he deliberately confuses his dumb readers. him and libertarians in general can't make the simple connection that america and most of the world in general is the result of libertarian principles. america is literally an honest version of the rothbard utopia from "for a new liberty."

>>25406766
Tell more about how bureaucratic collectivism can contribute to the general welfare of the international stage again? Lest we bring up the egregious case of Albania, notwithstanding how much dogmatism can back a state into a corner. Such is not to say that unrestrained libertarianism can produce roughly the same results but at least one knows that human nature is not some code that can just be overwritten with social engineering.
>t. recovering quasi-Stalinist

>>25406731
the key here is that "libertarianism" plays the same role for hoppe as "the state of nature" does in early modern political philosophers like hobbes and locke: it's an idealized origin story to make their systems look good
you start with the naive view of libertarianism as a bunch of individuals with sovereign claims to the property they live on, and then come up with a story about why almost all of them willingly give up that sovereignty via contract and trade. this is not intended to be a story of something that actually happened, or a proposal to actually do anarcho-capitalism in the future following this plan. it's a way of saying "anarcho-capitalism leads inevitably to right-authoritarianism, so we can just skip anarcho-capitalism and jump straight into right-authoritarianism."

>>25406731
Libertarianism is letting people do as they please, unless what they're doing is wrong, in which case state power will line them up and shoot them like a commie banana republic, except this is totally different and like about freedom, maan.

>>25406731
Basically, Libertarians should discriminate harshly against tyrants via freedom of association and private property rights.

For instance if you threaten communist revolution, that is a literal direct threat of theft and murder that should get you instantly excommunicated from free society by the private covenant organizations, private individuals and security companies.

He's just saying it through a socially conservative lens.
>>25406774
How do you even become a stalinist? Nietzsche or leftypol?

>>25406935
>pretending the NAP doesn't exist

>>25407145
Communists are fucking strawmen of themselves, statism is the best argument for simulation theory because I can't believe people exist that are that fucking stupid. I need to study psychology more to get in their heads because their words and actions are unfathomable to common sense.

>>25406731
Libertarian philosophy is essentially an attempt at rationalizing the feeling that you didn't consent to your current socio-political situation and that you'd prefer being left alone.
This sort of question has always been one of political philosophy's most important and it was more or less solved by the contractualists : the desire to be left alone presents itself as an injunction to others which makes it impossible to guarantee. Because of this, rights and States exist as to ensure some self-constraint in order to achieve something more enticing (i.e. respecting others' property so that they respect yours).
The problem for the libertarian mind is that this implies that they can't ground their desire to be left alone in a transcendental argument and have to cope with the reality that all they have is a political preference. As such, thinkers like Hoppe or Rothbard tried to create a new meta-ethical system founded on property, where impeding on someone's property was "wrong" not by virtue of going against ethical considerations, but by going against natural "rights".

Because of the aforementionned, you witness a lot of contradictions in libertarian thought. Hoppe for instance advocates for a lolbert society yet wants to force people to be lolberts. Nozick is a bit more honest and accepts that covenants can be democratic or socialist. In any case, the text you showed is just downhill from what I mentionned. The desire to be left alone becomes rationalized into "others can't force me to do something", and eventually into "I should force others to not force me". It's a very silly movement but it holds well because it's closely correlated to INTJ personnality types (autists).

>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3424229/

>>25407145
It doesn't. For it to exist it requires enforcement, and for that enforcement to abide by it it needs self-regulation. Claiming that it comes about naturally or that the market does so is a modal error lol

>>25407157
>yeah dude the 99% of the population are actually all weird psychologically
>Me ? The Ancap on 4chan ? Nah I'm fine mate
Whatever floats your boat

>>25407257
>>yeah dude the 99% of the population are actually all weird psychologically
unironically btw

>>25407257
>yet wants to force people to be lolberts
he doesn't. retarded op's quite is hoppe talking about *his* contractual covenant community. you are free to start yours where you only accept communists and homosexuals, and you can then freely expel straight people if (when) they violate the contract

>>25406731
Lolbert just being honest about his ideologies fealty to the parasitic cabal of rentiers that have been ruling over western civilization since the time of rome.

File: 413-4138846_transparent-p(...).jpg (29 KB, 226x280)

29 KB JPG

>>25407262
Of course he won't be honest about, but that's why he uses darwinian logic to justify it lol. Nozick is more honest because he used kantian meta-ethics. But Hoppe, Rand and Rothbard stop at (lockean) property because their system was explicitly designed to ground only that.

>what happens to a communist kid in a libertarian covenant
>he gets shot
It's the same logic """"statists"""" use except reversed to focus solely on being left-alone.

>>25406731
Its almost like libertarianism is an ideology that entirely ignores the origins of private property & capitalism upon primitive accumulation, enclosures, and the global slave trade to preserve plutocratic control. Especially any for of post-Reagan/Thatcher libertarianism, which is just derivative neoliberalism.

>>25407270
cool hoppepe

>>25407257
>For it to exist it requires enforcement, and for that enforcement to abide by it it needs self-regulation
Yeah, no shit buddy. You clearly haven't actually engaged with Libertarian writing.

>>25407304
Do you usually stop reading at the first sentence of a line on any document or is it something you do exclusively on 4chan ? Just curious btw because that must be a big handicap for day-to-day things.
Like for instance how did you manage school ? There might be multiple sentences in a problem so how do you solve it ? Did you require some special help ?
Genuinely curious btw

>>25407503
> why didn't you also acknowledge my inane addendum
Expecting me to give a disingenuous simplification a meaningful response and then trying to condescendingly act like you won is a concession I'll take.

>>25407304
He thinks Libertarianism is when there's zero order and no rights and everyone's allowed to murder eachother, ironically that's what happens in the most statist societies.
Doubt he even knows what the NAP is beyond the acronym. Tremendous strawmen as usual from socialist statist parasites.
Muh capitalism means we all need to be assraped by state goons, for the greater good or whatever.

>>25407268
profit = parasitism
stealing = not parasitism

socialist """logic"""

All socialists are liars devils thieves frauds and mass murder supporters, watch their tongue like you would a snakes.

>>25407145
I think that the plurality if not the majority of violent acts throughout human history were rationalized by the aggressors as an act of self-defense. The NAP is completely worthless, ahistorical nonsense.

>>25407685
>were rationalized by the aggressors as an act of self-defense.
Oh, that must mean aggression is self-defense then, and we can never tell the difference, hail Stalin!

>>25407685
Your unjustifiable assumptions are not the main issue with NAP. In fact the opposite is the problem. The vast majority of people in a state of nature would violate it the second they thought it benefited them. The thing is Libertarians understand this and the whole point is that it's a guiding principle/moral for how to organize a culture to minimize people violating each other's rights not some belief that it's a magic fix all.

>>25407693
Philosophy and especially political philosophy often draws concepts out of thin air. The state of nature is also ahistorical nonsense but Hobbes is still taught in international security seminars.

>>25407656
he's an idiot, but hoppe is a statist. he's just a statist who thinks the only first-line punishment the state is allowed to impose without the fig leaf of consent is exile.
hoppe's view is that landowners of contiguous properties can join together to turn their land into a state and that's fine and good. the idea is that if you're not a landowner, you're always on somebody else's property and they're entitled to demand anything they want from you in exchange for not removing you. if you are a landowner, the goods you need to survive still have to pass through other people's property, and they're entitled to embargo you if they want, and if they have you surrounded they can use this to force you to submit to their cabal without it ever technically "violating the NAP".

>>25407691
You're trying to resolve thousands of years of conflict and violence between and within linguistic, ethnic, national, religious, racial, and class groups with a meaningless platitude that boils down to "nobody should ever do bad thing :)"
Pointing out that "bad thing" is entirely subjective should trigger some kind of introspection or second thought about line of thinking rather than "duhh you must think bad things are good".

>>25407701
I don't really give a crap about communism's criticisms that Hoppe is 0.1% statist when they are 1000% statist, at the end of the day private communities and the right to exclude is a perfectly good and very Libertarian idea as long as you give people the right to opt-out otherwise it violates NAP.

I just want a private property and NAP based community I don't care about anything else, all else is intellectual tweaking.

>>25407697
>thin air
Read more.

>>25407274
Engels was more or less using that as a justification for dismantling divine right, something third wave feminists took and ran with to justify our current situation. Don't be silly and act like its scientific. Even Max Weber knew a purely detached, descriptive view in the social sciences was a bit hopeful, as everyone has a bias.

>>25407713
I've read tons more than you. You're just a faggot.

>>25407706
Nope, it's not subjective at all unfortunately for you lying, thieving, violent, mass murdering commies.

Initiating physical force violates the NAP
Not-initiating physical force upholds the NAP.

Of course your deceiving commie mind will immediately go to some gray area like what if a single sound wave touched your skin, every ethical system has these gray areas, most of all statism because they are entirely subjectivist, and these are questions for lawyers and legal theorists that I care not to have a struggle session with a communist devil about.

Initiating violence is evil, amazing that you commies love violence and genocide, it just says everything about you, there's no debate anymore, it's only a matter of defending ourselves from your violence. Go and fuck off in your little violent commie commune and genocide eachother for all I care, do it on Ancap property though and we will swiftly and ruthlessly defend ourselves, part of that battle is building the intellectual Ancap vanguard (we are copying that term from you) so that peaceful self defense organizations and economic incentives can form to defend life liberty and property.

Your tyranny and mass slaughter will end and you will lose.

>>25407716
You don't even read enough to know why saying strongly established philosophical concepts that took centuries to get built up came out of thin air is retarded. It seems like you're the faggot projecting.

File: 29700615c337d65f459f795eb(...).jpg (44 KB, 450x450)

44 KB JPG

>>25407524
>inane addendum
You take logical fallacies as "inane addendum" ? A modal error is what happens when you treat something contingent (i.e. buying a good on a market), and treat it as a necessary claim.
I'm not arguing that rights agencies can exist, I'm arguing that treating them as necessary is erroneous. But let me guess, you thought that I was saying "muh rights agencies don't exist!!!" because you got filtered by the word "modal error".

>>25407656
Jesus how retarded are you guys in all seriousness. You didn't even try acting as if you understood what I've said. At least the commies generally engage, you guys just refuse out of intellectual inferiority.

>>25407712
Except that's the just the genealogy of most states. Most modern countries started out by someone claiming land as property for themselves.

>>25407730
>there's no debate anymore, it's only a matter of defending ourselves from your violence
There's no debate because you immediatly fail once your arguments are taken to their logical extent.
Let's start with something simple, why is it that only lockean based properties can be ground for violation ? Why must property extend beyond bodily autonomy ?

>>25407730
> Of course your deceiving commie mind will immediately go to some gray area like what if a single sound wave touched your skin
Hilariously enough the most prominent disputant who made this arguement was David Friedman, also an AnCap but a utilitarian. If you want to find someone who takes on this issue from a natural rights perspective, look into the works of Billy Christmas and the rest of the left-libertarian corpus

>>25407751
>pretending critics don't understand his retarded statements
You failing to see why your statement doesn't matter and larping that you're phrase is just too obscure (it isn't) is hilariously embarrassing.

Can someone explain the AnCap mindset to me please? Are they secret Socialists trying to make some elaborate parody of Capitalism to make it look bad? Maybe they actually just want corporations to form neo-feudal societies where constant, small-scale warfare will become the new norm?

>>25407766
Why aren't you explaining it then ? My claim is simply that the NAP is contingent rather than necessary, which means it effectively doesn't exist anytime for anyone.

>inb4 the state does too
The State's law operates under jurisdictional fiction. It's meant to act as if it was necessary (even though nothing is necessary irl). By virtue of doing so, it actualizes its law and thus gives it existence.

>>25407730
Say you work 16 hour days picking crops as a sharecropper. Your boss only alots you enough in payment for meager subsistence. While working on his field one day, you eat a grape tomato. In libertarian terms this is physical violence because you stole someone's property without consent.
For stealing his grape tomato he has you whipped brutally and thrown in a private prison, this is not considered physical violence because you consented to the terms of the contract. The alternative to consenting to being whipped was starvation and death, because there is a limited amount of land on earth and it is all owned by landlords who have let the market determine that this is the best arrangement for maximizing profit.

>>25406766
Can you explain what's libertarian about a government whose sole purpose is to transfer wealth from Americans to nonwhites?

>>25407775
>hurr durr the NAP is only a concept so it doesn't literally exist
At least I know what your mental dysfunction is now.

>>25407712
>at the end of the day private communities and the right to exclude is a perfectly good and very Libertarian idea as long as you give people the right to opt-out otherwise it violates NAP.
the ability to opt out depends on the existence of either a publicly managed commons, which hoppe doesn't want to exist, or an unappropriated frontier, which doesn't exist anymore.

>>25407784
I'm not arguing that it doesn't exist, I'm arguing that its enforcement is contingent. Any moral principle coming from whichever meta-ethics has to have a way of being actualized, otherwise it's non-binding. Do you even understand the basics of your own theory ? Like propertarian ethics ? Or Rand's argument ? It's pretty essential desu

>>25407919
This whole thing started because you said it doesn't exist. Pedantically trying to weasel your way out by saying "um well it exists if it's enforced" also doesn't work because that was acknowledge as a blatantly obvious statement that is so obvious saying it is like saying water is wet.

>>25407774
>Maybe they actually just want corporations to form neo-feudal societies where constant, small-scale warfare will become the new norm?
Would you rather private security companies fighting guerrilla warfare against eachother with minimal civilian death? Or large scale mass industrial warfare via corrupt authoritarian states and conscription? I know which one I'd choose in a millisecond. I don't particularly give a shit if the local private defense corps lob RPG's at eachother at Starbucks, as long as they're highly trained to avoid civilians and I can defend myself against them if they start fighting near me, I don't care at all, you're just a pussy.

You're just not a visionary, also, legalize recreational nukes.

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

>>25406766
>t. never read For a New Liberty.

>>25407751
>why is it that only lockean based properties can be ground for violation ? Why must property extend beyond bodily autonomy ?
You want to only be able to own your body? So I can literally just take all your shit right now? All your ideas are asinine, cynical, cunning attempts to get away with theft and murder. You don't believe anything you say.

>>25406909
>and then come up with a story about why almost all of them willingly give up that sovereignty via contract and trade.
No libertarian believes this. They believe that the property was expropriated by brigands who then went on to form the first states.

>>25407257
Moral anti-realism is essentially an attempt at rationalizing the feeling of being attracted to children and that you'd prefer to not feel any guilt for your sick desires.

Anarchocapitalism is the flat earthism of political theory. The bastard offspring of neoliberalism.

>>25408115
The meme version sure but actual Ancapistan wouldn't be a lolnorules zone. Unfortunately there wouldn't be any of the advertised child sex slaves and McNukes. At least not openly.

>>25408137
No, it would just descend into some abominable form of plutocratic warlordism until a single state conquers all. This entire domain of political theory is for retards who dont have a real hobby nor grasp of how the world actually works.

>>25408034
>Would you rather private security companies fighting guerrilla warfare against eachother with minimal civilian death? Or large scale mass industrial warfare via corrupt authoritarian states and conscription?
Neither?

>>25406731
It's a justification for authoritarianism under the guise of libertarianism. Think "paradox of tolerance" but warped, saying we need to enforce order and conformity to have liberty, you cannot tolerate those intolerant to liberty. Contradictory of course, and his social conservatism leaks through too obviously

>>25407780
that's you either trying to confuse others or expressing your own confusion. the government's practical purpose is to protect private, corporate interests. the government is the privately owned security force enforcing the rules of white owned corporations. you don't find it odd that the people who control government, banking and corporations are all white? and just because you're an expendable white doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit you in many ways. the nonwhites are here to serve the smarter people of your race.

>>25408047
you either didn't read it carefully enough or don't really understand the world around you.

>>25408415
*carefully or critically enough

>>25408149
And how are you going to avoid the industrial warfare of the state against other states and it's own citizens without reducing the state?

Very ironic that as an Ancap I have to tell you utopian perfect worlds don't exist, or not.

>>25408115
>>25408164
Kek. Midwits. Ancapism will achieve total victory and you will be very confused as to why. Just like the Romanovs and the Antoinette's could not foresee their shortcomings.

>>25406731
its pretty clear.
what part dont you understand?

>>25406731
its a fabulous statement really. It aknowledges the mature social view point ("egalitarian view points" that are necessarily "deomcratic" and "communist") then drifts into the bogus ideology of the "natural elites" who are "natural elites" by "excluding nonconformity". its pure Orwell. Exploiter determines the boundaries of freedom. Hilarious. Libertarians are fascists.

Pure unadulterated lack of irony and lack of self-awareness.

sticky this guy.

>>25408164
youve got it. but youve got it backwards.

>>25407929
No you retard, the guy I was replying to was implying that the NAP could in-and-of itself protect rights. To which, I replied that the NAP had to exist through some agency if it didn’t want to be a personal moral principle with no bearing. You’re literally a sub90iq that got filtered with basic reading skills lmfao. You couldn’t even understand basic sentence sequences.

>>25408049
>You want […]
I’m not asking you your personal preferences, I’m asking you why lockean property must be upheld.

>inb4 because I prefer lockean property
It’s fine to ground your rights on agreed-upon preferences (that’s more or less the default way in polphi101) but in that case you’re losing a claim on universality. Nothing forces me to respect your rights and the ones you follow are only right or wrong in regards to what you personally believe.

>>25407730
the fuck is this weird ass post?

instructions for capitalist genocide?

>>25408703
lol i got something that forces you to respect my rights.
care to guess?

>>25408715
Where's the genocide part? Are you projecting again socialist? Do you fear Ancaps peaceful organization? We are going to establish Ancapistan to leave you alone, this makes the statist piss and shit himself in fear of human prosperity.

>>25408717
>OH MY HECKIN GUNERINOS
What happens once people disarm you ? Do you just accept your fate lol ?

>>25408703
Retard.

>>25407257
Why do INTJs bother you?

reading "democracy: the god that failed" made me stop being a libertarian

Socialists always get BTFO in intellectual discussions, it's embarrassing, Socialism is nothing more than lying for your personal will to power

Scratch a libertarian, find a fascist.

>25408843
0/10

File: 1717895564144475.jpg (1.8 MB, 3264x2448)

1.8 MB JPG

>nature-environment worship bad.

Really showing his crypto-Abrahamic roots here.

>Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itselfd and every creature that crawls upon it.”

>God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth.”

>Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. They will be yours for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and every bird of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth—everything that has the breath of life in it—I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

>>25406731

Libertarianism is such a joke that I can't even find it in myself to seethe at it.

>>25408880
Yeah seeing the goys pathetically try to break free is hilarious.

>>25408880
Apparently you could because you just did.

>>25408415
Stfu, kike.

>>25408893
Good penchant for fantasy. Are you a libertarian?

>>25408415
>you either didn't read it carefully enough or don't really understand the world around you.
You don't understand the world if you think we're in anarcho-capitalism. The world would be a better place if lying welfare parasites like you were starving on the street.

File: Strawman.png (186 KB, 785x693)

186 KB PNG

>>25408703
>the guy I was replying to was implying that the NAP could in-and-of itself protect rights.
Only you believe this.

>>25409025
Man your reading skills limitations are really showing here. Let’s take it down a notch so that it becomes more digestible.
Imagine the following :
>Person A says that there is no mechanism preventing people doing bad stuff
>Person B says that there is a moral principle which exists to see if something is good or bad

Is person B making an error in thinking that the moral principle is sufficient for people to modify their behavior ? It’s a simple yes or no answer.

>inb4 yes because people will naturally act good due to darwinian pressure
I know it was hard for you the last time, but try reading the end of line that you ignored the first time. It’s only a few words I know you got it in you

>>25409148
>Is person B making an error in thinking that the moral principle is sufficient for people to modify their behavior
I never said that and the person you're responding to isn't me. We just both think you're wrong.

File: Chaos.jpg (164 KB, 583x869)

164 KB JPG

>>25409148
>Person A says that there is no mechanism preventing people doing bad stuff
Person A hasn't read Chaos Theory, so their opinion can be discarded.
>Person B says that there is a moral principle which exists to see if something is good or bad
Person B is accurately describing what the NAP actually is.
>Is person B making an error in thinking that the moral principle is sufficient for people to modify their behavior?
This is a poorly worded question from someone who clearly struggles with the grasp of the English language. Do you mean to say that the choice to follow a moral principle is sufficient to follow a moral principle? If so, then yes. Or do you mean to say that that the moral principle magically forces people to follow it? In that case, no. But it doesn't follow from that that it can't be enforced.
>inb4 yes because people will naturally act good due to darwinian pressure
Incentives driving behavior isn't the same as incentives determining behavior. People are capable of taking action is spite of incentives. It doesn't follow that therefore incentives have no effect.

>>25406731
He's just saying that leftism is so destructive that you shouldn't tolerate it. Just like if there was someone in your community advocating for pedophilia, you would shun him. Likewise if someone is advocating for leftism, if you want your community to stay healthy, he should be banished.

>>25409229
Based and Murphypilled. Love his podcasts with Haman.

>>25408941
rothbard, rand, ricardo, mises, friedman

>>25409022
what we're living in is the results of anarcho capitalism. intelligent men understand that anarcho capitalism is an impossible ideal at this point. it's mostly used by the elites as a weapon against people.

explain how the modern world isn't the inevitable result of the anarcho capitalist blank slate that the world once was. tell me that a world run by bankers and their privately owned security force isn't the perfect utopia that murray rothbard was describing.

People need some sort of structure to follow. In the void of religion or a cultural structure, where there is total individual decision making and liberty, this Enlightenment romanticist ideal, the people have tendency to gravitate towards authoritarianism or cult sort of ideas, identities tied to consumption or personal traits, or transgressive attention seeking gestures. We have observed this. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are flawed ideals that will run into a wall of nature vs theory. Rand, Hoppe, Rothbard and so on all inevitably contradict themselves because they have elitist, aristocratic, exploitative motivations.

We have the data now. We see what happens, because neoliberalism is just a milder form of this mentality. The secularization of the West didn't produce a society of rational utility maximizers. It produced QAnon, George Floyd, COVID hysteria, hyper-tribalized identity politics, and OnlyFans accounts as self-actualization. It produced young men radicalized by algorithmic rabbit holes because those rabbit holes provide the certainty and mission lost due to the decay of civic, social, national and cultural institutions. It produced a politics of aesthetic transgression where the highest value is "owning" the other side rather than governance. This is where the Rothbards and Hoppes of the world crash into the wall of human nature versus theory. They assume that if you remove the state, you'll get spontaneous order based on voluntary contract. But they ignore that power abhors a vacuum. You can't abolish the need for belonging. You can only decide whether that belonging will be tied to place, tradition, and mutual obligation, or to whatever demagogue, brand, or subreddit catches you when the vertigo of absolute liberty kicks in.

>>25409331
>what we're living in is the results of anarcho capitalism
Repeating a retarded claim doesn't make it more true.
> intelligent men understand that anarcho capitalism is an impossible ideal at this point.
Who?
>it's mostly used by the elites as a weapon against people.
Cause CNN regularly quotes Rothbard, as we know.
>explain how the modern world isn't the inevitable result of the anarcho capitalist blank slate that the world once was.
You're the one making the positive claim. I don't need to explain shit.
> tell me that a world run by bankers and their privately owned security force isn't the perfect utopia that murray rothbard was describing.
Tell me how central banking factors into Rothbard's philosophy. You can't because you're a retarded schizo that's mad at an economist for criticizing your disability benefits. Do the world a favor, stfu and kys.

>>25409356
>People need some sort of structure to follow.
citation needed, shithead

>>25409407
He's just your typical conservative pragmatist shitting out the same stale argument that anarcho-capitalism won't work because "muh human nature."

>>25409386
>Cause CNN regularly quotes Rothbard, as we know.
oh you're one of those guys who believes that propaganda is a simple single level operation of deception.

>>25409386
>Tell me how central banking factors into Rothbard's philosophy. You can't
i can't because he knows you're too stupid to think beyond the text. he knows that you're so stupid that you think bankers would compete endlessly and wouldn't create a central bank eventually to consolidate and extend their powers.

>>25409448
>oh you're one of those guys who believes that propaganda is a simple single level operation of deception.
If the Elite actually benefited from anarcho-capitalist ideology, then they'd use their propaganda machine to promote it. Yet they don't use the media to advocate for anarcho-capitalism. So logically, the Elite don't believe that anarcho-capitalist ideology will benefit them.
>i can't because he knows you're too stupid to think beyond the text.
I accept your concession. Thanks for the tacit admission that you haven't even read Rothbard.
>he knows that you're so stupid that you think bankers would compete endlessly and wouldn't create a central bank eventually to consolidate and extend their powers.
Central banks are created by states, dumbass.

>>25409487
>Central banks are created by states, dumbass.
i think this may be the one reason that libertarians can't see reality. central banks were created by individuals from banking families in combination with the powers that already existed. this is why anarcho capitalism or pure libertarianism will always lead to a strong state.

the government/state power is nothing but a large scale version of rothbard's privately owned security that enforces the rules of a property owner. the property is the country and the world that's been conquered through force and fraud.

>>25409786
>i think this may be the one reason that libertarians can't see reality.
Being correct means I "can't see really", got it.
>central banks were created by individuals from banking families in combination with the powers that already existed.
And those preexisting powers are states. Thanks for admitting that I'm correct.
>this is why anarcho capitalism or pure libertarianism will always lead to a strong state.
In pure libertarianism there would be no state, so it definitionally doesn't lead to a strong state.
>the government/state power is nothing but a large scale version of rothbard's privately owned security that enforces the rules of a property owner.
The scale is irrelevant. The government sustains itself by taxation (a.k.a. theft) which is an aggression. This is completely different from voluntarily funded private security.
>the property is the country and the world that's been conquered through force and fraud.
The "country" hasn't been homesteaded so it isn't property.

>>25406731
>be libertarian
>be against hedonism
>be also against preserving nature
>be slave of the false idol called GDP and man-made symbols such as € $...
Wtf is wrong with this people, man?

>>25409824
Why do you think people, if given freedom, wouldn't want to preserve nature?

File: 18c.jpg (229 KB, 1130x743)

229 KB JPG

>>25407257
>autistic INTJ libertarian
finally, a board where I feel noticed

File: Zeus Vult.png (102 KB, 1000x600)

102 KB PNG

>>25409863
Common sense, you need a good eco-system if you want to live a good life.

Zeus is Nature and Nature is everything. Nothing outside Zeus, all is Zeus.

So how do libertards solve the currency problem without a central bank?
>inb4 crypto
An answer that isn't retarded please.

>>25410161
That's like saying how do you solve the shoe problem without a central shoe factory

>>25409356
>>25409420
>People need some sort of structure to follow.
Ok? Libertarians aren't inherently anti-structure, we're anti coercion, many of us are very pro-structure in various ways, family unit etc.

Anti-Libertarian talking points are getting silly, strawmen, ad-homs and emotional appeals, it's entirely reflective of your cynical nihilistic will to power worldview.

>>25410336
>it's entirely reflective of your cynical nihilistic will
I guess when a political ideology is so childish, everything else would feel cynical in comparison. The rest of us live in the real world where we learn about people not respecting each other's private property without coercion as early as kindergarten.

>>25409155
No what happened is that you either glossed over quickly my original answer or got filtered by the word modal error. In any case I’m correct : saying that a moral imperative is sufficient to ground rights ignores the enforcement of those rights. But you wouldn’t admit this because that would be conceding

>>25409229
> In that case, no. But it doesn't follow from that that it can't be enforced.
Okay that’s good we’re making progress ! Now, tell me, what do we call something that can or cannot be ? (Hint : It starts with a «c» and finishes with «ontingent».)

>inb4 but muh moral principle is TRUE NOOO
Remember, the original anon was replying to someone saying that there was mechanism to enforce rights that the NAP was sufficient.

>>25410373
>The rest of us live in the real world where all of our shit is stolen and we get constantly assaulted by thugs and we were forced into state schools because the state broke up the family unit
Ok? This is completely empty talk, denying ethics entirely by ignoring it. Yes the world is brutal and people are mean, some amount of people are parasites and thugs, should we then accept all evils and devolve into cannibalistic apes? This is beyond even cynical, even the cynics believed in truth and ethics. This is the linguistic equivalent of shitting on the floor, admitting you don't believe in anything, and advocating for philosophical sadism and anti-humanism.

File: 1329360898275.png (75 KB, 800x800)

75 KB PNG

For all intents and purpose
Its all very vague anti-Georgism.

Its a word salad, but at the least its written plainly
>no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property
The rest is just intellectual word padding.

>>25409448
>>25409786
Liberterianism don't want to deal with reality.
Be it rent seeking. Or buying land/ideas/trademarks/patents that you are not using.

It also struggle with the idea that we have modern society due a combination of a fiat economy, and the lower class having reasonable legal representation and dispute ability.
So at its core, it confuses personhood with property rights. Because its derived from upper class writing, where property rights via feudal violence or aristocratic blood was the fashion of the time.

>>25410406
>o what happened is that you either glossed over quickly my original answer
Your original answer was retarded and it's funny that you've fixated on the modal part as if thats relevant. At this point I'm certain you're a troll and you just want the last word.

I would say the primary flaw of the ancap theoretical ideal is that it willfully ignores the fact that vast concentrations of private wealth inherently grant individuals the coercive power to dictate the terms of survival to others, effectively creating a neo-feudal system, that will fill the vacuum left in anarchy. In the absence of a single, objective authority acting as the ultimate arbiter of contracts, property rights seem they will devolve into little more than claims backed by the brute force of the highest bidder. Hoppe’s thought epitomizes a particularly contradictory ideology in that it is less about liberty than about establishing a sort of idealized, strictly regulated "gated community" so to speak. The idea, I presume, is that members of this community enjoy the freedom to maintain order as they see fit and to control access, yet how can such an approach be reconciled with the NAP? I presume the faggots and degenerates can form their own little competing co-op, yes?

>>25410943
They can form their own covenant in a society separate from ours

>>25411070
But what will one do if they refuse to leave your covenant? Physical removal, as said. And how does that physical removal square with the NAP?

>>25411081
By refusing to follow the rules of the covenant and respecting our desire for you not to be a part of our community, you are violating the NAP, and when you violate the NAP, it is no longer a violation of the NAP to defend your person or property. We ask politely, then if you do not respect it, we take matters into our own hand, as you had violated the NAP by refusing to comply with the organic wishes of the community. Force is legitimate when used in defense of oneself or one's property, and this is what would occur here.

>>25411089
hahah so it's basically no different than any other state. you just refuse to call it such. it's just the state rebranded. cool.

>>25410406
>Now, tell me, what do we call something that can or cannot be ?
I get that you like to jerk yourself off to basic philosophy terms because you're insecure about your intelligence, but this isn't relevant. Aggression being identified as wrong isn't sufficient to prevent aggression from occurring --i.e. the NAP isn't a magical law that forces behavior by itself-- no one believes that the NAP on it's own can prevent crime (if that's what you mean by necessary), that would be a hallucination on your part. The NAP is the threshold for when a crime has taken place, that's it, people are capable of committing crimes and getting away with it, but the fact that they can get away with it doesn't make it any less of a crime.
>the original anon was replying to someone saying that there was mechanism to enforce rights that the NAP was sufficient.
A mechanism to enforce the NAP and the NAP itself are different things. And yes, it's possible to enforce the NAP without violating the NAP (i.e. it's possible to enforce the NAP without a state), again read Chaos Theory, but then again, it's 77 pages, and I can understand why you'd have trouble reading a book as long as that one.

>>25411150
Basically no different from the state except it's sustained by voluntary transactions.

>>25410943
>>25411150
>>25411089

Lolbertarianism has always been a thinly veiled excuse for enhancing the powers of a minority elite class at the expense of everyone else.

It's not that lolberts hate the State. In fact all systems that they describe end up having State like characteristics. It's just that they want to exorcise the State from all forms of People power and People representation.

Private property cannot be maintained without a State, hence what lolberts REALLY want is a coercive State that maintains the power of the ruling class by maintaining private property while taking away all forms of economic actions that may shift the balance towards the proles.

They LOVE the State as an enforcer of private property of the elites. They HATE the State as an instrument of taxes, social welfare and as a representative of political power of The People.

File: Strawman.png (261 KB, 680x483)

261 KB PNG

>>25411252
Ok commie.

>>25411260

One just has to take lolbert beliefs to their logical conclusion to see what they are actually advocating for.

File: StfuCommie.jpg (104 KB, 540x410)

104 KB JPG

>>25411273
>One just has to take commie beliefs to their logical conclusion to see what they are actually advocating for.
Ftfy

>>25411276
>gets called out for being a lolbert
>COMMIEEEEEEE RREEEEEEEEE

This is what happens when you are a whore of the ruling class and cannot even deny it.

>>25411284
>Gets called out for strawmanning libertarianism.
>DAMN YOU LOBERTTTTTTT!!!!!
We WILL take away your welfare.

>>25411375
>Lolberts
>Actually doing shit
You know, lolbert anti-Statism would be taken more seriously of it didn't sound like a bunch of incessant childish whinning.
>WAAAAHHHH I don't wunna pay taxes
>WAAAHHH I don't wanna live in a rule based society
>WAAAAHH why can't we have slaves

Just lol. If you wanna see lolberts attack themselves in their confusion, just ask them what would happen if a landlord pushes his claim on another landlord's property. And watch them thrashing around in the mud as they re-invent the State while claiming it is aKsHuAlLy not a State.

File: 1494045519228.png (30 KB, 675x808)

30 KB PNG

>>25411468
>WAAHHHH WELFARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT!!!!!
>WAAAHHHH I CAN'T STEAL WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!!!
>WAAAHHHHH PEOPLE MAKE MORE THAN ME AND IT ISN'T FAIRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is what you actually believe lol.

If you follow ancap logic to the letter, you would have to oppose any police intervention including arrests for assault, rape, murder or theft. Its a bunch of warlords and shit who impose their will, while the rest of the population is subject to the rule of mercs and "private security".

Hoppe envisions mercenaries tasked with telling people to go fuck themselves and get off his lawn. It is a pure fantasy where Daddy's checkbook is your only protection.

It's all fascism with extra steps because you can't openly call yourself fascist without getting cancelled

>>25411491
Lol this retard is worse than the typical lolbert. He is not even trying to defend lolbertism because he knows how stupid it is. Instead ahe has regressed to pure shit flinging because he has made being a cock slut to the ruling class his whole personality lol.

File: a6437773ef0ba413f7129b078(...).png (103 KB, 479x715)

103 KB PNG

>>25411227
>no one believes that the NAP on it's own can prevent crime (if that's what you mean by necessary), that would be a hallucination on your part
This is literally what the original anon replied to when someone implied that there was no mechanism to prevent rights being abused in >>25406935. You're literally conceding by saying :
>No you're a pseud, it's actually [insert what I've been saying]

I'm amazed that it took your 90iq contrarian brain this long to realize that all I'm saying is that the NAP isn't enough by itself because it's a moral principle and not a law-enforcing agency. The worst part is that you're so obtuse that you didn't even realize you were conceding dumbass.

>>25410450
It is relevant it was literally the main argument lmfao

>>25411276
>>25411375
You can't even formulate any proposition of substance lol

>>25411505
Unserious questions merit unserious answers.

>>25411507
>It is relevant it was literally the main argument
You're an idiot.

>>25411507
>Libertarianism is letting people do as they please, unless what they're doing is wrong.
You are so dishonest it's actually astonishing. What's being discussed here isn't enforcement, it's the standard of enforcement, which in libertarianism isn't "letting people do as they please" (which is a strawman), it's the fucking NAP. The original response was correcting this obvious strawman, it wasn't saying that the NAP by itself prevented crime, that is a your fabrication. You are outright lying.
> this long to realize that all I'm saying is that the NAP isn't enough by itself because it's a moral principle and not a law-enforcing agency.
Again, no one claims this. That's another lie.
>The worst part is that you're so obtuse that you didn't even realize you were conceding dumbass.
You can't concede something you never believed in in the first place. So I guess my not responding to >>25408058 you have conceded that you are indeed a pedophile.

>>25411511
Typical lolbertism. In a previous thread one of them outright called me a troll for pointing out that lolberts have no answer for the violence that is inherent to private property, it's acquisition and maintenance. They have never been in the real world where people take over each other's lands all the time.

the main problem with libertarianism or anarchy for all that matters is that the vast majority of people do not want to lead themselves. normies are literal cattle. they follow, and do what they're told. you cannot have freedom in human society because you would still need to tell 99% of the population what they're supposed to do with that freedom, and whatever source of those instructions becomes the government, which will inevitably instruct cattle to do what is convenient for itself. democracy, freedom, anarchy, etc. can only exist as concepts, in practice all human society is organized the same way
the assumption that all humans are smart or functionally sapient is extremely disingenuous

>>25411571
This is why I subscribe to minarchism. A lot of the libertarian critiques of government make sense to me but the cultural shift that would be required for a stateless society to happen seems too far fetched.

>>25411553
>lolberts have no answer for the violence that is inherent to private property, it's acquisition and maintenance.
Here's the answer. Libertarianism isn't opposed to violence, it's opposed to aggression, which is defined as the initiation of conflict. Defending private property isn't aggression, regardless of how many commie tears are shed over this fact.

>>25411571
but you're not normie cattle, right? you're special.

>>25411577
>>25411582
superior force wins over contracts, ideologies, economic theories and agreements every time. libertarianism is nothing but more fodder for the state to strengthen itself while libertarian nerds jack each other off with theories.

>>25407145
Define what "aggression" is and when retaliation is justified, and then completely discard it because other people will have different definitions.

>>25408826
The best countries in the world are all socialist. Cope and seethe.

>>25411704
>superior force wins over contracts, ideologies, economic theories and agreements every time.
>Muh might makes right.
Force by itself, cannot instruct you on its use, you need law for that. Libertarianism, which is a legal theory, says that force is only permissible against aggression. Force being a factor of law isn't the killing blow to libertarianism that you seem to think it is.

>>25411571
>>25411577
I lean towards Libertarian elitism these days, I don't care too much if the normie cattle want a Minarchist state because they constantly need a shepherd, that's fine by me as long as they respect the NAP on a national level if not internally. Ancapistan, if established, would be so overwhelmingly powerful economically, culturally and militarily, that they would be no threat to us a anyway, they would be like ants that if they got too uppity we could defend against easily.

We should push as much Libertarianism to the masses as possible, the more Libertarian they are the better, we need full spectrum, every degree of Liberty should be explained. From plain Liberalism to Libertarianism to Ancapism, just throw all the shit at the wall and some will stick, this is the same strategy the statist propagandists use but we will use it honestly to maximally enlighten our fellow man. BUT that being said. There are FAR more Ancaps than you might think, their numbers are growing rapidly. And most importantly the general sentiment of anti-taxation, anti-bureaucracy, and anti-tyranny are growing, so many de-facto Ancaps are being created. Of course the tyrants are countering with a massive surge of pro-coercion, pro-aggression, and pro-control sentiments, but this was always predictable

I am very happy that Libertarian theory has more or less been worked out and proved correct, and now we can focus much more on practical application, and we are already finding major success, of course the challenge will be immense, but anything is possible with a tireless minority of Freedom super spreaders. Truth tends to be at first sanitized out of existence, and then viral.

>>25411717
>Define what "aggression" is
The initiation of a conflict over scarce means. A conflict being a contradictory (mutually exclusive) action.
>and when retaliation is justified
If a conflict has occurred, the initiator, should be identified and punished in proportion to the damage that they caused to the victim.
>and then completely discard it because other people will have different definitions.
Any definition that isn't defined praxeologically is subjective and can be dismissed. Saying that, because it's possible for people to have incorrect definitions, that therefore the NAP is bunk; is as ludicrous as insisting that mathematics is invalid because it's possible for retards to come up with their own (incorrect) definitions.

>>25411745
>Libertarianism, which is a legal theory, says that force is only permissible against aggression
and what happens when a group with superior force decides that it's more beneficial to act without your permission?

>>25411769
That's the government.

>>25411769
>and what happens when a group with superior force decides that it's more beneficial to act without your permission?
I call up my insurance agency about a criminal risk to my assets.

>>25411756
>the initiator, should be identified and punished in proportion to the damage that they caused to the victim.
by whom?

>>25411772
so?

>>25411774
then you've left them no choice but to eliminate you

>>25411774
What happens when the superior force levels the insurance company or just aquires it and declares your contract void?

>>25411775
>by whom?
Ur mom.
>>25411775
>then you've left them no choice but to eliminate you
I'm not the risk in this hypothetical.
>>25411781
>What happens when the superior force levels the insurance company or just aquires it and declares your contract void?
I guess I go to another one lol.
>And what if this criminal force overwhelms all possible insurance agencies.
I do that same thing if every state was conquered by an unstoppable force, nothing. Ought implies can, if in a hypothetical it's literally impossible for me (or anyone) to do something, then all we can do is nothing. These types of hypotheticals prove nothing as well, because they beg the question by building the answer into the hypothetical itself.

>>25411582
This is nothing but semantic mumbo jumbo that misses the point. Private property is created and maintained through aggression/violence or the threat of it, period. It's never been something that is simply "given" or "natural" or a-priori to human relation as lolberts pretend it is. There is no book keeper in heaven keeping an ontological record of who "owns" what.

This is evidenced by Capitalists using their trickery, control of State via lobbying and many times outright aggression via private or State militias to acquire private property.

Meanwhile the proles respond with using their own version of aggression to maintain or expand on what little they already have. Via land reforms or other means. (I know it's not this binary but you get the point)

Lolberts fumble on this point because they acknowledge violence in defence of private property but refuse to see that it is no different from the aggression required to create it in the first place. And I guess this is why I don't have a good answer for what would happen when two landlords "defend" their right over the same turf.

Libertarians who actually understand the theory know it's not a naive utopian proposition. It's not going to magically fix every problem and dispute. At its core it's a moral argument on how we should best organize ourselves without infringing on each other's rights. The biggest problem for me is that there doesn't seem to be a solid pitch on what the logistics would look like other than "it'll be easier to figure out without the state getting in the way" which isn't an easy sell for the normalfags. I at bare minimum want to know what the solutions for currency could be.

>>25411704
>but you're not normie cattle, right?
given my life choices I would say I am not.
anon I believed people were more or less the same for such a long time, but the harsh truth is that normies are practically not sapient, but language enabled apes

>>25411882
This. Read "Machinery of Freedom" by Friedman, it's a very good primer for starting to think about NAP based societies and the finer details of various different potential systems to run it on, some are already being attempted some are purely hypothetical.

On currency, Libertarians just want the monopoly on money ended, so practically that means having various competing private currencies of which one would likely be predominantly used, it would probably just be a basic private bank that holds gold and silver without fiat like there used to be, but you could also have cryptocurrencies running in parallel, with the technology we have now some people are even trying to create gold notes and various other wacky currencies, but it would likely just be a private gold backed bank with maybe some compatibility with cryptos.

I'm surprised you haven't come across Libertarian currency policies because that's kind of our whole shtick and we're very successful at it. Using economics to further our ethical goals. There's even a whole offshoot of Ancapism called Agorism which is about practical 'counter-economics' to use free market activities to bring about Liberty

I know everyone sees him as a memelord, but if you take his predictions with a barrel of salt Peter Schiff explains old American economic policies very well.
This video is gold, him explaining economics to Occupy wall street protestors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY0R0NpIdQQ

>>25411848
>This is nothing but semantic mumbo jumbo that misses the point.
And this attitude is why no one tries to answer your asinine questions.
>Private property is created and maintained through aggression
False.
>violence or the threat of it, period.
Not all violence is aggression.
>It's never been something that is simply "given" or "natural" or a-priori to human relation as lolberts pretend it is.
Correct, property is initially obtained through original appropriation.
>There is no book keeper in heaven keeping an ontological record of who "owns" what.
Correct, which is why there would be demand for title registry services.
>This is evidenced by Capitalists using their trickery, control of State via lobbying and many times outright aggression via private or State militias to acquire private property.
The problem here is the state.
>Meanwhile the proles respond with using their own version of aggression to maintain or expand on what little they already have.
It's clear that you have a fixed-pie view of economics.
>violence in defence of private property but refuse to see that it is no different from the aggression required to create it in the first place.
So self-defense is no different from criminal aggression, got it. And who's aggressed against in the case of original appropriation, the unowned piece of land?
>And I guess this is why I don't have a good answer for what would happen when two landlords "defend" their right over the same turf.
Private arbitration.
>But what if they turn to war?
War is expensive, so there's an incentive to settle conflicts through peaceful means.

>>25411973
It's not that I haven't seen Libertarian ideas on currency it's just I've been over exposed to crypto bros who think memecoins will take over which I'm sure is partially true. It doesn't make for the best optics to sell normalfags on the concept though since it lacks familiarity and requires undisrupted infrastructure.

>>25411571
>majority of people do not want to lead themselves
Even if you do, you still get cucked by group dynamics. What NAP struggles with, is what happens when the group leaders interests go against yours?

In our civil society, you might swap jobs, use a lawyer, swindle, or more fun stuff.
In a NAP society, your only real option is to kill the group leader, or depose him. And due group dynamics, the latter might be impossible, meaning the only option you have is really murder in some form. And behold... pre modern society is FILLED with it, and the further you are from state monopoly via the church or a court, the more there is.

>>25406731
He's a clown who found right-wing audience. A socialist preaching "libertarianism for me, but not for thee".

Socialism can work within libertarian world, but libertarian order cannot exist within socialist one.

>>25410447
>the lower class having reasonable legal representation and dispute ability.
who doesn't live in the real world now?

>>25412302
The problem with knee jerking is that it doesn't address nor clarify the jerk.
Anon doesn't clarify if its about druggies, the court system, and he doesn't understand what "legal representation" means.

>>25409331
Rothbard was Polish-Jewish, von Mises was Austrian-Jewish.
I hope you don't consider either of them to be "white" amerimutts.

>>25406774
lmao you know you wish Hoxha could modernize your decrepit apartment or sterile suburb, whichever it is, admit it

>>25406731
>unc is babbling again
He’s old and saying shit.

>>25411553
Government in every single country is a monopoly of violence, which it uses to sustain its authoritarian rule.
Libertarianism is against authoritarianism and monopoly of violence.

>>25411530
>The original response was correcting this obvious strawman
>"in a libertarian utopia nothing stops people from ignoring your property rights"
>"but there's a moral principle which condones it!"
I honestly would've let it go if you hadn't tried to be smug lol

>You can't concede something you never believed in in the first place. So I guess my not responding to
Your joke isn't even coherent lmfao. What went in your head to bridge "concessions have to be genuine" to "not responding = accepting the statement". Are you extra retarded ?

>>25411753
>There are FAR more Ancaps than you might think, their numbers are growing rapidly
It's actually the opposite. Normies are being more and more socialists because billionaire retards keep pushing your fantasies to the mainstream lol

>>25411793
>if in a hypothetical it's literally impossible for me (or anyone) to do something, then all we can do is nothing
But then your system appears much less rational to follow than the "statist" one. If you want your system to be superior other than in a vacuum of erroneous suppositions about rights, you have to offer a credible alternative to people by showing how your system is better at the things they care about. This is why most lolberts argue economically and not ethically.
The statist system doesn't have the issue of letting some bigger force brutalize them because it runs on jurisdictional fiction. The State is supposed to act according to the law. It's only a supposition but it's enough to give credible intentions about the law-enforcement agency.
In your system, because the law only applies to those who voluntarily follow it, nothing prevents someone from ignoring the NAP and committing massive amounts of harm. You have no answer to someone asking you what's stopping someone stronger than whichever defense you have from violently torturing you.

>>25412004
>Private property is created and maintained through aggression
>False.
Anon your entire ethical system lies on the "false" you just said. At least do the bare minimum to justify it.

>>25412993
Name one single ancap billionaire.

>>25413012
Me in the year 2046

>>25412004
>And this attitude is why no one tries to answer your asinine questions.
Well you did and it was the most clueless trite you will ever read on this board. It betrays the complete autistic inability of lolberts have to understand the nature of reality and it shows in responses like
>False
Where you refuse to engage with the proposition made at all because you don't have a good point against it except covering your ears, closing your eyes and singing lalala. In fact the same can be said about all your meaningless one line replies. You don't answer "asinine" questions because lolberts don't have any answers.

If you guys ever pull your head out of sand you would see one rural family using underhanded tactics to take over land claimed by another one. You would see Israelis regularly flouting International Law to replace Palestinians. And when you have finally decided to let go of all delusion you would finally make the painfully trivial observation that all private property is maintained by STATE violence. Something the rest of us already know.

Actually don't even bother replying. Not interested in one of those lolbert non-answers and excuses

>>25412760
Goverment does not exist as a private entity independent of and alienated to everyone else. It's a reflection of the nature of human association. It can act as authority of a king and an aristocratic class. It can maintain and enhance the power of Capitalist upper class and it can also act as the voice and will of the most down trodden people.

And yes, the Government monopoly over violence IS the fundamental basis of private property under a State. There is no other. ALL private property is a priori to and consequent of human association. And if that association takes the form of a State then it's the State (and it's violence) that maintains private property.

If lolberts understood this they wouldn't come up with nonsense like "private arbitration".

>>25413054
>it can also act as the voice and will of the most down trodden people.
lmao. name literally one example.

File: Jesse.jpg (57 KB, 1200x600)

57 KB JPG

>>25412154
Honestly, forget libertarianism, socialism, ideology. What the fuck are you talking about? What do you think this "civil" society is based on? Congratulations, you have completely disoriented me, I have no idea what thing in reality you are referring to anymore, what is "civil"? what is "group dynamics"? The way you're using these terms is completely meaningless to me. Is being "civil" when you rob someone according to you? Is civilization when you hire a lawyer and dress in a suit? And the NAP is when you aggress? I've lost it.

>>25413066
One? Plenty of governments have initiated land reforms. Social welfare is almost exclusively managed by the State. Many of them try to maintain some semblence of minimum wage. The government does not do this because it is some alienated entity that wants to help people for whatever reason. It's the will of the people that resides within the State that pushes the State to such measures. Without that will the state would fall entirely to the ruling class and the rest would become will-less slaves.

>>25413153
>thread about NAP
>gets confused when anon uses it in context
:)
>thread about losing state monopoly of power
>get confused when people talk about the social level society would regress to, and how those work
=D

>>25411252
The progressive arguments against elitism and minority rule is cringe
Especially when the most successful left-wing ideologies, like Bolshevism, have always required it
Attacking libertarianism for promoting "elitism" is just brain dead as libertarians claiming their anti-establishment

>>25413054
Your views are as outdated, as the English "human nature" that you described, that existed only in England, and for only a relatively short period of time, when these concepts have been written down from these dated beliefs.

File: Leviathan_frontispiece_cr(...).jpg (2.92 MB, 1329x2051)

2.92 MB JPG

>>25413054
>>25413660
Here's the book.
>1651

>>25413332
>Attacking libertarianism for promoting "elitism" is just brain dead as libertarians claiming their anti-establishment
I am not attacking them for promoting elitism, I am attacking them for the hypocrisy.

The actual argument against elitism for me is simply a matter of dialectic discourse.

>>25413243
>Doesn't explain what he means
>Refuses to elaborate
>Leaves
Jesse...

Hoppe and the libertarian perspective is very limited. You only see the ready-made, finished things but not what goes into it. No input, only output. You see yourself as a fully formed individual separate from the rest of society, a radically independent atom wandering through a "free market," an agent making rational choices based on self-interest. But when you fully understand Marx and dialectical materialism it all shatters this illusion. We live in an interconnected matrix of continuous processes, relations, and profound contradictions. Everything is part of a greater whole, and the Ancap view is fundamentally flawed at the metaphysical level for forgetting this truth.

No one is an isolated individual. You are all part of a vast web. You are a node within the totality of social relations, a localized point of convergence in this network, itself in perpetual motion. The impression of being a wholly independent actor is, in reality, a specific historical illusion spawned by capitalism which is a system that destroys personal, organic human relationships and replaces them with cold, alienated relations between things and commodities. By defining yourself as a "free subject" who voluntarily submits to market rules, you are actively "interpellated" in the Althusserian sense by the capitalist machine. You play a role in a scenario designed to ensure the constant reproduction of exploitative relations. Freedom, as Engels understood it, consists of the conscious mastery of oneself and of external nature, a mastery grounded in a profound understanding of natural and historical necessities. This is closer to the condition of freedom and emancipation than the rightist condition of liberty.

If you fail to grasp the systemic and dialectical laws governing your reality, you remain its slave. Yet, when you become conscious of history’s objective processes, when you realize that your consciousness and your society are part of an interconnected, evolving totality, you can transcend the passive, atomized individualism of vulgar materialism. Thus, if you truly aspire to liberation, to genuine freedom, it is achievable only through the movement of the dialectic: by grasping dialectical laws and the dynamics of the network’s nodes, those apparatuses constituting the network, with its social relations and contradiction, and by mastering them. How? Through revolution and class struggle. You're part of the class, you act as a class, you steer the dialectic, in the master-slave dialectic, the capitalist depends on you and your labor, and Marxism is about realizing you have this power, while libertarianism is the hegemonical position concerned with tricking you into ignoring this power and helping your oppressor maintain his hegemonic position, by concealing its intentions behind falsely emancipatory language to obscure reality and sow distrust of the true emancipation advocated by Marx.

>>25414186
Was your grandpa like an apparatchik in the ussr or something?

>>25414194
No. If you actually read Marx, it's surprisingly easy to understand. Understand the Hegelian dialectic and master-slave, and understand that no man is an island, and then read Capital to understand how money works and relationships between classes and commodities. If you are not a Marxist, you're fundamentally a cuckold.

>>25414186
I think we can transcend this crude collectivism
You think man is only a worker which is not true
Man is only his own person and his property

>>25414198
>If you are not a Marxist, you're fundamentally a cuckold.
Sorry to spoil it for you but you're the type of communist that gets purged by the dictatorship early on, useful ideologue, you should hope your genocidal dreams never get fulfilled, you're a Trotsky not a Stalin.

>>25414186
Holy Truth Nvke. Nothing more to add to this.
>>25414218

One does not have to be a communist to acknowledge that Marx was bang on right on this point.
>Genocidal dreams
One can visualise the thought process that went behind this.
>Oooohhhh how can I convince the proles that the people of a nation owning and controlling it's resources and means of production is actually a bad thing.
>Oh oh I know, let's convince the 60iq subhumans that people owning everything equals muh gEnOcIdE. That way some worthless anon will repeat this talking point on an anime imageboard muaahhahahahah

>>25414186
based gem, retardarians btfod

>>25414186
connectivists will literally type all this out without any sense of irony, convinced the demon possessing their body is actually just part of a broader decentralized network of demonic nodes and not an interdimensional parasite.

File: ahaha.webm (183 KB, 654x1076)

183 KB WEBM

>>25414198
>read Capital to understand how money works
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

>>25414186
lol damn this /leftypol/ nigga cooked

>>25414186
Odd to relate class struggle to master/slave when in master/slave the slave never overthrows the master, he just ceases to view himself as a slave. It's the direct opposite of Marxism insofar as it is purely ideal.