security, why did you say that?

>>128760257
Remember prohibition? Was there still liquor? Of course.

Open up the borders, and it becomes much easier to track who's coming and going. Making the border more secure.

File: Ancap_Maryland_3.jpg (115KB, 792x609px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 792x609px

What's up bois?

File: 1485795597087.jpg (48KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x600px

What is the best economic book in your opinion?The one who explain better and in detail the whole economic /lrg/ system.

>>128760908
Ending border security will make the borders more secure, makes sense.
>>128761807
If you wanna read a textbook, man economy and state.

>>128762226

And if i'm searching for something more divulgative to approach the subject what would you suggest to me?

>>128752158
>>128752199
That's disgusting, both the land whale and the idea.

I tried to make a weekly book club but no one was interested

>>128762226
hard for you to understand because you believe a closed or nearly closed border will keep illegals out. under that rational, we have no or very very few illegals in this country now.

So what's the general /lrg/ opinion on Ayn Rand?

>>128763861
Hello, me and my extended Mexican family of 65 people would like to live on your property, allow me to remind you that it is impossible to keep us out. You might as well sacrifice your property to us now before we sneak in.

Bullshit line of reasoning. Opposing theft doesn't work because people still steal, so don't try and stop it. Rape happens so let's just make take legal.

>>128764218
she's a cunt

when did you realize libertarianism doesn't work?

>>128749292
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. 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.

>>128764218
P.cool, but autistic as fuck.

Grow the fuck up retards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KElTidGHT5Y

File: 1493365503934.jpg (26KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x399px

>>128749292
Should make a discord for this

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

24KB, 100x200px

>>128764915
>>128765000
>>128765027
>>128765074
>>128765108

>>128749425
BTFO NAZI!!!

Antifa takes care of violent nazi during Portland rally

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sUsvF_eHBdA

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

128KB, 1568x608px

>>128765233
>skip through video
>(((Ayn Rand))) in thumbnail
>Gary "Bake cake for niggers while I make the state bigger" Johnson
We don't support any of those people.

>>128765281
The links in the op you just gotta put it together because Mook thinks it's spam.

>>128765552
Traps aren't fucking gay retard fuck you I can like them

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26498424/

CONCLUSIONS: Results provide clear evidence that GAMP men are not homosexual. They also indicate that GAMP men are especially likely to eroticize the idea of being a woman.

>>128763823
I like that idea. Can you go in more detail? What books did you have in mind?

>>128761807
Capitalism and Freedom by Ayn Rand is a good start. It includes her essays on Man's Rights.

>>128765233
>Wake up sheeple!
So deep.

>>128765713
Link is expired.

File: file.png (24KB, 464x271px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 464x271px

>>128767261
I'm trying to generate a new one but...

>>128767261
>>128767261
Discord
(Dot)
GG
then that code should work.

>>128767261
>>128767818
discord gg BTJwVkf

File: sulík.png (147KB, 492x450px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 492x450px

Reporting in from the meme land.
(I know Sulík used to be a libcuck, now (((they))) call him a nazi, kek)

File: Rand_2cool4you.jpg (23KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x400px

Who is your favorite senator and why is it Rand Paul?

>>128765852
You're gay.

>>128764493
You don't own all the property in the US.

Under your logic, any US citizen is free to go on the property of any other US citizen. Not how it works.

Better analogy would be.... allowing a Mexican family of 65 to go to the local shopping mall.

>>128771439
Have the borders closed by default, allow the invited in only. Let the property owners decide.

Whats your opinion on the U.S. Constitution /lrg/?
Its essentially a document made by capitalist for a capitalist society.
>To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Can't bullshit with fake worthless money
>To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Has to build and maintain roads to maintain commerce.
>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Can't steal and abuse others ideas/works
>To provide and maintain a Navy;
Protect overseas trades

Then there the fact that those involved in its making were all businessmen in different sectors. Its pretty much the reason why the United States is as great as it is.

>>128772086
It's pretty fucking good, if only it mattered to the state. There is no constitution anymore.

>>128765233
advocates for welfare. sounds republican.

>>128772083
that's what we're doing now. doesn't work.

>>128772201
The thing is, it gives states a lot of freedoms through Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights. The thing is states are fucking retarded with their powers and tend to steal the rights of their citizens for their state agenda. Such as states have 100 plus amendments for many specific things.

>>128772712
That's because the borders aren't closed. We let anyone walk in and only deport them if they commit crimes.

>>128765233
>The young cucks.
Into the trash it goes.

I know this is exactly the sort of pedantry that we should try to avoid, but it could really benefit us to find a specific banner to fly rather than the general "Libertarian" which could include any number of left libertarians or slight-right libertarians. Saying "I'm a Hoppean Libertarian" or "I'm a Capitalist" just doesn't cut it.

The fact that we have to specifically say in the OP that leftists and cake bakers need to fuck off is a good signifier that our movement isn't clearly defined enough. You drive politics with support, and support is garnered through a clear message and a driving incentive - we have the incentive, commie fuckwits undermining our freedoms and community, we need a message that says "Freedom above all else but that doesn't necessarily mean foresake the community" which is a mistake I see a lot of people make when considering libertarianism. Hoppe explains it well but not everyone is familiar with Hoppe, and our message needs to be clear and concise.

>>128774010
The more you leave normalization, the less people will want to associate with you. If we head too far from center and label us as such. People are not going to be willing to join. Even in major parties of Democrat and Republican there is in fighting among separate groups in those. In places such as the United States it has become more of a progressive vs conservative among the general population.

Being Libertarian is hard because we can be shoved around as many have both progressive and conservative ideals to how society should be as many don't see the Authoritarian v. Liberty as much these days.

>>128774010
I feel you, the only issue with that is getting all our people to identify with a new label. Hoppe and Rothbard are right Libertarians. I don't think we have the reach for that, but we could try if we have an edgy and cool enough title to rock.

>>128774010
Anarcho capitalism seems like a good banner to gather behind. It is an excellent deterrent for pseudo libertarians and lefties who'd either be repulsed by its non debatable take on the free market or see it as too extreme. Minarchists and other right wing libertarians who actually have potential on the other hand won't be scared away that easily and could stick around. In my experience, they'll adapt more and more viewpoints of the ideology over time, since AnCap is the logical extreme to their ideology.

>>128775013
>Anarcho Capitalism should be the banner.
The thing is a lot don't feel the whole Anarchist side of that belief. I think its a means to show how ideal society can be but in reality it just would not sit well with the masses. Mainly due to the fact that Anarchism is viewed as more degenerate then being super liberal or conservative.

>>128774744
The thing is though, we need an image to clearly describe an idea. The "libertarian but with a sense of community" is not a known quality in main stream politics, and since there's no label that invokes that set of values, they don't find their way into main stream discourse.

When I say "this system needs to be governed by a monarchy-like state", you understand immediately what that means, the baggage that comes with it, and the history behind the term. This is an extreme example but I think it shows what I mean best.

It wouldn't necessarily be a running platform.

>>128773122
>We let anyone walk in
don't think so pancho

File: 1485686057364.png (2MB, 5000x7500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x7500px

>>128774010
It's next to impossible to separate ourselves from people like Gary Johnson. Even on /pol/ anti-libertarian posters will knowingly strawman us with quotes or policies from people like Austin Peterson. The problem is that the more "pure" libertarians can't regain control of the LP because our views don't fit into the overton window. If you were to say that the civil rights act should be repealed you'll be labeled a radical without anyone bothering to refute you.

>>128775258
The second you start to water down your beliefs and compromise you lose any credibility and invite everybody to further corrupt your platform. Just look at what happened to libertarian parties around the world. Aleppo Johnson, Macron and most libertarian parties here in Europe, all of them started adapting popular nonsense like "social libertarianism" Libertarians are against the government and once they realize that you can't justify even the smallest state or the lowest tax but only the abolishment of both, they'll "feel the whole anarchist side" If they don't, they are nothing more than the same lefties that fucked over our whole ideology.

On second thought. The rebranding is already happening. With /lrg/, physical removal and the like, even the LP is mentioning us (they hate us for being conservative lol)

>>128775963

Please read this thoroughly before replying, I'm not advocating abandoning libertarianism as an ideology

Then we don't call ourselves Libertarians so readily. We know what Libertarian means, but to the general American, Libertarian means Aleppo Johnson. It makes us fall into the "not REAL libertarianism!" trap.

If we took a label though, XYZ, and a 4 point list of values, say,

1. Free Market
2. Small State
3. Large Community!
4. Personal Responsibility

And just hammered that label with those values, label values label values label values label values, threads to create imagery for it, imagery label values imagery label values imagery label values, so on and so forth, we could divorce ourselves from what Libertarianism has been made to mean and state our values strongly. People will be heavier or lighter on these values in different ways, and in the end of the day it is a distinct form of libertarianism, but in a conversation you can say "I have a lot of XYZ values" and it makes the delivery of that message so much easier.

File: 1491617931417.jpg (2MB, 2426x2676px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2426x2676px

>>128762823

>>128775300
A other understanding is that in the U.S. and most of the western society. People love to be part of groups without much care as long as that group share at least most of their ideas however they also take into concern how people will view them if they associate with that group. There people who don't care about this but the majority of them do take this with great consideration in order to fit in and get along with others. The reason why Libertarian has become what it is that a bunch of freaks got into the system and tainted it. This taint has been enough to make those who hold more conservative values turn away from it as well as the absurdity of it turns away progressives as well. A split in the party towards being more sane and rational would greatly cause support but at the same time the majority of people are either not interested enough or lack the knowledge to understand the beliefs of the party itself. We would need to consider some changes that would better suit or make it easier to understand. Removal is the last option we could ever use.

>>128776230
Refer to post above mostly.
Also not most of us are against the government to the same degree as Anarchism. Most would want a reduction of how the government has taken its places in the lives of its citizens and preventing people from doing what they want as long as they don't hurt others. This can be shown further as cities and places are implementing getting a business license as such and not letting a person common sense to choose who to do business with. The issue at hand is that government can do could and help stimulate better economy and insure it works as smooth as possible but it has just been corrupted.

>>128776770
Paleolibertarian.

File: Rothbard.png (2MB, 1138x840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1138x840px

>>128777094
Paleolibertarian.
It's what Rothbard called himself, and it's what I call myself

>>128777094
This just shows where these pitfalls can lie, I don't think paleolibertarianism accurately describes the entirety of what we're trying to do here.

I'm not a creative, I'm a systems man. WE know what we are and what we want, we need talented individuals to package this concept so we can show people. We need a distinct term and image to rally behind, because as it stands, we look a lot like "my specific brand of libertarianism is best". Think how Nazism transcends simple fascism - the label, the image, the ideals are all so distinct that calling the Nazi party simply fascists is not descriptive enough.

>>128765233
>The Young Turks

>>128777664
I think Rothbards Paleolibertarian literature explains perfectly what I am. I don't know what you stand for but liberty and holding yourself to a high standard is what I'm all about.

What do any of ya'll think about community libertarianism? I think that communitarianism has a lot of potential for us to take back our liberty, and it gives us the best mode for true libertarian form governments and associations.

The best way to advocate for such would be to demand our freedom of association. We must assert that we do not wish to live with degeneracy and that to do so is infringing upon our lives and rights (which it is).

We have to advocate for degeneracy to go and live with degeneracy and not encroach upon our communities. These (((peoples))) would be able to live and do whatever the fuck they want in their own degenerate associations and communities, while we would have peace of mind to prepare for the worst and live for the best.

>>128781661
Communitarianism is pretty much the end goal. Self sufficient communities free of any regulations from above. To achieve that you need to slowly gain more and more freedom, though. Doing that over night would lead to a collapse of the whole system. We need to secceed into smaller and smaller regions, step by step. Supporting seperatism and regionalism is a good start, since both significantly weaken the state by literally making it smaller.

File: the ok argument.png (159KB, 547x413px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 547x413px

>>128766135
>>128776903

Thank you!