Libertarianism is the only political ideology which maximizes ethics. Natural rights to self, earned rights to property, and gained privileges from achievements.Every other political ideology grants power to government over the individual. This only works initially when you grant powers to officials you agree with. But officials change and the same powers used to your benefit can be used to your detriment.This is true of communism, fascism, monarchy, and theocracy. You can attempt to limit this risk with principles enshrined in a constitution. But if you grant officials too much power they will just change their interpretation, change the constitution, or ignore it.Power is the problem. Libertarianism addresses this directly with arguments based on reason. It is not perfect. It has weaknesses which should be strengthened. But then that should be our focus. Not abandoning it as lolbertarianism in favor of power structures which have been corrupted. Every. Single. Time.
>>526108856Strengthening option number one:Power corrupts and size is power. We need to Balkanize states and companies as well. California is too big. Microsoft is too big. Pass legislation to put limits on the size of states and companies. An actual metric to prevent monopolization.
>>526109278California's not literally too big. You might say its government is metaphorically too big in that they're too powerful, but giving them extra power in the form of antitrust legislation can't solve that.
sorry, no it doesn't. libertarianism fails to address the reality that states are emergent from groups of people, it is an inevitable fate, and generally speaking libertarianism contributes to the never ending cycle of tyranny and anarchic bloodshed. libertarianism is a non-answer to the question of human well-being
>>526108856Strengthening option number two:Speech advocating against freedom is not free speech. If someone unironically advocates for infringement on natural rights, earned property, or gained privileges then that is conspiracy to commit crime and is itself a crime.
>>526108856>Libertarianism is the only political ideology which maximizes ethics.Where's the ethics in letting corporations eternally rape your ass
>>526110041That a state emerges from a group of people is no reason why the state needs to go beyond certain narrow limits in its exercise of power.Most libertarians aren't anarchists.
>>526110041> libertarianism is a non-answer to the question of human well-beingWould you then argue that the form of government does not matter? That the primary function of government should be to cultivate ethical people? Who will thrive in any power structure because of their ethics? I could entertain that idea but not sure how it would be implemented since people disagree on ethics. You would have to enshrine them in your constitution. Which is what I am suggesting with libertarianism. Or do you think state mandated religion would do a better job?
>>526110264i don't think i am communicating the problem well. it isn't just states; it's any group of people, and the organizations that emerge have an agency to them that are explicitly anti-human, if you want to break the cycle you NEED a state that is as organized enough for it to meet its needs, but disorganized enough for it to be managed by its constituents. this is absolutely not what libertarians argue for.
>>526110172> corporations eternally rape your assPlease see strengthening option number one.
>>526110565Libertarians take no issue with organization. A state being well-organized is actually a good thing as long as it's not overbearing.
>>526110519organizations (but i'll say government for simplicity) are higher-scale agents. they do not care about the people that act as a substrate, or rather they care only enough to keep people in line to be good substrates. this is true no matter the government type, what is important (if you value liberty, anyway) is that the government is strong enough to defend its interests from other scale-equivalent agents (other governments, multinats, NGOs, etc.) while not running its substrate into the ground.
i have to get back to work now, apologies for schizo-derailing your thread. but you can follow my trail of thinking pretty easily, it's a generalization of Ted K.'s criticisms against industrial society (except it doesn't ignore geopolitics), alternatively it is also a generalization of the principle of the framers of the present constitution of the US.
>>526108856recent events really illustrate to me how correct and hopeless libertarianism is. Unfortunately most people don't actually enjoy being alive, and are consequently too stupid to understand anything.
>>526108856>Power is the problemno, unaccountability>Libertarianism addresses this directly with arguments based on reason libertarianism was invented in the latter half of the 20th century as a solution to white people being patriotic
>>526108856It only works in homogeneous societies
>>526110977This reminds me of Dunbar's Number. > Humans can only maintain about 150 meaningful relationships beyond which people become abstract "units" rather than individuals.I would hope "balkanizing" organizations helps with that but interested in other solutions to organizations becoming inhumane.
>>526113230I'd say that organizations consisting of 150 people or less can still be extremely inhumane to themselves and others, so I don't think size really matters a lot to that.
>>526108856How the hell can anyone think more liberalism is good idea after everything turning to shit the past 15 years because of people doing whatever the fuck they want? Are you paying attention and reading the news? You OP need less rights because of how dumb you are.
>>526108856Word salad.
>>526108856you just want to do drugs without being looked down upon
>>526113925Government generally isn't good at solving real social problems and proposed solutions usually end up causing more problems.
https://youtu.be/FlMrjs6oEp4
>>526108856Liberals have said since the country's founding the cure for all ailments is to turn off the central bank, then they were killed by Republicans
>>526113230>>526113500here's the issue, these higher-scale agents exist in an ecosystem of other higher-scale agents, and there is absolutely competition. that is the challenge, and why you can't rely on the libertarian instinct of trying to keep government minimal, it needs to be strong enough to adapt to competition because if it is wiped out, then you will be subjected to some other higher-scale agent.the issue isn't so much the amount of people, you can have one person that is e.g. possessed by ideology (by the way, i know talking about emergent agents sounds schizo, but look at the language we use: possessed by ideology). this is how the agents survive: they require a set of rules and people to carry them out.when we were hunter gatherers, this wasn't an issue because there was (as the first anon points out) a physical limitation, so the scale of the emergent agents themselves were contained. with the advent of writing and communication, the agents themselves could grow larger as well as give rise to other types (NGOs, multinats, as mentioned earlier among others), and THOSE agents themselves also give rise (independent nations in a pact for instance). aside from very, very carefully designed states, there is no tolerable solution to this as far as i can tell, this is simply human nature and its extension on large enough timescales.intolerable solutions are VERY intolerable. you'd need to keep a population deprived of the ability to create larger scale agents (they either need to be dumbed down, or they need to be held back from being able to read/write), and then they'd have to be administered by a shepherd class, not too different from Plato's philosopher-kings. the other option is equally horrifying, you'd need to create a well-balanced agent that has world-destroying collateral to prevent any attempts of subversion or conquest by other agents. i won't even speculate on ideas there.this shit is grim, keeps me up at night
>>526108856Libertarians are right about some economic questions but utterly wrong about politics and power and it doesn't account for tribalistic groups. Basically its a system that works well if everyone is a protestant anglo saxon in a high trust society (and it doesn't allow in foreigners), doesn't extend the same rights to women, and it fails utterly if these parameters aren't met.
>>526108856The plutocracy created by cuckertarism cancels out the liberty. Explain why Musk being worth 1 trillion dollars is in America's interest.
>>526114786Remember that a government has a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence. This can't be altered except through war, i.e. one government challenging another. It seems to me that you're talking about national defense, but libertarians don't take issue with that.
>>526108856Libertarianism is the ultimate individual ideology that lures people in with promises of drugs, hookers, and non-commitment to their people and then let's them get steamrolled by monopolies operating only in self-interest.
>>526108856Everywhere smells like weed now, middle schoolers are addicted to pornography, and you can place a bet on how many war crimes will be done today. What does your ideology present that is CONDUCIVE to society?
>>526115207legitimate, monopoly, you're talking through the very lens of a possessive agent. i'm simply talking causality and i suppose physics (wrt interactions of physical things). we often imagine governments as having a monopoly on violence but this is obviously not true (criminals leverage violence, narco-terrorist states, even corporations will utilize violence when necessary). it is, as they say, the doggy dog world. i AM talking about national defence, but i'm also talking about every other utilitarian agent (which is all non-trivial ones btw, no organization has the explicit goal of achieving nothing), this is certainly not just governments.
>>526108856the fundamental problem with libertarianism is that you mistake abstraction for reality. your “natural rights” are constructs detached from history, culture, and peoplehood. no rights exist outside a community capable of enforcing and sustaining them. the individual is not prior to the volk, he is of it.furthermore you are labouring under a faulty conception of freedom (negative). freedom is not natural condition, it is derivative of a stable political order. thus the idea that minimal government maximises freedom is itself fundamentally flawed.
>>526115578A government has a monopoly on LEGITIMATE violence. Criminal violence is by definition illegitimate.
>>526115695>freedom is not natural condition, it is derivative of a stable political orderfreedom is THE natural condition, people have their will and they have their drives, and governments crop up to try and keep everyone from killing each other, at best, at worst they crop up with an appetite for conquest and expansion
Libertarianism fucks up when it comes to human nature. Although the idea of a techno-barbarian survival of the fittest society might be kind of rad
>>526115861It's pure feminine energy to think conquest and expansion is a bad thing.
>>526115765violence is violence is violence. if i have a button that, when pressed, instantly kills a random 25% of all human beings, what exactly is any government going to try to do to me? who now determines whether my violence is or is not legitimate? you're inserting a very, very specific idea and acting about as if it were a real physical thing, when it is simply an arbitrary category. i hate to sound like stirner here, but you're not going to be able to make sense of what i'm saying until you adopt a realist mindset
>>526115980Governments determine what violence is legitimate. After all that's what having a monopoly on it means.
>>526115861this sums up the liberal fallacy. how much freedom do you have as a solitary man in the forest who must spend all his time servicing his most basic needs - hunting, finding shelter, fleeing predators and so on. freedom is only meaningful in the context of a stable social order.
>>526115861The natural state of humans is being part of a family and a larger tribe. It's not being an individual as a selfish porn addicted tranny.
>>526115930it's a bad thing when you're facing down something you can't possibly defeat that is intent on either killing you or subjecting you. likewise, if you're in a state that is expanding and conquering, then you are going to be used as fuel for its endeavors, and it cares very, very little about you as an individual>>526116055i understand this makes sense within the idea of modern governments, i'm talking about something outside of that. this is very very simple: an agent's will and capacity to realize it. there is no legitimacy or illegitimacy, the agent has drives and it can either realize them or it can't.>>526116123i think you're mixing up a lot of concepts here, i'm just talking about freedom as in the capacity to conceive of something and make choices to try and manifest it. the exact nature of the freedom doesnt really matter here (although i will point out that the larger scale of freedoms you have, the larger scale others have of leveraging them against you, so i think you could do a lot worse than being a mere man in the forest and, bonus points, you'll probably be more happy because you are designed to like those environments)
>>526108856You cannot have a libertarian utopia without a white ethno state, simple as.
>>526116141i'm glad you've grasped the structure i'm talking about in principle, and now you need to complete the pattern. individuals form families, families form tribes, what to tribes form? regardless of what you're a part of, you're still always an individual and you have drives that push you towards action; these drives orientate us towards family and tribes, but that doesn't stop people from being individuals (nor do you HAVE to follow your drives, either)
Libertarianism is like a lifetime commitment to pretending to be retarded in the hopes that you can eventually use a debit card to pay a young hooker to let you snort coke off her asshole
>>526116324Well if you're a criminal then there are limits to your success. You might successfully form and maintain your own government or maybe merge with another government to some extend, maybe through corruption, but you're not a criminal at that point because there's nobody to label you as such.
>>526115695> your “natural rights” are constructsLocke explains this. He says you have a natural right to your self because you possess yourself. That is not a construct. It is a fact. I cannot possess your body nor you mine. Locke simply recognized this. It means the only way to physically control someone is through violence. That is where the non aggression priniple comes from. He was not saying freedom is the natural state of things. He was saying our natural state is what makes freedom ethical and that we should enact laws which enforce that.
>>526116324i'm not mixing up anything, like i said before you are confusing abstractions for reality. you have a totally abstracted conception of freedom, i am trying to impose just a modicum of reality. to rephrase the same point: laws are not the only thing that constrain your freedom of choice
>>526108856Libertarians dont believe in stop signs so who cares what they think?
>>526116324If you're alone in the woods, you are free. You can do literally anything you want.....except you're hungry. So you have to find food....you're cold. You have to build shelter ...you're thirsty, you need to store waterSo actually you're not really free. Every action you take is precisely defined by your need to not-die. You will walk on this exact path to follow game, at this exact speed to conserve energy, and pitch your tent in this exact location by the lake, and then spend 20 hours braiding reeds into thread....etc.Whereas when you're part of a society, you give up some liberty, but your freedom increases. You can be an artist, a restauraunt owner, a chemical engineer. You can lounge about and enjoy free time for a significant amount of your day. And anyway let's say society works hard to maximize 'freedom', so people have plenty of time off with the fewest controls on them possible. What do they do with it?They sit around and watch porn, they get fat, they go drinking, they troon out. In fact, they don't know what to do with themselves. What they really crave isn't 'freedom', rather structure in their lives. A goal to strive for. A collective to be a part of. They want authority in their lives.
>>526116795Freedom of choice can't be constrained by nature. I think you're construing it to mean that you're invincible and therefore can make any choice you want without consequence, and linguistically that's fine but it's not what we mean, and more importantly there's no point in choosing in that case.
>>526108856Yeah and it only works when you have a society devoid of globalism, niggers and Jews.
>>526116715on the world stage, there is no concept of criminals. this is the stage i'm talking about, whatever you want to call it, perhaps the grand stage. objective.>>526116770actually there are a bunch of ways to possess others. casino games do it all the time; they are designed to leverage the biology of goal-directed behavior to get you stuck there. almost every single phone app does this as well, they design themselves to leverage your biology to soak up as much of your attention as possible. this is an aside, but if an adversary to model your behavior, then they can absolutely constrain your behavior. now you might call all of these violence (and that would be fair), but there are plenty of ways to constrain people without actually 'doing' anything to them.>>526116795okay? i never said laws are the only thing that constrain your freedom of choice. the ultimate constraint is causality and causal influence (and your capacity to orchestrate causal influences over time).>>526117012you always have to move according to some kind of drive, and you are free to pick whatever action you need to meet your drives. this does not matter what environment you're in. the drives do not change, nor the fact that you have to pick action, though the actions available to you are constrained by your environment (and your limitation to model the future). maximizing freedom means maximizing the total possible actions you can do while minimizing the reach of the actions of others. technology, then, is a curse; it may grant you more possible actions, at the cost of allowing you to be touched by more agents who can work against your drives.
>>526117369International warfare doesn't really have anything to do with libertarian policies. Libertarians are fine with national defense.
>>526116770this is just a liberal moral postulate and doesn't actually logically refute anything I said>you have a natural right to your self because you possess yourselfthis is not a sound first principle. do children possess themselves, should they have the same sovereignty as adults?"bodily separateness" does not produce rights, only a sovereign community can do that, as you admitted at the end>that we should enact laws which enforce that>>526117369i misread your first post, i assumed you were saying that the government constrained freedom since you were responding to a critique of libertarianism. i dont even know what position you are taking
>>526117665Children don't have the same rights as adults because they aren't yet adults.We shouldn't treat children as adults, and more importantly to this whole discussion, we shouldn't treat adults as children especially not with government as their parent.
>>526117647you're very captured by your political beliefs and, by extension, western ideas of statescraft, i don't think we're going to be able to meaningfully discuss what i'm talking about>>526117665well libertarianism is trying to maximize liberty, no? initially i was coming here to tell anons here that it will do no such thing, and it is a generally impossible thing to do unless you either reject your humanity or you destroy human society and subjugate it
>>526117936I think my mind's pretty open. Maybe we can't have a meaningful discussion, but there's no need to insult me.
>>526117936it is hard for me to contextualise what you are even saying without knowing what your political worldview is
Tribalism is the worst. It means picking a criminal who is from your tribe over a law abiding citizen who is not. It means abandoning ethics in favor of "my side good and other side bad". It means justifying the worst evils as if they are good because they were committed by your side. It means not having a problem with child rapists fleeing to the country of their tribe. But only when it is your tribe and not a Jewish person fleeing to Israel. It means stooping to their level. It means duplicity and hypocrisy. It means regressing to a primitive human.Merit beats tribalism every time. The problem with western civilization is not a lack of tribalism. It is that they have not insisted on merit ENOUGH. Scumbags from other countries would have never been let in ours if we evaluated them based on merit. The problem is that our countries ARE tribalist. Just it is reverse tribalism that favors others even when they have no merit. Ironically if we insisted on merit our countries would be mostly white and a bit asian since that is where the merit is.
>>526110264>That a state emerges from a group of people is no reason why the state needs to go beyond certain narrow limits in its exercise of power.The state growing is an inevitable outcome.
>>526108856Libertarianism is just anarchism with even more jew worship kek
>>526117872If the reality of your "natural rights" can only exist when acknowledged and enforced by a group consensus and accompanying philosophical framework, it's just another spook. Libertarianism only really exists as a concept or discussion topic instead of any actual lasting or emergent societal structure for a reason.
>>526118354i agree that tribalism is damaging to political systems that legitimize conflict (which is ironic since facilitating that is the basic premise of liberal political systems). it is also an inescapable fact of human life anon. that is why the ideal state would be one where the "tribe" or volk is congruent with the political entity.
>>526118122i didn't mean to say you are closed-minded or insult you, i just mean that the primitives you're using to make sense of what i'm talking about don't quite apply or fit, so there's a communication barrier. i have nothing against you anon, and i don't discuss this ideas very much so this is a sort of wargaming>>526118202i suppose you could say it is realpolitik applied to individuals. radical individualism, maybe? maybe if you combined max stirner's egoism with decision/game theory. earlier, i explained it as a generalization of ted kazynski's anti-tech ideas, or a generalization of american constitutional framer beliefs. i'm not sure if you're going to be able to contextualize it well, i don't want to sound arrogant and say it is unique but it seems like a synthesis that doesn't quite exist anywhere, especially when you play the assumptions out
>>526118399That's pretty cynical. I'd agree that there's a constant push for the state to grow but there's also resistance to that and I think that's not necessarily futile.
>>526108856Strengthening option number three:Establish an immigration policy based on merit not tribalism or exploitability. Tough standards to even get into the country on probation. Proof of productive contributions during probation. Denaturalization and deportation for severe crimes.
>>526118595Natural rights are unalienable. They exist independent of any group, such as when you're alone.
>>526118700>That's pretty cynicalNo, "cynical" would be stating that libertarianism is just oligarchy-seeking behavior.My first statement is rational and historically informed.
>>526118951I agree, that would also be cynical. I don't think however that a state need necessarily grow.
>>526118684not really. since the french revolution humans have been required to govern their own affairs and nothing in that answer really gives me a clue as to how you think we should go about that
a state is always going to want to grow because the bigger it gets, the more it can control in order grow faster or be more efficient. the ultimate goal of any state is to either conquer every other state (which it will fail to do because states aren't superintelligent, they only have very big tools), or to reach something approaching a nash equilibrium on the world stage (pax romana and pax americana are two historical examples of this, at least as close as you can probably get). the entire neoconservative project was aimed at trying to orchestrate this scenario using economics. the more a state can predict the behaviors of other states, the more control can be leverage. this is just how it is.
>>526118885Natural rights are just synonymous with identity then.
