[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: MurrayBW.jpg (39 KB, 391x565)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
Is it ethic to let my children starve so I'll have more money to smoke crack?
>>
only if they're white
>>
>>3500083
What if I'm jew?
>>
>>3500077
I don't think ancaps think it would be ethical to do so, just that it would be even less ethical for the state to violate your right to do so

Which is probably even more stupid, because it's an example of the kind of thing that's so stupid only an intellectual could believe it
>>
>>3500077
following the categoric imperative:
>everyone sells their children in the market
>market crashes
no, it is not ethic either from the perspective of a n ancap (damages the market) or someone who holds views against it
t. immanuel Kunt
>>
>>3500086
Jews are fucking white. You cannot switch races when it suits you, schlomo.
>>
Yes since it benefits your self-interest.
>>
>>3500077
Ancaps generally would say it's not ethical but that business and state practices (if the state still exists) have no need to follow ethics.
>>
>>3500077
>starve your children

No you fool, you must sell your children to buy more crack!!
>>
>>3500108
What about the jews from ethiopia?
>>
>>3500091

From the Ethics of Liberty, by MN Rothbard:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.
>>
>>3500161
Like I said, he's talking about rights, not ethics
>>
Just suck dick for crack. Sex is a perfectly valid form of currency.
>>
>>3500193
no, he should prostitute his children to get the money for the crack rock
>>
>>3500372
But they won't have the experience to suck a dick proper.
>>
>>3500108
Speak for yourself, Gaylord. Go tell /pol/ that Jews are white. You're the one pushing an agenda. No one knows what the fuck Jews are.
>>
>>3500439
No one on /pol/ even knows what the fuck whites are.
>>
File: government get out.png (273 KB, 793x794)
273 KB
273 KB PNG
There will never be a time when it is right to ban civilian ownership of a wide variety of firearms. There will never be an event so tragic that it is right to infringe on the rights of others. A million could perish before the barrel of a gun and those who seek in light of tragedy to ban guns would be in the eternal wrong. Any other country, perhaps the case would be different. But as long as the rights of man to bear arms is enshrined in the foundation of this country, in action and record, there will never be a time when it is wrong to bear arms and proudly. Gun rights are being infringed upon in America today. It does not matter how many die. It is irrelevant. Those who built this country rebelled and bore arms against their parent government. The men of their country defended themselves against those who sought to do them wrong. That is the essence of America. We are independent. We are resilient. Let the record show that men alive today still believe that, even as our enemies taunt us with the deaths of their countrymen. We know what is happening. It is irrelevant.
>>
>>3500446
lol
>>
>>3500446
Half of /pol/ isn't even white. Your average commie community is literally more white than /pol/.
>>
>>3500122
this
>>
>>3500408
train them
>>
>>3500161

I don't like Thomas Sowell, but he's right here. The best thing about ideas is they don't need to work to survive.
>>
>>3500626
I had never seen Sowell talking about Rothbard. What does he think of Austrian Economics and Anarcho-capitalism?
>>
>>3500676
He wasn't talking about Rothbard, he was just speaking about people positing ideas and theories in academia.
>>
>>3500676

Considering how much he defended the Bush administration, I don't think he'd be an ancap.
>>
File: Sowell (2).png (499 KB, 1216x728)
499 KB
499 KB PNG
>>3500626
I guess that's one of the reasons I consider Anarcho-capitalism a left wing ideology.
>>
>>3500077
>Is it ethic to let my children starve so I'll have more money to smoke crack?
it's as ethical to do that as it is to ostracize anyone who does it from society until they die
>>
>>3500716
Well I mean, people love to talk about ancap idealogy, but it's never actually been practiced, so it still fits
>>
>>3500077
>Is it ethic
Do you mean ethical?
>>
>>3500729
>Well I mean, people love to talk about ancap idealogy, but it's never actually been practiced, so it still fits
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/08/04/why-liechtenstein-works-self-determination-and-market-governance/
>>
>>3500738

Liechtenstein has a government.
>>
>>3500741
You don't understand Ancap. It doesn't mean no government. It means no state. A state being a government with a monopoly on government. A state doesn't allow unhappy citizens to secede, or just directly vote out what makes them unhappy.
>>
>>3500729
>> 3500729
> but has never been practiced, so it still fits
In fact, it did. Anarchy is a method, and its record of failure is as great as the record of socialism. Most anarchists (all currents) cannot understand that the State is inevitable. Destroying it won't prevent it to form again. Even fucking Mises, who they worship so much knew that.
>>
>>3500741
>>3500753
Read the speech, Anon.
>>
>>3500753
Liechtenstein also has a state that collects taxes
>>
>>3500738
>>3500757
The law ain't voluntary, they still have a State working there, with the monopoly of the legitimate usage of the force.
>>
>>3500738
>a population of only 38,000
You could steamroll that with a single division over the course of tea time.
>>
>>3500738

>>3500778

Supposing it's true, its an argument against ancap.

With the word, FA Hayek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3hSA35ygeo
>>
>>3500762
>>3500761
You still don't understand.
A what is meant by "state" would be a government that will go against the interests of its citizens, if only to keep itself together. What I, myself, want is a government that will allow parts to secede. Why is that, you ask? Because it makes it capitalistic. If the government cannot keep itself together through force, it has to do it through other ways. For example, by keeping the people happy. By being a good government. By making the most out of the taxes. And, yes, there would be taxes. And laws. And if people refused to pay taxes, or broke laws, they would be punished, as long as they were citizens of the government. However, they could, very easily, stop being citizens. They would no longer need to follow the laws of the government, or pay taxes, though that comes with the price of no longer being able to reap the benefits of being a citizen. The police force, for example. Or the roads.
Now, they would still have to be a majority of the people in a certain area, an area that could, conceivably, be independent.
Also, if those people then went back into the land of the government, and broke its laws, they would still be punished.
>>3500778
So?
>>
>>3500787

What do you mean so? Have you no sense of adventure? No love of plunder?
>>
Please give me more questions. I don't think enough Ancap criticizers really understand it very well.
Also, just read the speech I linked.
>>
>>3500787
> If the government cannot keep itself together through force, it has to do it through other ways. For example, by keeping the people happy. By being a good government. By making the most out of the taxes.

That's minarchism, not anarchism.
>>
>>3500787
That's literally not anarchism then
>>
>>3500794

I did read it. I don't agree, because ancap philosophy is the exact opposite of what I want in the world which is the return of empires.
>>
>>3500787
> And if people refused to pay taxes, or broke laws, they would be punished, as long as they were citizens of the government. However, they could, very easily, stop being citizens

So, you want the people to secede from the government, just like US did with UK, right? That's still no anarchism. Mises and Rand talked about that before Rothbard was even born, and they found his ideas of a "anarcho-capitalism" to be retarded.
>>
>>3500792
Not every country needs to be big. And I don't believe that such a system could only exist in a very small country.
>>3500795
I think that my brand kind of falls into both, though I don't use the word Ancap much, since it leads to misunderstandings. People hear the word "Anarchy," and they dismiss it.
>>3500798
It is Anarchy in the sense of no state.
>>
>>3500802
Once again, I clarify that Ancap is a bad name.
And, no, I don't just mean the US. Right now, it is not at all what I want. And it, itself, doesn't allow secession.
>>
>>3500804
>Not every country needs to be big. And I don't believe that such a system could only exist in a very small country.
Not that guy, but look at the video I posted here >>3500784
>>
>>3500804
state = monopoly on legitimate violence
there is a monopoly on legitimate violence in liechtenstein, therefore there is a state
your special definitions don't hold sway to anyone else
>>
>>3500804
>Not every country needs to be big.

But a powerful one does.
>>
>>3500804
If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. (Mises, Liberalism, pp. 109–10)


Is tha
>>
>>3500804
If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. (Mises, Liberalism, pp. 109–10)


Is that what you want?
>>
>>3500821
That is the ideal, yes.
>>3500816
Not every country needs to be powerful.
>>3500811
State is the word chosen to define the type of government that I have defined. However, many recognize the word as meaning something else. So, let's make a new term, let's say it's a mostate, meaning a state that will do all it can to keep itself alive, even if the citizens do not want to be a part of it. Most countries in the world, now, are mostates.
>>
>>3500830
Either you consider Mises an anarchist (and knowing how much he hated anarchism that would be fun) or you're a classical liberal with a more radical approach like him
>>
>>3500830
>Not every country needs to be powerful.

Of course not, it makes empire-building rather difficult.
>>
>>3500830
>Not every country needs to be powerful.
Not him. Yes, that's correct, but weaker countries are also more vulnerable. A stateless country could be easily conquered, or a new power could emerge and create a new State.
>>
>>3500833

The problem is the gold standard is a shitty currency system as still requires 3rd parties to hold the gold for you.

If Mises was alive today he'd be a cryto currency freak as you can literally move that shit anywhere in the world without a third party or government getting involved..
>>
>>3500833
Yeah, that's all I really am, but I consider myself to also be an Ancap, since I want no mostate, to make governments more capitalistic.
>>
>>3500840
It's a thing that literally only works today due to things like the UN guaranteeing sovereignty. It used to be that if a nation was weak then it was practically begging to get conquered.
>>
>>3500091
90% of ancaps seem to be retarded ivory tower theorists. Most of them loathe communism, but they don't realize that they're making the same mistake communists do - they advocate for a system that would only work if humans miraculously became smarter and more altruistic on average. Actually ancaps are probably even more retarded on this issue than commies, since at least some commies believe in state communism - which, while it doesn't work well, at least does work well enough to not immediately collapse.
I have yet to see even a single good argument for why in an ancap society, a state wouldn't rapidly reform.
>>
>>3500492
Where do you think the appropriate line is between legal and illegal weapons? Do you think private nukes are ok?
>>
>>3500868

I'm saving up for my McNuke using my Shit Coins.
>>
>>3500868
>Do you think private nukes are ok?
Are nukes "arms?"
Then yes, they are okay.
>>
>>3500868
If the government can own them, then the people should be able to own them too.
>>
>>3500962
>the government is doing something wrong, therefore people can do it too!

Get out.
>>
>>3500973
If owning guns and nukes is wrong, I don't want to be right.
>>
>>3500977
Nothing wrong about owning a gun or two, but you're retarded if you think it's ok to have you're own nuke.
>>
File: Thomas_sowell.png (262 KB, 513x336)
262 KB
262 KB PNG
>>3500716
>>
>>3500973

Look. In the future people will have 3D printers that can make chemicals weapons which they will load up on drones to spray people that violate their NAP.

Like VX, Anthrax, and that shit that makes your skin fall off.
>>
>>3500973
You’re not going to magically get rid of nukes, they’re here to stay. Might as well put some of them in the people’s hands to even the odds.
>>
>>3500982
What is the difference if it only used for self-defense purposes?
>>
>>3500962
>>3500998
>What is the difference if it only used for self-defense purposes?
>if
That's a big if. The fact is, some percentage of the population are sociopaths who WOULD use a private nuke to blow up a city for fun. I have no doubt of that.
>>3500988
I sometimes think about that. It does seem that one way or another, powerful weapons technology will continue to proliferate. We might be in for some interesting times.
>>
>>3500077
It is ethical, but not moral according to Rothbard.
>>
>>3500868
No. Nukes go far beyond the parameter of an individual's responsibility. An average infantry soldier has no access to them, which I would contend is the standard model which the 2nd amendment dictates. Nukes aren't a weapon of defense, they are a last resort which no country truly wishes to provoke.
>>
>>3500985
>support for Communism
Another one that ignores everything Economic Science has developed for the last 130 years.
>>
>The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong; that, even in an age that had fewer citations or footnotes than our own, Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon.

(...) Marxists (...) hail Smith as the ultimate inspiration of their own Founding Father, Karl Marx.

This Rothbard guy wrote almost three thousand pages about Economic History, and it was only a tiny part of what his work was supposed to be (gladly he died at only 69).
I don't think he read Adam Smith, Marx, the physiocrats or anything about history of the economic thought though.
>>
>>3500492
You're point?
>>
>>3505166
No, I'm Patrick.
>>
>>3500077
Good goy
>>
>>3500108
>>3500083

'White' is a skincolor not a race.
>>
Why is anarchism even a thing? How can you be so stupid you thinl that everyone will just get along of you get rid of the government?
>>
>>3503257
>An average infantry soldier has no access to them, which I would contend is the standard model which the 2nd amendment dictates.

I must have missed the part of the 2nd Amendment that says that, you might as well argue that it only allows muskets.

>>3500957
>Are nukes "arms?"

Yes.
>>
>>3507608
It's just Jews wanting lower taxes. Look at all the names: Rothbard, Kirzner, Mises, etc.
>>
>>3507608
>How can you be so stupid you thinl that everyone will just get along of you get rid of the government?
Government didn't prevent people from killing each other and anarchism does not indend to be perfect.
However , I agree that Anarchism is a retarded idea that only people who don't know a shit about economics endorse.
>>
>>3500077
Little children yes, as they are not yet ration beings
>>
>>3509337
So, if my dad has Alzheimer I can kill him? He's incapable of reasoning.
>>
>>3510155
first ask yourself, what is the profit in that?
>>
>>3510183
According to Praxeology (which most of ancaps see as the only reasonable method) I don't need to have a reason.

Humans are too complex and the possibility of the action is enough.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.