/LRG/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL

File: 1466518042019.jpg (79KB, 700x566px)

79KB, 700x566px

Long time since I got to get in a thread

File: 1497047074211.png (334KB, 1280x720px)

334KB, 1280x720px

Awwww yeah

File: 1493295814292.jpg (27KB, 750x499px)

27KB, 750x499px

FAQ -- Every question you could have about Anarcho-capitalism, answered in one single book.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/03/21/reactionary-liberty-robert-taylor/

>Why reactionary libertarianism and not Fascism?
Introduction

>How would ancaps deal with cultural Marxists and other subversive attitudes?
Chapters 4 and 5

>But about what about limited government and constitutions?
Chapters 6 and 7

>But what about the poor, the sick and the elderly?
Chapter 10

>You guys are globalists and support open borders right?
Chapter 13

>Without the state regulating the market, who will stop corporations?
Chapters 3 and 9

>Okay, you've convinced me. Now what do we do?
Chapters 11, 12, 14 and 15.

>>130589512
Why is (((Friedman))) not approved?

File: 2683_75354668018_2269722_n (2).jpg (24KB, 206x274px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 206x274px

>>130589512
I'm a Libertarian Nationalist.
Anyone else like me?
If so, how do you reconcile the two concepts?
Taken to its end, Libertarianism advocates for open borders and non-domestic labour.
Not on my watch.

File: hans_hermann_god.png (948KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 1000x1000px

>>130590766
>Taken to its end, Libertarianism advocates for open borders and non-domestic labour.
Untrue. Private property implies discrimination.

>>130590532
>https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/03/21/reactionary-liberty-robert-taylor/
broken 404

>>130590532
>https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/03/21/reactionary-liberty-robert-taylor/
It's saying "file not found"

File: lXSWGjR.png (65KB, 1092x1037px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1092x1037px

>>130590901
Shite.

>>130590893
It also implies you should be able to hire non-domestic labour to work on your private property.
As far as I know anyway.
Wouldn't mind getting pilled on this topic if you know better than me.

>>130590766
You're still brainwashed by the notion of states/countries.

If there's no state then there are no (((borders))). The only borders that matter to you are the ones around your property. And you control them.

Also nation != state.

File: 1479526935629.png (677KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1500x1000px

>>130590766
The precise opposite is true.

when are we invading the norks?

>>130591194
>It also implies you should be able to hire non-domestic labour to work on your private property.
So what? What I do on my property is none of your concern as much as it's not of my concern what you do on yours.

You are still trapped in statist thinking. You should kys.

>>130591195
>The only borders that matter to you are the ones around your property. And you control them.
And who enforces the idea that it's yours?
Can't someone just come and take it from you with force without a Nation and the rule of Law?

File: kkkompass.png (94KB, 850x814px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 850x814px

>>130591420
oh fuck off and take your fake ancap flag with you, commie filth

>>130591283
OK awesome Thanks.
That's pretty much the same conclusion I came too (but articulated better by him) when I incorporated Nationalism into my Libertarian views.
I was asking because I wanted to know what the standard response is around here.

>>130591368
Your Private Property is within the context of a Nation and if you bring Mudslimes into my Nation you will be dealt with accordingly.

File: 1486501317082.png (535KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1000x1000px

>>130591420
You retards should actually try to do some research before coming here and asking us basic bitch stuff.

Here you go:

https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense

https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

Come back once you've read these two. We have a reading list for a purpose.

How does someone like I, who likes limited state intervention, but still wants some degree of education and health care so that people can make informed decisions and do so healthily, reconcile that? Is that fine, so long as there is no state?

I still really like the free market, freedom of associated, speech, and enterprise?

File: 1495882791455m.jpg (72KB, 1024x902px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1024x902px

>>130591929
Exactly. Sorry for calling you a retard, I didn't read your reply to my post. Thought you were trolling.

Going bed but have a bump, best thread :3

File: 8a3a559520573f47d61e32a694908337.480x270x38.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>130592171
Private funding for education and health care could be a possible option as a donation rather than a demand from citizens

>>130592171
*No state intervention

I really don't like coercive laws at all. I don't like forcing people into things, like my students. I let them have their say and opinions, and believe truly that a good education can equip them for better involvement in politics. However, I can see the road it can lead down because not many teachers are like me.

>>130592099
And how do the private insurers stop a Russian invasion?
Where's the reading list?

File: 1480001157460.png (350KB, 824x684px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 824x684px

>>130592171
If you want good education and good health care then you're certainly not a statist.

http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

https://youtu.be/fFoXyFmmGBQ

For education, see Rothbard: https://mises.org/library/education-free-and-compulsory-1

Got a question for all of you. I'm a rather conservative centrist trying to align more with libertarian views, because the government runs things fucking terribly. I figured I'd start at the root of Libertarianism with the philosophical side, and have heard many good arguments that taxation is theft. But I'm also of the opinion that you cannot feasibly have society with anything less than the Minarchist "night-watchmen" state, and thus have been trying to figure out the philosophical basis for the justification of Taxation. Do any Minarchists here have an explanation for why taxation is acceptable when it is used to fund public courts, and how such a justification doesn't snowball into legitimizing all taxation? Or am I looking at it wrong and the governments authority to tax is legitimate but there is another reason to have small government? Thanks.

>>130592203
All good man, I'm on /pol/ I can take an insult and as a Libertarian I support your right to call me a retard.

File: 1487096884387.png (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>130592458
It's in the same article I sent you. Hoppe has also edited a compilation of essays called the Myth of National Defense. Also see pic related.

>>130592549
I appreciate it. Here, you aren't forced to send kids to school, and they can learn from home. There are some tests that they have to pass, but generally speaking, you can educate yourself. Curriculum has some standard things to be learned, but you can choose to leave school after age 16.

>>130592626
I haven't really read minarchist books, I went straight to AnCap. Perhaps Milton Friedman books?

File: IMG_7318.jpg (84KB, 609x450px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 609x450px

Hi /lrg/, Recommend some libertarian youtuber?

File: Tips3.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>libertarian

>>130592758
Wow.
That's fuckin brilliant.

Alright here;s a question boys.
Put you thinking AnCaps on.
How do we achieve a Libertarian State?
How do we make this happen?
How do we go from where we are now to where we wanna be?

>>130593736
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_ybi1MeC3c
>organize at the local level
>privatize everything
>secede

If you want to do it through the state privatizing schools would be a good start.

You idiots are living in a fantasy land. Your ideal libertarian nation would be plagued with 1) a high morality rate 2) little to no scientific innovation 3) little investment from international companies, who want to invest in a place where there is a well educated populace and lots of government investment into projects that are for the common good 4) civil unrest

You are all fucking idiots. Take civics 101 again pls

File: 1490301133618.png (431KB, 1476x1804px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1476x1804px

>>130594700
Cry more

Democrats and communist must be physically removed

b8 harder next time famalam

>>130593736
Libertarian state

lol

anyways

Decentralization and covenant communities are a key to creating a society the correct way

>>130594843
I have legitmate points retard. You fail to address any of those.

You're just proving how intellectually bankrupt your shitty ideology is.

>>130594700
Why are democrats always the most hostile towards libertarians? Is because you're jealous that we're technically more liberal than you?

File: King_of_Diamonds.jpg (71KB, 369x514px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 369x514px

>>130595223
I could respond if I felt like wasting my time on someone who would simply refuse to listen even if I put effort into an argument and refuted your points

>>130594700
>1) a high morality rate
How?
>2) little to no scientific innovation
Free Market is the best way to encourage innovation
>3) little investment from international companies,
You mean The Jew?
>4) civil unrest
They're exiled or shot dead when they fuck with Muh Property.

>>130592905
Thanks for the recommendation anon, I'll look into Friedman. If anyone one else wants to tackle my question or recommend other reading materials, I'm all ears.

>>130592916
Christopher Cantwell
That Guy T
Molymeme
Tom Woods podcast

>>130593309
lol

File: 1493839459643.jpg (56KB, 640x393px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x393px

Bumping with quotes

Any good videos explaining covenant communities?

I want to find an easy way to communicate the idea to people without them assuming things and attempting to cut me off

File: 1493826133343.png (109KB, 983x656px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 983x656px

Murray "unleash the police" Rothbard
Murray "Stomp a commie for mommy" Rothbard
Murray "throw the bums into slums" Rothbard
Murray "Historical revision is ammunition" Rothbard
Murray "Mozart was a red, commies drop dead" Rothbard
Murray "Right-wing populist, not Trotskyist" Rothbard
Murray "School prayer or out with the mayor" Rothbard
Murray "Read Anatomy of the State or capitulate" Rothbard
Murray "Privatize the street or feel the heat" Rothbard

File: 1.jpg (86KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1200x675px

ANCAP TRAP HAREMS WHEN?!?!

> hit it from the back till that rotor starts a-turnin'
> take a specimen of her gravy when it starts a-churnin'
> sire a proprietary strain of throughbred males and females
> unbridled profit across the land

File: 1488589646987.jpg (196KB, 689x665px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 689x665px

>>130597915
This is the closest I have: https://youtu.be/gb8nJauOq_8

>>130598424
Hmm thanks

I think I may have to write a script for one and memorize an easy way to describe it

People usually tend to try to disagree when I bring in exclusion of democrats and communists in most and other groups such as Gays, Germans, Blacks and others

>>130599050
You should include examples of those who would be discriminated according to the position of the person you're arguing with. Ask a leftie "Wouldn't it be nice if you could live in your own covenant along with your gay sisters and friends and all the diversity and Muslims in the world? Wouldn't it be great to live without those white patriarchal oppressors? :^)" And once they say yes, you've already won. Unless you want to red pill them further and make them actually give up their love for diversity that is.

File: 1495325646815.jpg (106KB, 901x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 901x960px

>>130599329
I have tried things such as starting off with saying that you could exclude Germans, French, Etc. then going on to other groups that they hold so dear to their heart

I think I'll try your way next time though because then I can run them in a circle with that

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

1MB, 2426x2676px

>>130599530
Yes. That's it. Run them in circles. Make them start from their first premise that all humans are beautiful and then ask them with a smug face how come they're for discrimination after all.

File: 1483564195196.png (2MB, 5000x7500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x7500px

Last bump of the night

File: ancapthinking.png (57KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 256x256px

When and why did they add ideological flags?

How will we know if a leaf is hiding?

File: AntiCom.png (122KB, 586x586px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 586x586px

>>130603102
They all talk a certain way

No disguise can hide them from the day of the rake

File: lib-nazi world map.png (1MB, 4972x2517px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4972x2517px

>>130603527
Liberty can into Lebanon

Is Paleolibertarianism the BEST ideology?

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

44KB, 480x529px

>>130604329
Don't need to be the BEST when you're correct

File: stirnerrrrrrr.jpg (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

Can anyone recommend me some liberterian poetry/poets?

Invictus is the only one I can think of

>>130593309
kek

LTV is the only sensible and internally consistent valuation paradigm.

File: 2ac40d7784676b65b6604f6a4945c942c0e441378e0964f824a0e76ec2fb9640_1.jpg (93KB, 800x743px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x743px

Ok so i actually have some questions that i want to hear from the anarcho capitalists themselves:

1.Where/when in history the libertarian ideal had the most strength?

2. The base, the core, the heart of the libertarian ideia, what it is?

3. The biggest proof that the ideia works

4. Any advice for someone who is learning?

File: marxandfriedmanonthesamepage.jpg (61KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x480px

>>130608049
tell me more comrade

>>130609836
That Neocon ball made me laugh.

1. Today. The internet means we're not isolated, have access to books and papers at will, and can communicate without censorship.

2. We are against using violence against peaceful people. NAP for short.

3. Human Action.

4. Hazlitt Econ in One Lesson. Mises.org. Youtube Hoppe speeches.

>>130610486
not ancap but i thought the core principle was self ownership and the rights it implies; NAP being one of them

Has anyone ever met a libertarian irl that wasn't an absolute pain to deal with? Fuck, I'm for small government, but I'd give some tax bux to pay for you libertarian social outcasts to learn some people skills

>>130610600
I suppose I was answering "the heart of libertarianism".

Self ownership is foundational, naturally.

Why isn't Molymeme approved?

90% sure slovakbro was on the tom woods show once


who /tom woods/ here btw?

Most didactic(easy to understand/for begginers) book about this whole ideology?

File: 1490404004677.png (952KB, 1262x2094px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 1262x2094px

>>130589512
Mandatory reading

File: Anatomy of the State.jpg (28KB, 240x368px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 240x368px

>>130609836
>1.Where/when in history the libertarian ideal had the most strength?

1776

>2. The base, the core, the heart of the libertarian ideia, what it is?

Freedom from a coercive government, but not freedom from consequences. Everything is to be voluntary and without violence, with self-defense as a reasonably acceptable exception. Contracts are then key here for mutually beneficial agreements to establish order, with capitalism the engine for unlimited growth no longer held back by government. So it's not pussy pacifism, not silly "no hierarchy shit", and certainly not chaos for the sake of it. Everything would be largely the same: modern, clean, except that control is now back to the hands of the people and their private property to do as they please with it. No thought police, no arbitrarily imposed restrictions on what one can and can't do, and definitely no taxes.

I went on a tangent there, but as far as "the heart" of libertarianism, I would say it is simply at its core to maximize the freedom of an individual in its most natural state: self-ownership. A bit idealistic, but understand that violence is not wholly ignored either and armed citizens and private militias play an important role in Ancapistan.

>3. The biggest proof that the ideia works

Everything that you do, do you do it with government in mind? As individuals, we're all anarchists. A government does not dictate our thoughts, our actions, what we are to do with our free time. The idea of government in one's personal life is utterly abhorrent to most people and yet they also vote more government to interfere in the lives of its citizens. The biggest proof are the adults around you: doing as they please, what they want, when they want. Only a child would think they need supervision on every little thing.

>4. Any advice for someone who is learning?

Read, read, and read. My personal recommendation is Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard, a mere 60 pages jam full of truth.

>>130609836
>>130611860
>>130611744

Forgot the link to Anatomy of the State, available here for free:

https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

I just love it. It's so beautifully short.

File: 1495315878431.jpg (549KB, 2048x2023px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 2048x2023px

>>130611314
ah, but he is

behold the essential molymeme

Damn, i almost forgot, which
government system you guys prefer?
Presidentialism or
Parliamentarism or.....?

>>130612099
There are many names. Anarcho-Capitalism, Right-Libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, etc.

All somewhat slightly different to each other in technical terms but at its core distinguishes itself from Left-Libertarianism in that """positive rights""" are wholly ignored. The state is also either massively reduced if not outright abolished.

>>130612081
>Return
"The truth about Sam Harris' Jewish ancestry"
KEK

>>130592626
There is no justification for taxation, unless you think the state are genuine owners of the land.

>>130592916
Brent Ancap
Shane Killian
Christopher Cantwell

>>130595223
>I have legitmate points retard
No, you have assertions that you have failed to meet the burden of proof on.

>>130612572
What is the argument against the state being the owner of the land? The only one I've seen is that land must be "homesteaded", that is, put to use, for the land to be owned (assuming it was previously abandoned). But if the state is taxing people who live on the land, that is effectively renting, so isn't the state putting the land to use and thereby the owner of it? Furthermore, if we claim that the state does not own the land, then who does? Outside of very specific aboriginal land claims in the US and Canada I cannot really think of anyone who could claim traditional ownership outside of the governments themselves.

>>130609836
1. I don't know much history, so I can't answer this one.

2. The non-aggression principle and private property rights.

3. The burden of proof is not on libertarianism.
I'd suggest watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anP42zvPPRQ&list=PLSPi1JFx4_-H7dEU9enhqWPWoFX9rM7AW&index=1&ab_channel=ShaneKillian

4. what advice do you want?

>>130613573
Well, the state itself already recognizes citizens as private property owners, so they don't even try to claim ownership over the land that they tax. How can you own something if you recognize someone else as the owner?

>>130614705
I've been thinking that it's more like leasing, since if you don't pay your property tax the government basically seizes your land from you, just like the repo-guys do when you don't pay your car loan.

File: hoppe-feelgood.png (812KB, 800x516px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 800x516px

hi guys

cant fucking wait to be out of uni. if was already working i could go to corax and pfs this year.
SOOOO JELLY OF WHO WILL ATTEND HOLY SHIT

>>130615080
But they already recognize the people they take from as property owners. Regardless, how can the state really own anything? States don't have rights, people have rights. Even if we agree that the people who were originally part of the state were legitimate property owners, that doesn't mean that the politicians today own the country. They didn't homestead anything, and they didn't inherit it.

>>130594700
(1) How so?
(2) Patents don't help innovation; they hinder it.
(3) is probably the most legitamite criticism; solved by having corporations own the set of municipal services for the city, and charging based on the value accruing to each property in the city
4) Not if whiny shitlibs are physically removed.

>>130600082

>The Helicopter's Handbook

kek

File: 1497482684220.jpg (37KB, 827x827px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 827x827px

These are the best threads on this board.

>>130615632
Under that logic, wouldn't companies be unable to own land (well, lease technically if we are considering the state the owner), since they are not people and do not have rights? I'm fine with with companies "purchasing" property to build businesses and structures on. If wallmart can buy a piece of land from an individual, why would the state not be able to own land? If institutional property rights exist, then the states taxation is justified. This line of thinking would mean that both individuals and corporations are basically trading property leased from the government, making taxation (the rent/lease/what have you) legitimate. Also for reference I'm a fucking leaf, so let's try and keep this conversation independent of American constitutional elements going forward (despite their contributions to the Libertarian movement).

>>130612081
I like how they get more ridiculous.

>>130600082

>no "The Economics of Time and Ignorance"

Do I even wanna know what else it is missing?

>>130592171
The free market would provide the cheapest and most efficient possible version of those services. Always, 100% guaranteed to be more efficient than even a minarchists state. The best service available at the lowest cost without any coercion or theft.

What do ancaps think about mutualism?

>>130617126

>devious little critter.jpg

File: 1491683805169.jpg (70KB, 960x685px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 960x685px

>>130617126
Don't force us to do shit. Otherwise yall can "socialize" your resources. Coops are ok and can flourish in the market. Look at Switzerland and Coop/Migros and such.

>>130616641
Companies are able to own land because it's not the company itself that owns it; instead, it's the owner(s) of the company. Who owns the state, and can they pass it off as inheritance? (I would argue that the queen isn't really the owner; if she was, then she wouldn't be subject to the limitations that have been placed upon her by the constitution.)

>>130617657
>Companies are able to own land because it's not the company itself that owns it; instead, it's the owner(s) of the company.

But do they? When there are fees, damages or legal repercussions regarding the land it is always the legal responsibility of the company, and seldom the owner of the company. If the company fails to meet it's obligations then the owner of the company may be held responsible, but there is a fairly clear divide between company property and personal property for all company associated individuals, including the owner. This is why charges such as Embezzlement exist, which is the misallocation of company resources towards an individual, even if that individual owns the company in question. If a companies property was the same as personal property, then a company owner couldn't be charged with embezzlement unless they violated some very specific contract stipulation with an investor. If we assume this to be true, then institutional ownership exists, in which case there is no need for inheritance of government land since the institution of government itself continues to own it, regardless of the individuals involved. So I guess it's a question whether or not institutions can own things. I'd love to hear the opinion of a lawyerfag if I'm off base here.

>>130593309
Impressive actually.

File: Ancap_2.jpg (115KB, 792x609px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 792x609px

>>130612081
I'm damn glad someone else saved it.

>>130611850
Mandatory (you)

>>130619137
I don't think institutions can really own property; however, your argument makes sense, and I could be wrong. The reason I don't think institutions can own things is because they don't have rights. Does an institution have the right to life? liberty? speech? No, they don't; They don't because they aren't people. People's rights, including property rights, are derived from their right to self-ownership, the right to control your own life. How would an institution have that right; how could it own itself when it's not alive. Objects don't have rights, so they can't own property.

>>130589512
bamp

File: Ancap_7.jpg (81KB, 530x795px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 530x795px

Bump

File: Ancap_15.jpg (112KB, 812x531px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 812x531px

One last bump.

>>130609836
>1.Where/when in history the libertarian ideal had the most strength?

Modern history. 80% of life is completely free of government coercion. Areas without government coercion are basically exploding (read The Internet, Bitcoins, etc.)

>2. The base, the core, the heart of the libertarian ideia, what it is?

That man has the right to property and the right to trade with whomever he chooses.

>3. The biggest proof that the ideia works

The internet man.

>4. Any advice for someone who is learning?

Watching some Stefan Molymeme (also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o)

File: 1490980448075.jpg (112KB, 564x822px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 564x822px

>>130620281
Thanks for the (you)

>>130595223
>I have legitimate points.
You claim to have legitimate points. Care to tell anybody why they should accept your points as legitimate?

>>130594700
>a high morality rate
Yeah that sounds terrible. Morality. So bad.

>>130621035
A reasonable point to make anon, you might be right. However I think I disagree. It's true that an individuals right to own property comes from their innate rights (life, liberty, speech ect) but I think it's different for institutions. What really is an institution? The answer is that it's an imaginary thing. It's not the people who own it, the people who work for it, nor the people who invest it in; although an institution may have responsibilities to all those people based on contract law ect. An institution is an imaginary hierarchical system to which the people who invent it ascribe rights or responsibilities. Companies can own property because they are created with the intent of owning property to facilitate some purpose. I think, philosophically, we as people give life to our creations that they may serve us in some way. I think government is the same way, and this institution of government has been owning and leasing their countries in exchange for tax money, and that this institution is as legitimate as walmart is legitimate or McDonalds is legitimate or anything else. Or at least the law regarding company property certainly seems support this. This is why Libertarianism is so difficult and so full of nuance. An Anarchist can claim the government isn't legitimate if they believe that property cannot be owned by anyone other then individuals. But a Libertarian must acknowledge the legitimacy of government, and then persuasively argue why it shouldn't do things with it's legitimate authority. And that's fucking hard.

>>130607395
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I have a gun
Get off my lawn

>>130622136
I need to go to sleep soon, so this will be my last serious post.

An institution has to be created by an individual or multiple individuals. Since creating something makes you the owner of said thing (in the case of children it makes you the trustee), the creator(s) of the institution must be the owner(s) of it. Since there is an owner of it, that must mean that whatever it does is done by the will of the owner. If a new Walmart opens up (and owns the building, instead of leasing it), the owner of the building is not truly Walmart; the owner would be the stockholders. My point is that an institution is a piece of property; how can property own other property?

I'm going to sleep, so I'm going to link to one of my favorite libertarian shitposting channels on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/user/brentancap/featured?&ab_channel=BrentAncap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pePVL8-TX_Q&ab_channel=BrentAncap

>>130623882
You could be right, I don't think I have any more thoughts then what I've already posted. But if you're right, and institutions cannot own property, then no taxation is legitimate, which means no Minarchist government is legitimate. And frankly I'm not settled on that point.

Either way, it was good talking to you, have a good night Anon.

File: rage_hoppe.png (1MB, 816x846px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 816x846px

>>130621644
And you must be this so-called superior man, huh? One can impose duties on himself and still value his right. What you want is the state to impose duties on men; does that make them superior? No, it means they are slaves. Inferior men allow themselves to be slaves, while the superior man imposes duties on himself on his own terms.